malichek

If you're actually using TAA then the DLSS presets won't change the image, as far as I understand it. They only matter once you're using DLSS upscaling or DLAA. On a 4090 I'd probably test DLAA first, then compare K and M in the same place with the same weather/time of day. The differences can be pretty subtle, and motion/shimmering in cockpit labels is usually where I notice it more than on a still screenshot.

I'd treat it as a live/default traffic issue first, not necessarily something you changed locally. When the sim's own online traffic goes quiet it can look exactly like that at otherwise busy airports. For that reason I usually keep an injector option around for offline flying. FSLTL is a good quick check, and AIG is still useful if you care about model and schedule coverage. If those inject traffic normally while the default/live option is empty, that points more to the sim service or data side than your install.

Good list. For normal airline ops I would add briefing and verification habits more than extra manoeuvres: check the route, constraints, fuel, alternates, weather, and then keep checking that the aircraft is still doing what you think it is doing. The big practical skill for me is energy management. Descent planning, speed control, when to intervene in VNAV, and when to stop trying to rescue a bad approach and just go around. That probably teaches more than another perfect autoland. I would also put radio and ATC workflow on the list, even offline. Clearance changes, vectors, late runway changes and holds are where a flight starts feeling less scripted.

I can see why SayIntentions appeals if separation and taxi conflict handling are the main priority. For my own use, the subscription side is still the sticking point, because I do not fly enough every single month to make that feel painless. That is why I still judge all of these ATC tools mostly on the boring parts: descent planning, vectors, sequencing, and what they do when traffic is actually around. BATC has very good radio ambience, no argument there, but once I am babysitting the arrival and traffic awareness myself, it stops feeling like the main ATC tool and starts feeling more like background chatter.

That separation point is a big one for me too. BATC has very good ambience and the voices are clearly one of its strengths, but if it is not really sequencing traffic or calling conflicts then I start treating it more like background radio than ATC. For offline IFR I still end up valuing the boring procedural parts more than the voice quality: descent timing, vectors that make sense, and what the program does when there is traffic around you. I do not mind helping an ATC add-on a little with a descent request, but once I am managing most of the arrival and traffic awareness myself, the value changes quite a bit.

I have seen similar odd behavior with BATC, especially around descent planning and late vectors. When it works, it can be very impressive, but for IFR I still care more about predictable vectoring and separation than the voice side. That is basically why I have been using FSHud more for offline IFR lately. It is less flashy in some areas, but I find the approach handling and traffic flow easier to trust. For BATC specifically I would probably do what kerosene31 said: keep the planned approach ready and treat the ATC instructions as advisory if they start sending you away from anything sensible.

If the aircraft disappear right as they reach or contact the runway, I would separate that from the airport layout/taxi data first. Taxi tuning usually matters once the aircraft is trying to route along the airport network; an instant despawn sounds more like the traffic/ATC injector deciding the flight is complete, stuck, or no longer manageable. I would try the same arrival at one or two other airports with similar traffic levels and, if SI has any traffic/debug log, check whether it is removing the aircraft deliberately. If they can taxi normally at some airports but vanish at Bari, then the local airport data becomes the more likely suspect.

That regional phraseology answer is good to hear. For offline IFR, that sort of detail matters to me almost as much as the voices themselves, because it changes how believable the whole flight feels once you start crossing between Europe and the US. One thing I'm curious about is airport/runway configuration. Will VoxATC mostly take the runway choice from live weather and the sim, or will the user be able to influence which runways/procedures are actually in use? Bad runway choices can spoil an otherwise decent ATC session pretty quickly.

The ideal version of this would be a filter that says: show me airports I own, then sort them by what I have not flown recently. Addon Linker's map is useful for seeing coverage, and Volanta is good for the history and aircraft side, but they do not quite meet in the middle yet. Until something dedicated does it, a simple My Maps layer or Addon Linker map plus SimBrief route planning is probably still the least painful workaround.

I would treat twist rudder as a workable compromise, not a full replacement for pedals. For taxi and airliners it can be fine, because you are not usually asking much from the rudder axis once airborne. The place where it gets ugly is small GA in a crosswind, where the same hand is trying to do aileron, elevator and rudder at once. If you stay with twist, a small dead zone and a flatter curve near the center helps a lot. Also worth checking for any spiking in the axis, because a slightly dirty or worn twist sensor can make landings feel much worse than they should.

I'm mostly still flying the PMDG 737, so I'm watching the iFly from a little distance, but steady updates like this are a good sign. For me the interesting part is less the version number and more whether the normal IFR behavior keeps getting tightened up: LNAV/VNAV, approach handling, and the everyday quirks you only see after a few sectors.

Reliability is a big part of the ATC choice for me. Nice voices are good, but on an IFR flight a disconnect at the wrong moment can ruin the whole session. That is one reason I still lean toward the more boring option that stays predictable with vectors and sequencing. I can live with less personality in the voices much more easily than I can live with losing ATC halfway through an arrival.

