Ohmsquare

I would strongly advise against buying keys from unofficial key resellers.

You need to press the Reset Head Tracking hotkey (I believe it is F12 as default) first.

This is amazing

The military uses all sorts of training software derived from video games (ArmA and its professional equivalent called Virtual Battlespace come to my mind). Officially it's called wargaming or "Games for Training" program🙂 .

I see where I wasn't clear. I meant the former. That is, that FSHud never injected enough AI traffic into close proximity for traffic separation to even be an issue. Which is what I would expect at large busy airports. There seems to be some improvements with FSHud beta, but not enough IMO. I think it would be ideal if FSHud removed remote traffic when the user's aircraft is close to the departure or destination area, and replaced it with traffic around the airport (inside its TMA). It's pretty easy to verify that FSLTL alone, without FSHud, can inject much denser traffic around the user's airport.

A few preview-like comments on FSHud (latest beta) for anyone interested: Performance: On ground, I have 56-60 FPS, 17-18 ms main thread, with FSLTL (50 IFR, 50 VFR, 1% parked) and default ATC. Same place, same conditions other than the traffic amount: 44-54 FPS, + 3ms main thread, with FSLTL + FSHUD (20 airborne, 15 parked, 10 mins updates). That is with PMDG 737 at or near an average sized payware airport (ground, takeoff, approach, landing). During cruise or anywhere with GA (complex ones included), the performance difference is less. Unlike previous versions of FSHud, I did not experience any noticeable stutters caused by FSHud alone. - My MSFS setup: DX11, everything ultra but clouds (high), avionics refresh rate (medium), terrain LOD: 200 (with GA) or 140 (with airliners), resolution: 6M pixels (ultrawide) with DLSS (quality). - PC specs: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, NVIDIA 3080, 64 GB RAM, Win 11, fast SSD. Airborne Traffic: I've experimented with this a lot and even with FSHud(+FSLTL) set to 50 planes airborne I consistently see significantly less aircraft in the air than with just FSLTL. Where I see contrails of 10+ airliners with just FSLTL, I usually notice only 2-4 with FSHud. No VFR traffic for me with FSHud at all. With FSLTL there is not much of VFR either (at least in Europe, it seems there is more in the US). The traffic separation with FSHud seems certainly more realistic than with the default ATC if you are lucky enough to see more aircraft in relatively close proximity (to be actually able to observe any kind of separation at all). Parked Traffic: As for the traffic amount, I guess it's working as intended. I limit myself to 15 aircraft as recommended because higher than that and the performance hit becomes way more noticable. Parked traffic is very CPU-hungry. No jetway connections is a known issue, but it doesn't bother me too much. Ground operations and taxiing works OK, no complaints there, but I have limited amount of samples so far. ATC instructions: So far no issues but I yet to have try vectors when it comes to terrain clearance in mountainous area. I remember that Pilot2ATC vectoring was much more reliable than FSHud on its release, but I understand there have been some improvements made in the FSHud beta. Descent clearance and altitude restrictions work fine, I no longer get late descent clearance, which was a common problem with the previous version of FSHud. Definitely an improvement over default ATC. Voices: One of my main gripes with FSHud beta. There are new voices, which is plus, but unfortunately all the voices but one or two have become somewhat harder to understand and, more importantly, simply unbearable to listen to. Its intonation, blending, clarity (there is noticeable syllables omitting) and overall quality (sounds like 8-bit) is just worse than what have we got on FSHud release and definitely it is way worse then default ATC Azure/offline or Pilot2ATC with Microsoft text-to-speech voices. I've definitely gotten more noise complaints from family members with beta FSHud 🙂 I know it's now possible to adjust the voice speed and play with the radio effect filters, but regardless of any settings, it just sounds bad. Ease of use: Probably best on the market. Closing comments: Before FSHud I used Pilot2ATC a lot. I liked its speech to text, IFR and VFR capability, but certainly the lack of interaction with AI traffic is its biggest shortcoming and the main reason I decided to try FSHud few months after its release. What I got was noticeably worse performance and worse ATC guidance, but on the other hand a hint of real air traffic control in terms of traffic separation. After a few months, I decided to stop using it altogether because I realised that its main draw, AI traffic control, would - for me and my enjoyment - mainly made sense at a really busy airport (and its TMA), but unfortunately with FSHud such situations never came up. And due to the other FSHud shortcomings it just wasn't worth it. Unfortunately, with the beta of FSHud, the situation hasn't improved much in this regard, and while one other major thing has improved - its performance - another has emerged, the voices. I'm optimistic about this, though, because I have no reason to believe the voices can't be improved, when they are fine in pre-beta versions. All in all, I am not regretting purchasing FSHud and will continue to use and test it as I believe it is the ATC product with the most potential, but we are definitely not there yet.

