Jump to content

musky2014

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by musky2014


  1.  

    Thank you for your answer

    One other question I have is does Pilot2ATC allow you to override altitude restrictions, either by updating the altitude in the flight plan or by putting in a request to ATC for a higher/lower altitude and being granted the request?

    To be specific, I am referring primarily to SIDs that have an altitude restriction of say 6000, but the actual charts state you must not exceed 6000 until cleared by ATC and in reality an aircraft would never be allowed to depart if it was going to have to comply with this restriction as it would result in the aircraft flying for about 50 miles at 6000 feet which would be a criminal waste of fuel.

    Thanks again

     

     


  2. Can I ask if Pilot2ATC now supports holding at destination airport due to congestion or weather, and how realistic are the vectors to ILS interception during  arrival phase of flight?

    Some ATC programs claim to have arrival vectoring, but in reality have a token implementation of vectoring at best. A left 5 degrees followed by a right 5 degrees and that is it.

    Thanks

     


  3. 20 hours ago, Merawen said:

    I love Pilot2ATC and its functions (RWY, approach, SID and STARS all can be set automatically and on the fly and weather dependent; go around/missed approach; newest feature is simbrief integration), but im interested to hear more about the comparison to PF3.

    It is interesting that you love Pilot2ATC and I am saying PF3 is better and here we are both showing interest in a new product, so I guess we are both hoping FSHUD eventually reaches a standard of offline ATC that is just not available at the moment.

    What I like about PF3 is the flexibility it gives you and it has not made the big mistake of adding controls and restrictions in the aim of realism when in fact this has the opposite effect. For example I have seen in this thread that FSHUD is not enforcing altitude restrictions and the response was that this is minor problem that will be fixed in the next minor release. Well that is great, provided FSHUD also provides the ability to the end user to ignore these constraints if they want to. And if you cannot override these restrictions that would be a show stopper for me because just because a restriction appears on a SID/STAR does not mean in reality its adhered ever let alone always.

    I tend to fly between airports in MSFS that are either handcrafted airports or airports that I have 3rd party scenery for. Two of these airports are EGPF & EGPH and every SID out of these airports has an altitude restriction of 6000ft in fact if you look at the charts they have quite and array of restrictions. However every chart also has in the middle a Warning box that states “Do not climb above 6000 feet until instructed by ATC”. Some of these SIDs are about 40/50 miles and I doubt an aircraft would ever depart if it was expected zig zag across the country at 6000 feet for 10/15 minutes, think of the waste of fuel. What actually happens is when the aircraft is handed over to departure from tower at about 3000ft, departure will clear it to climb above 6000ft to a more reasonable altitude. In PF3 this was not an issue in Pilot2ATC it was and hopefully it will not be an issue in FSHUD.

    Other features I like in PF3 and hope appear in some form in FSHUD in due course is you can set likelihood percentages. You can set it that there is a 50% you will get a no speed restriction call from ATC during departure or the % you will get instructions to hold at destination and there are a number of these parameters you can set. Another element that is very important to me is radar vectors during the approach phase. I find them believable in PF3 and that was not the case in Pilot2ATC where vectors were turn left 6 degrees followed by a turn right 6 degrees  and that was it.

    All the available ATC programs out there have pros and cons and I hope that FSHUD takes the best bits from all of them and that includes Radar Contact which had some features that are still way ahead of its newer relatives, such as requesting vectors to pretty much anywhere during a flight. Requesting vectors around bad weather and being put in a hold again due to bad weather at arrival airport. And how about this? Radar Contact also had very impatient, downright obnoxious controllers. If you did not respond to an instruction quickly enough (a few seconds) they would bark a reminder at you. Do that three time in the same flight and they would shout at you as I remember it “THAT’S THE THIRD TIME YOU’VE BUSTED YOUR ALTITUDE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOU HAVE TO LET US KNOW. WE HAVE HAD TO MOVE OTHER AIRCRAFT OUT OF YOUR WAY. ON ARRIVAL PLEASE REPORT IMMEDIATELY TO LOCAL FAA OFFICE.

    And at the end of every flight you were given a brief summary on how you had performed either complimentary or otherwise.

    Perhaps something for FSHUD to consider sometime down the line.

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  4. As someone who has used not only PF3 for years but also Radar Contact, Pilot2ATC and PROATC/X I can say that for core ATC functionality PF3 is head and shoulders above all the others I have tried. While there is still a lot of room for improvement with PF3 and not least that it like Pilot2ATC was just ported across to MSFS, I think you will find that for core ATC functionality FSHUD extremely limited compared to PF3, FOR NOW. .

    Despite this I am monitoring  FSHUD closely and considering buying it even though I know its no where near being the finished article.. We are long overdue a stand alone ATC product that embraces the opportunities a new sim like MSFS brings to the table and FSHUD is the most likely to achieve this and deserving of the support to do it.

     

    • Like 3

  5. It sounds like some of the LVARS / Events are detectable if you are able to do partial config using  GoFlight  Interface Tool  (GFiT)

    I agree that getting this add-on compatible with GFiT would be a much quicker solution than waiting for a complete GoFlight driver and I am sure Steve is aware of the potential with this aircraft for GFiT.

    I don’t actual own this yet so I would not be able to use your configs but in any case you should forward them on to Steve to load them up on the Pollypot site I suspect these configs will be popular.

    Thanks for the reply

     


  6. Thank you for the comprehensive reply, I will just have to be patient for a while longer, but on the plus side when I do buy this MD-82 it will be stable and GoFlight modules will work without any effort from me. In the meantime I will catch up on reading.

    Way back in 1999 the first flight simulator I really got into was called Airline Simulator 2 and the star of the stable was an MD-83 which was great fun to fly, nothing compared to this complexity wise though.

    Many thanks

     


  7. Hello,

    Really like the look of this add-on but have a couple of pre-purchase questions.

    I have a few GoFlight Modules and I do not go for any add-on aircraft that I cannot use my GoFlight modules with and  as I have seen no mention of compatibility with goflight  modules I presume it is not.

    Therefore my  question is are the LVARS & Events available to allow the creation of lua scripts. I myself use an GoFlight interface tool that can detect an lvar being set and/or an event being triggered and with this tool I can quickly program e.g. a toggle switch on a goflight module to set an lvar and fire an event. However some add-on aircraft have hidden lvars and events and therefore you cannot use this tool to drive goflight modules. If all the lvars and events are visible is there a document available that list them this of course makes it even quicker to set up goflight modules.

    Also does this come with a PDF tutorial flight, I know there are a number of tutorial videos and I have watched many of them, but IMHO nothing beats going through a printed document of all the key steps of a typical flight for your own first flight with a new aircraft especially one as complicated as this aircraft.

    Thanks in advance   

    .

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...