I have been using the historical option more than the live one, because most of my sim time is late evening. If I load European live traffic at that hour, many airports are naturally much quieter than I want for an airline flight. With FSHud Traffic I can move it back to an earlier part of the same day and get the daytime departure/arrival flow instead. I checked a few airports against the FlightRadar24 history view and the traffic was close enough for sim use, certainly enough to make the airport feel like it was operating in a real busy period. It does not mean every livery or aircraft subtype will be perfect, but the time-shifted traffic is a very useful feature if you cannot usually fly during the busy real-world hours.

I'd take both, honestly. A proper 737-200 would be a nice change from the modern magenta workflow, especially if the developer gets the older systems and engine management right. But I also agree on the 182/206 side. A solid old Cessna utility aircraft with good systems would probably get a lot of actual use, not just screenshots.

This is exactly the kind of thing that matters more than it sounds on paper. A bad taxiway network can make AI traffic and third-party ATC look much worse than they really are, because everything starts going wrong before the flight even gets moving. I haven't tried your files yet, but the idea is very useful. I use AIG with FSHud, and airports with clean taxi routing, gate assignments and runway data are a big part of whether the traffic flow feels believable. Nice to see someone tackling the default-airport side instead of only blaming the ATC apps.

I actually hope it stays as a small single-purpose tool. Not every useful sim utility needs to become a whole product with accounts, installers and a support burden. The browser/local-storage approach is part of the appeal for me: open it, get a sensible short flight, send it to SimBrief, then close it again. That fits the way a lot of us use the sim on weeknights.

I run it the second way: AIG Traffic Controller is running with the FSHud integration enabled, then FSHud traffic is set to External. I don't normally enable the internal AIG option at the same time, because it feels redundant and can just add load. For coverage, the basepack is only a starting point. I still add the airlines for the areas I fly most, otherwise some airports can look quiet even when the setup itself is working.

Nice idea, and I like that it is browser based. For short evening sessions I often spend too much of the available time choosing a route instead of flying it, so a 40-60 minute selector around decent airports is useful. The no-install part matters too, because small tools like this are much easier to actually use when they don't become another thing to maintain.

That is a good example of why the game/simulator argument never made much sense to me. The same box can be a training tool one minute and a toy the next, depending on what the person is doing with it. At home I obviously don't have the motion or consequences, but I still use MSFS that way sometimes: a quick look at a route, airport layout, or cockpit workflow before a planned sim flight. Then another evening it is just for fun. Both can be true.

Yes, the base model package is still useful without the live injector/Navigraph. Install the FSLTL base models through the FBW installer and leave the sim's own AI or real-time traffic enabled; the sim can use the installed models and liveries for matching. The Navigraph part is for the new FSLTL live traffic feed, not just for having the model library present. I wouldn't expect exactly the same behaviour as the injector though. Default traffic is still default traffic, so matching and airport behaviour can be hit and miss. For a no-subscription setup it's worth trying, just keep expectations modest.

I've had similar mixed results with live traffic lately. The nice part is the schedules and models are there when it works, but I still don't trust it for a flight where I want the airport to behave predictably. For IFR I usually prefer the more controlled setup with AIG and FSHud, even if it's less 'live'. At least the traffic flow and sequencing are more repeatable. FSLTL coming back is good news, but I think it still needs a bit of settling down before I would call it reliable again.

For me the Black Square sweet spot is the mix of systems depth and variety. A2A probably still has a slight edge in that last bit of hand-flying character, but BS keeps me coming back because I can jump from the Bonanza to the Duke or Starship and each one still feels worth learning on its own. I don't really see it as a winner-loser thing, more like different strengths.

I’d strip it right back to vanilla first and test in steps. The fact that it got a bit better with real-time traffic off makes me think it may be traffic or another add-on spiking the sim rather than just raw FPS. If it were mine, I’d try one short flight with an empty Community folder, all traffic off, and no ChasePlane. If that settles it, add things back one at a time, first ChasePlane, then traffic, then anything else you normally load. That usually finds the culprit a lot faster than changing random graphics settings.

For me the hardest ones are the visual arrivals where the runway shows up late and the terrain tempts you into chasing it. Madeira is the classic example, but even shorter coastal approaches can get messy fast if I let the approach become reactive instead of stabilized. What the video really shows well is that a go-around is not the failure. Trying to salvage a poor setup usually is. In the sim I’ve had much better results since I started treating an early go-around as the smart option instead of the embarrassing one.

I'd look at it as two separate questions: is it usable in 2024 today, and is there a bigger native refresh coming later. From the posts above it sounds like the first answer is yes, but the second one is still speculation. If it were me, I'd buy it for what it does now, not for an unannounced future update. If Black Square does more with it later, that's a bonus, but I would not count on a timeline until they say so on the Just Flight forum.