STK

I hope that Anil jumps back in here and further substantiates things (and selfishly for me, answers my additional questions on traffic handling a page or two back), especially with the system moving into beta. Beta to me means that an initial feature set is locked down, of course with future features to come later after an initial release. I suspect, yes speculation, that he's pulled back a bit in order to maybe focus on more careful messaging to the public on what precisely is being offered and how from a technical standpoint, but I am happy with how responsive and patient he's been with the community up to this point. The fact that's he's leaning on AI to generate his communications, and the initial philosophical statements were a put off, but he has been able to elaborate on features when asked. Here's hoping for good things.

A follow-on inquiry despite a couple users feeling like we aren't supposed to ask the developer questions. I'm glad that the dev has been forthcoming with responses. My understanding, admittedly a weak one, is that there are severe limitations in how AI aircraft are/can be controlled by external interfaces in MSFS. I recall other products that can sequence the user through/around traffic, but past efforts at sequencing AI traffic models have been clumsy, in that they have to basically slew AI aircraft around to separate them, slew them around holds, etc, rather than rely on their own coded flight models. For this software's solution could it / will it direct AI traffic into holds, or enforce speed restrictions, or give any sort of other direction and the AI traffic will follow that? You previously said that AI will be managed, but from a technical perspective, HOW will they be managed? Again, I thought there were interface limitations between built-in traffic handling code within MSFS, and those of external interfaces. (AIG at least used to have some issues with the fluidity of aircraft in flight, for example). Asking simply because I don't know how that works, not to challenge statements. Is it slewing them or relying on their own flight dynamics? A few examples: Runway incursions - if ATC tells an AI aircraft to abort take-off, will it? Ground taxi routes - As your real-world ATC advisor can likely attest, at busy complex airports, sometimes traffic is cleared at the last second to a different routing as they are taxiing to the runway (Delta 123 continue straight rather than right on alpha, then follow company - for example). Can that happen here to the user AND to AI? Holds - let's say it's rush hour with poor weather on top of that. Will I be in a stacked hold with AI traffic above and below me (thinking the Heathrow stacks here) prior to being cleared for approach? Will I see AI aircraft models in holding patterns? Re-routings - AI aircraft is scheduled to fly from airport A to B via fixes 1, 2, and 3. Would the ATC amend their routing to fixes 4, 7, and 9, and the AI traffic model follow that new routing? Any technical detail you can share about how your model interacts with how MSFS handles AI traffic would be great to hear! Thank you!

@anilcougar I greatly appreciate the honest responses and details provided rather than marketing speak. The openness has impressed me, and there seems to be no hesitation to provide answers. It seems we have a run of the mill angry avsim user in this thread who already is insulting me, despite the fact that you seem to have no issues responding to my questions. Thanks again for the thorough responses. I’ll watch this development with interest. @cowpatz The initial post was full of philosophical speak and flourish without software engineering detail, but luckily the company responded with real detail on core questions. Also, as indicated they are going into beta, not “hardly in the alpha stage” as you state. You seem to be a very ill tempered and short tempered individual in the face of questions that try to dig past generic marketing statements. It seems like the developer has handled them with patience and grace luckily. It also seems they have implemented more than you know, with answers to integration questions being met with a surprising yes. I hope you have a better day. I learned a lot from the dev responding to my questions.

What AI model are you using to baseline your architecture and how will the use of your selected logic algorithms and backend frameworks impact user pricing? Can we presume that this is a subscription based model? What about text and voice features? Does this require voice recognition and interaction, or can a user select from pre-set responses akin to the default ATC simulation in MSFS today? What voice models are you using for audio feedback? It sounds like you are starting the scope just as all other providers have, with IFR as the baseline, then moving into VFR operations, and I presume also with other scopes such as helicopter flights, VFR corridor support, and special use airspace. Is this an accurate roadmap? Finally, as much as I hate those who immediate do the "this is all AI, that's AI, you're AI" screeching, I must ask, because I'm noticing a particular cadence and sentence structure utilized in your forums posts, are you supplementing any written responses with AI in any way? (It may be due to what I perceive as a marketing cadence, but I'm just curious based on your company's portfolio and topic profile).

