Violins77

Thank you, I just woke up and this post already made my day 🤣🤣.

Well, after watching a ton of videos and reading all your responses, I ultimately decided to not go with any ATC at all for the time being. I also opted to turn off all AI traffic, as the situation becomes unmanageable in big airports, and seeing a ton of go around and not being able to land or takeoff is kind of ridiculous. I still use FSLTL to populate airports with more model and liveries though. I know this might sound like a strange choice, but I never had more fun than I do now. I think I just realized that piloting airplanes with complex systems is hard enough without having to also having to workaround a barely working fake ATC that cannot properly manage traffic anyway, and would often completely break my flight plan with instructions that make no sense (talking about in game ATC). For live traffic, yes it means the world is little more empty now, but I rarely see any planes while flying anyway, and when landing or taking off, they are everywhere to the point where any kind of realistic distancing is not working (thanks to ATC again). Now, I can complete my flight exactly as I wand to, I am completely free, and if something goes wrong, that's on me. I feel like I'm really in control of my experience and I really enjoy it. I might reconsider FS Hud eventually, as it controls AI planes as well, but I'm one of those superficial who also think the robotic voice and lack of VFR support is not totally worth the price for now. Thank you all!

Thank you all for your inputs. I'm tempted to try FSHUD, I'm just curious if basic features like airport request to land are available in VFR.

I'm asking because since ATC TOD calculation is always off, I tried to play without it, but this leads to other negative effects like not being given ILS approaches, having to "ignore weather", and overall it is not really immersive. The other option would be, I guess, to completely turn off ATC, but then, I would get no taxi ribbon, and risk colliding with the AI. Or, and it is where I'm leaning right now, give ATC another chance but descend at a slower rate since I know the TOD will be well in advance than what it needs. There is also third party ATC I could use I suppose, but I'm not sure if they interact really well with the sim AI planes? What do you wonderful community do yourself?

Hi guys! I have a question that might be complicated, but I'm sure I'll get a response here. Long story short, I really really love the ATR, and it made me realize that programming the FMS for a short route is really not that big of deal, and now I wonder why I never tried it before. So now, I'm interested in trying the CRJ, but the CRJ uses a completely different database. Let's say I was to subscribe to navigraph, I know I would be able to sync the sim, the CRJ and Simbrief together. However, will the ATR sill be in sync since it uses the default navblue database? Or will it get the current nav data directly from the sim? I guess my question is, does the ATR pulls nav data from the sim or it has it's own embedded copy of the MSFS navblue database that needs to be updated separately? And if it is the case, can it be updated with Navigraph?

Personally, I'm really excited about the ATR. I'm not even sure if it's free or not, but I've been waiting for a turbo prop regional aircraft since launch day. I'm one of those "filthy casual" that use Little Nav Map and the world map flight planner, so I do hope it supports it, even if it's an "expert series" aircraft.

I use LNM all the time, but from what I read above, even export from LNM might not work directly, and it would still require to import both in game for ATC, and in the FMS. Although if it does indeed work this way it's not that bad.

OP, that might not be exactly what you are looking for, but Asobo (with help from third parties) is working on an ATR that should release this year. I miss a good regional turbo prop too!

So if I understand this correctly, the FBW A32X will no longer support integrated flight plans from the in sim flight planner, and require external flight planners or manual FMS input like Aerosost A320? If that is the case, I personally feel like this is a mistake to enforce that, even if it could lead to a better and more realistic plane. A lot of people like me like the fact that we can get a somewhat realistic A320 without having to work 30 minutes or more on flight planning before. At least, from what I understand, I will have to choice to keep the most current build that does not use this feature? Thank you for your hard work though, I feel what you are doing is amazing.

One thing they could do that would drastically help their sales is integrate the default flight planner and nav system from MSFS. A lot of people (like me) are holding off the CRJ because they don't want to subscribe to a third party service that will basically make no difference in the way we sim, or have to use external flight planner combined with the internal one for ATC. This would also open the market to consoles user more efficiently in my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean to highjack this thread, but may I as you all fine CRJ flyer if the current implementation of Aerosoft is still stuck with the Navigraph database that doesn't work with the default flight planner, or were they finally able to integrate it? This has been holding me off purchasing. I understand why they did this back in P3D, but with MSFS currently updating it's database with Navblue, I feel this is simply a lack of effort on Aerosoft part to integrate properly with MSFS and requiring the use of external tools and subscription to get a decent experience.

Well, on my end the Habs are completely being destroyed 3-0 by San Jose already, so I figured a little simming on the side couldn't hurt. Alas, it wasn't meant to be 😞

Same here... Cannot download update.

I *might* be in the minority here, but I for one think there are multiple sweet spots in price / quality / systems for different users But there is an area that is definitely lacking, and that is super model with easier systems. I think the default airplanes, including airliners, do a fantastic job in this regard, and while I understand a some/ a lot of user want more accurate systems and complexity, I love the balance of the default aircrafts. However, it seems most third party aircrafts have (or will have since a lot are not out yet) either abysmal textures and systems, or superb modeling and systems that are near study level and take an hour before flying and required custom nav databases, don't support the default flight planner, etc. So to be back on topic, I agree there should be of higher quality in general, but I also think not everything needs to be PMDG level. Basically, I would like to see something like the Aerosoft CRJ, but with support for the default nav database and integrated checklist for a decent price. I think this area of the market (call us casual simmers if you will) is severely lacking, and offers from Virtual Col are just not cutting it in a world where default aircrafts look 5 times better.

If this is indeed intended behaviour, then we should see these waypoints appear in the GPS and we should be able to remove them. What is weird is that they cannot be removed and the autopilot insists on following them, even if they don't even show on the GPS map. It's more likely to confuse anyone than do any good.