Just a small correction to spare Asobo all the criticism, as with other recent official releases (including MSFS 40th Anniversary), Asobo is probably not the developer of the aircraft (certainly not the main one). The developer of ATR is S&H Software (Hans Hartmann) and it is published by Microsoft. This can be seen quite clearly on Microsoft Marketplace, where aircrafts developed directly by Asobo (Aviat Husky, Top Rudder Solo) are labeled as such and are separated from aircrafts developed by third parties (iniBuilds, ATSimulations, Carenado) and released by Microsoft.

Or you can follow the route of Stephen Coonts in his book The Cannibal Queen. It's also a great read. Even relatively dull legs become more exciting if navigated only by dead reckoning and US VFR sectionals. You can see a rough overview of flight plans here: Steam Community :: :: Cannibal Queen Flight Also, this community website is very nice when it comes to landmarks and POIs: Bushtalk Radio - Audio tours and virtual tourism for MS Flight Simulator 2020 Edit: For maximum immersion, the faired version of PT-17 Stearman from DC Designs actually includes Cannibal Queen livery should you choose to fly in that aircraft.

I'm not well-versed in IP law, but in my experience terms of service copypasta is typical for many business sectors, unless we're talking about really big hitters. I seriously doubt that operators of hosting or similar sites routinely hire lawyers in this business, and if they do, the lawyers will likely copy paste any other TOS they find on internet anyway rather than come up with a tailored solution. Most often the actual content of terms and conditions does not matter as long as it is a 'market standard' and nobody usually really cares what the user base thinks because the users usually do not care anyway. What’s worse, the effect of copypasta is that even careful users will often justify rather draconian terms to themselves when it turns out that they are likely to find similar terms elsewhere. This leads to a long-term trend of unrestricted conditions layering, regardless of how relevant it is to a particular business and whether it actually makes sense and is able to fit the owner's business idea and, most importantly, whether is it fair. In this case, claiming that one can retain all their ownership rights to their content while providing an irrevocable license to keep and distribute it is an amazing display of legal nihilism and shows a lack of respect for basic IP rights. It is not uncommon, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Just out of curiosity, do you use head tracking? Unfortunately I have found that 33-34 FPS is generally too low for that and too far from anything that could be called smooth, regardless of the frame time variance achieved (even using RivaTuner with the tweaks in the OP) .

This is unfortunately true, but I think it's the default MSFS behaviour.

AIGround and AIFlow are now not recommended for use with FSLTL. They cause all sorts of buggy behaviour. (Source: FSLTL Discord)

Thank you for sharing your tests. I have done similar ones with almost the same results. It seems that third-party add-ons may not be the culprit here. Additionally, I tried the save/load function when the FPS gradually dropped from 60 to 30 over the course of the flight. After the flight was loaded, the FPS immediately went back to the 60s. Of course this is not a solution, but perhaps it can help identify the cause. But I myself have no idea how. Edit: this was on DX12. Next time I'll try DX11.

Yes: (2) PSA: DHC-2 Beaver - Tighten down the oil cap to stop the rattle noise, if you want... : MicrosoftFlightSim (reddit.com)

You should remove pms gns.