We need a lot more operational detail rather than numerous one-liner "soundbites" akin to the "in a world...." movie trailers. IFR, VFR, both, other options (VFR On Top, Special VFR, etc etc?) AI integration: Does this work with packages like FSLTL live traffic, default MSFS live traffic, JustFlight, AIG injected traffic? Do you use your own injector? If so, what's the source? Will I be given traffic alerts (as well as AI pilots)? FAA vs ICAO phraseology differences? JFK is infamous for their controllers not using formalized language (either FAA or ICAO approved) thus leading to a lot of problems with pilots trying to understand casual instructions in their non native language. Aircraft types. Most here use modern jet airliners on scheduled routings. What about our light sport pilots? What about helicopter operations? Do you support proper helo phraseology such as "...at your own risk"? Weather implementation: Is your ATC product aware of weather (live weather and/or user preset weather)? Can a pilot deviate around weather? Will ATC put you in a hold due to storms over an airfield or advise of storm fronts on the route and accommodate a different routing? Non-standard procedures: Can I request a radar assisted approach? Can ATC implement LAHSO (land and hold short operations) at an airport due to traffic? Ground taxiing: Will I be accurately directed to following company traffic to the runway (for example) if I'm operating as the same airline as an AI aircraft ahead of me? Probably more questions but these are the immediate ones come to mind until more info is provided via follow-on responses or edits to the original post. Always interested in new ATC services but this really reads with a lot of superfluous marketing speaks. Give me the facts, not just the philosophy.

There's a thread on this model on the Official Forums which I've contributed to. I've reached out to nemeth deisgns about the flight dynamics and sounds, in which the former is now clarified in the new manuals (prohibition on maximum flaps usage though the aircraft does permit them to be extended that far), as well as extremely poor sounds. Nemeth acknowledged that the sounds are not sufficient (and were outsourced) but not sure how they will address that failing. It's a nice looking model overall and has fairly in-depth systems. Allegedly more updates are coming.

Loving this one and flying it daily. It's faster than most light singles and can at least keep up with the light twins I have for 3/4 of their speed range. (Example: Just as fast as the new Commander 114 by Blacksquare until you get into the middle of the 114's yellow arc.) Very capable autopilot (once you get the control mappings down correctly), trim system, and while I wish that an EFIS was an option, the ability to have a GTN 750/650 avionics suite available adds a lot too. Honestly, it's more useful and versatile to me than the vast majority of light aircraft available for the sim currently - just takes some learning of the systems, flight control settings (such as disabling fly through for spring-centered sticks), and adept control mapping. Discord outlines all the tips and tricks for a smooth flight experience. As someone who has some time in the real thing, two thumbs up on this model.

Excellent thank you! There used to be a freeware Upolu but the author had removed it months ago for unknown reasons. I'm also hoping for a two more significant airports that remain without good representations in Hawaii: Hilo (PHTO) - recently covered by FlyNdrive4D payware Hawaii Landmarks Extension product which isn't bad at all, but a higher fidelity version would be great. I contacted Northern Sky about this one at least a year ago but they don't have enough reference material to make it, and efforts to reach out to the airport administrators were met with silence. Kalaeloa Airport - used to be Barbers Point NAS. Still has the ever-busy US Coast Guard air station on premises, and the rest is a quieter GA field now. There is or was a version on .to for 2020, not sure if removed, but a high quality version presumably by Northern Sky would be very welcome. I haven't reached out about this one, but images may be more obtainable. With Upolu covered, if we can just get the above two done in higher fidelity than current available, every major airfield will be covered in Hawaii besides the two Army Air Fields (AAFs...one on Oahu and one on the Big Island), and the tiny little grass fields that may or may not even exist anymore.

I hope so and almost expect that as an option. Project Tupolev had an abundance of crew status callouts throughout all flight regimes from pre-startup through shutdown, and what they did in the manual was add an appendix (from what I remember) that listed the callout in Russian (in Cyrillic), then they provided a transliteration using English letters (so you know what the Russian sounds like and can pick it out), and next to that was an English translation. I'm thinking if FSS introduces a Russian speaking crew (with an English option) this would be a good way to do it in the manual. Russian phrase in Russian, translit using English letters, and then also provide an English translation of what they're saying (and what it means). What I'm also curious about is who they are seeking advice from from a flight dynamics perspective. There used to be a "Flight School" section on the Project Tupolev forums, where one could basically send a virtual black box recording of their flight and have the PT team analyze it and provide advice on how to more realistically conduct the flight in the future. They were extremely particular when it came to detail, looking for engine parameters down to single percentage points, control surface movements measured in a range of millimeters, speeds within a couple of kilometers, etc etc. It took extreme precision to meet their standards for what was considered to be a well executed route. Finally, RSBN navigation. I never learned to tackle it manually and instead relied on their accompanying calculation software, but it's a whole new world that to me was dissimilar from everything else, including INS procedures. Calculating sine and cosine to determine headings, converting one map format to the NVU's computer, etc etc. Lots of math and complexity, and that doesn't include the peculiarities of the system on the center console unit itself. This aircraft is going to be intimidating, exciting, and a whole new world for many.

I was very (extremely?) pleasantly surprised to see it announced as an FSS endeavor. I remember when the original author (who is still involved in some capacity) said he passed off the model to an anonymous company, and I thought "vaporware". It'll be nice to have an old friend back in the latest sim. No connection to Russia or the Soviet times otherwise, but I'm fascinated by their tech. :) Also, this thing coming out with almost two dozen liveries just to start? Awesome!

Hopefully a great successor to the Project Tupolev Tu-154 from the FSX/early P3D era for those who enjoyed their stuff. It seems like FSS is taking this seriously and is aiming for realism and complexity, which is a good thing. This is a 1960's-70s (through 90s and early 2000's) era tri-jet with a wide customer base and which has been seen globally. No ETA but I'm wildly guessing at early 2027. MSFS AddonsFlightSim Studio shares first development update on its T...The first development update since the FSExpo reveal tackles EFB, tail geometry, and a 22-strong livery list, though a release date remains off the table.I'm really hoping they get this right, while also providing assists and calculators akin to what Project Tupolev did in the past, notably to assist in using the NVU for RSBN navigation. Sounds like they intend on a wide selection of liveries representing operators in Europe and Asia, and are also seeking additional technical references and expertise to ensure they get things correct. I suspect that this addon once released may be met with some hostility since it's very much Russian (vs the Ukrainian-based Antonov) but we'll see how it goes. It's exciting to me as a years-long user of the Project Tupolev models (and another lesser known but equally high fidelity payware model from a Russian provider) who has missed the 154 for years now.

I'd recommend the following aircraft to start. Unknown about custom missions. Carenado - Cessna 182RG Piper Arrow Piper Seminole (a twin) Cessna 337 (inline twin) Justflight - Piper Arrow

Ridiculous, the aircraft has been in development since 2023, with the devs outlining that they utilized 3D scans of a real Mi-2 they had access to, plus their own recordings of said aircraft.

I have the RealSimGear GTN750 hardware so I pop out the PMS750 onto that to supplement the lack of modern navigation avionics in the Mi-2. (Also to display a GPS altimeter in feet since everything in the helo is metric).

I'm confident it's coming and suspect they don't want to give a precise deadline, as many devs shy away from those now due to the inevitable squawking if they miss it. My presumption is in the last three months of 2026. They know what features they want to add at minimum, and are already working on the 2024 version from what I read on Discord. Regarding the Huey, I suspect the Taog masterpiece threw them for a loop and they realized they have to achieve higher fidelity to compete. This is my guess. Of course, Blackbird/Milviz isn't known for their expedience either. They announced the 737-200 in the *year* 2020 to be released for that sim, and here we are in 2026. From a quick look the Blackbird/Milviz Huey was first announced in 2022.

Very respectfully, I think that's a mischaracterization, as I think "back burner" means set aside with no active development to appear sometime later...maybe. I am not a company/dev rep, but from what I see clearly in their statements across social media, active development of the 2024 version is going on now, to be released in the coming months. 2020 was already in the queue and finalized first, and they're making a native 2024 by using lessons learned (and feedback) from 2020 to move forward. I think we all know about the new challenges with the 2024 SDK too. So...it's being worked, it's coming, but we just need patience.

This is now released via Simmarket. 2024 version coming later this year / in a few months with new and native features. https://secure.simmarket.com/digital-aeronautics-mi-2-hoplite-msfs20.phtml The list of features, with a focus on the systems, is impressive.

My understanding is that the helo has been thoroughly tested and this will be a fully featured release rather than an early access or "beta" for 2020. Also it sounds like these will be very separate products for each sim, with 2024 features to be incorporated later this year via the 2024 SDK (so it's "native") in addition to new avionics options, new external variants (agricultural spraying version for example), etc etc. Additional features for both editions of the helicopter will appear based on customer feedback, so it sounds like if you want to weigh in on "nice to haves" in 2024, then try out the 2020 version. I'm cautiously optimistic as they've proven that they've done their research and seem to be making quite an effort. Early reports just based on visuals from the notoriously cranky Russian flightsim community also show that they are generally happy - they seem to have a few rivet counters and there are a few comments literally counting rivets, pins, and screws to ensure they haven't missed anything (one comment was complaining about missing a pinhead sized sensor in an a/c cooling fan...yes we're at that level), but it's at that level of nitpicky vs showing general displeasure with the visuals. As someone for whom 2020 works better (due to favored addon compatibility and computer specs....too many 2024 issues), I'm glad that the initial release supports 2020, and I'll look forward to the 2024 version late in 2026 (in which I may transition to that sim by then). 23 April via Simmarket, price TBA early next week.

This is due to be released on Simmarket on 23 April. Price to be announced. 2024 version later in the year with new features and tech based on community feedback of 2020 version.

I’ve been following them on discord since they made their existence known. Some very impressive screenshots and their systems and sound implementation sounds top notch. Real pilots involved, they recorded a real helo themselves, flight dynamics partially run external to sim and partially internal, etc etc. The release date is due to be announced tomorrow and will occur sometime this month, and will be via Simmarket initially and 2020 only. 2024 to follow. If I recall correctly they applied to be a marketplace provider in MSFS a year or more ago but no progress getting approval (an issue I’ve heard from other devs as well).

For 2020 users it looks like only a single blank white livery is included based on what I'm seeing in that Marketplace. Not sure what else is changed or degraded for that sim, but it seems to be oriented mostly to the 2024 audience. Inibuilds has failed to follow up on a number of issues with the YS-11, notably a significant geometry / LOD "gap" that appears when the main cabin entry door is open (opposite of the door), so I'm hoping they did a better job with the Fokker, and that 2020 users will get the featured liveries.

Not sure why helos, vintage, and concept are separated out from the others, but that’s what I picked though I’d opt for GA and helos/vintage if I could. Note: General Aviation defines the type of flight it is, not the type of aircraft. Example: PMDG’s Boeing Business Jet version of the 737 is GA - just like a corporate livery on the Fenix A320 is too. Likewise flying a Cape Air Cessna 402 (or in the sim, something like a 404 due to lack of model) would be an airliner. It is great that the sim caters to such variety, though I think most here would advocate for jet airliners 24/7 if they could.

Version 2 of NextGen's EMB110 is coming to 2024 in the next two months: https://msfsaddons.com/2026/01/02/nextgen-simulations-breaks-silence-with-emb-110-v2-announcement-and-saab-updates/ As someone who still uses 2020 (due to the majority of my favorite scenery and aircraft addons not having fully working 2024 versions yet), I'm hoping we'll see more for 2020 continue through at least the first half of the coming year. Perhaps Carenado's Saab 340 will make it over since they've transferred a few of their other 2024 aircraft to 2020 at this point (and it started life as a P3D-era aircraft anyway). Also, this is coming likely by the end of the month: https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/casa-c-212-200-for-fs20-fs24.460367/

Razbam *may* be making one for MSFS if they fully transitioned off of DCS at this point. Will try to confirm.

Well aware - and that was the reasoning given for ini providing no further support or updates: no time and no additional money.