kerosene31

My big thing is FSLTL was just easy. I don't really need live traffic, and don't want to pay for it. I took the time to set up AIG and I'm glad I did, but that was a project. I have it working great now, but it took some time to get there. I primarily use BATC anyway, so I don't use FSLTL injection a ton, but it is nice to just start up a flight without a flight plan and just inject a bunch of traffic. Maybe this is just me, but one thing that bugs me about traffic that requires a flight plan is that it ignores airports along the way. There might be some cruise traffic, but if you fly over another airport, it will be empty. For example if I take off from JFK to some other destination, LGA will not have any planes. I love flying the VFR route over LAX, so I want traffic at LAX even though I'm not there.

I've learned to just tune the ILS or the RNAV approach in anyway. For the GA stuff I fly it isn't a huge deal, but it would definitely be nice to stay IFR. Requesting a new approach sometimes works too. At least I can work with this. I only had time for a couple of test flights, but the vectoring seems better. I still have to descend myself, but the angle to the runway seems to work well. Still no getting "lost" by the ATC, and so far, no late go arounds (which was mentioned in the notes). I even landed at KEYW which used to confuse BATC, and that seemed ok. Still need a lot more testing, I wish I had more time to fly. I'm getting more confidence in the program though, definitely some things to adjust, but so far, no major issues.

Only 1 test flight so far, but noticeable improvement. The descent is still a bit tight and late for GA, but much improved. I think it is still looking for a 1200-1500 fpm descent which is a bit high, but workable in the sim (would still like more time to get down more gently). Other than the altitude, vectors to a visual final were pretty good (call to turn came a bit late and required a correction, but again, nothing crazy). Calling for descent still does nothing other than to have them tell you the active runway. I'm guessing I can just descent a little early and be fine. I don't want to jinx it, but I haven't been "lost" in some time either.

I double checked and I do not see anything seatbelt related in my settings. I loaded up the default 737 (I don't own any airliners) open up FSR+ and nothing. Not sure if it needs a certain plane or if AI is hallucinating.

ChasePlane is very easy, that's what makes it great. When you edit a camera, there's two "thumbsticks" like a game controller that you can move with the mouse, along with zoom, up and down and other things. So for example you can set your forward view to be exactly where you want it, and adjust it easily. If the default look to the left has you staring at the ceiling, you can easily lower it, zoom it, etc. If there's something like an FMC or an instrument view you want to look at, it takes seconds to set up. (if there's not already something by default or from the user community). You can actually set up to 10 custom cameras in default MSFS, but it is clunky. Chaseplane makes it easy. I'll be flying and realize I keep looking down at something and can create a custom camera in no time. So for FSRealistic, you can set custom sounds to existing events. I've not done it myself. However I don't think there's an event that would be the seatbelt chime specifically? I didn't see anything, but I could have missed it.

I don't see any manual anywhere. To be honest, I never went looking for one. The program is pretty straightforward. I think there's multiple tutorial videos. There's a 7 day demo that is worth checking out. Quite simply, the program does what it says. It greatly increases the head movements by default and of course the sounds. I tried the demo and went out and bought it. Everything is configured pretty well by default, but you probably want to adjust a few sounds. There's a couple I don't like. There's this vacuum cleaner sound on some GA aircraft, but it is just a simple matter of lowering the volume. My only gripe with it is you need to configure it for every repaint of an aircraft, or import the settings from another. I don't think there's any way to set defaults, so for example the female voice always does the "clear prop" call. So I have many paints of the Black Square Baron and Bonanza, some are set with the right sounds, others not. It can be a bit of a headache, but you can import the profile from one you have set. It is easy to work with, but I don't get why different repaints would have different sounds, although maybe someone wants that? In a perfect world I'd have one BLSQ Baron profile, not one for every paint, but it works. (I'm guessing people in airliners want this for custom sounds per livery or something, so not a big deal). That's not to dump on the product, I tried the demo and bought after 1 flight. It does what it says it does. I was flying in the FlightFX Avanti and I hear a passenger flush the toilet, which made me chuckle (and this sound doesn't happen in most GA aircraft, so the defaults are mostly good). I'm a fan of ChasePlane as well. On one hand, the default camera system is quite powerful, but ChasePlane just makes it simple. The big thing is you set up cameras per aircraft (but not per paint like FSR). So anytime I try a new plane, I have to set up the default view and key binding, look left, look right, look back 135. It only takes a few moments, and at least is not repaint specific. You can also import lots of community cameras. By default, you can have a "look left" assigned and it applies to all aircraft. With ChasePlane, you have to define that each time. Again it is easy, you can even type in degrees, so take the forward view and change it from 0 to 90, then -90 for the other side, save and you're done. It is super simple to adjust them so if by default your head is too high, you can lower it down to simulate scrunching down. It is worth it to get a vew you actually want for every aircraft and so easy to adjust. You can do this with the default camera system, but CP is so much easier. Overall they both cost $60, which is significant, but overall I'm happy with them both. Both programs achieve exactly what they set out to do, and play well with each other (as FSR requires Chase Plane).

Yes I learned to wait to start the AIG app until after MSFS loads and I've got my flight loaded. I think one of the videos recommended that. Starting it early seemed to cause more issues, but I still got the freezing for a bit. It might just be doing work in the background. I've just started messing around with it. I don't like the idea of a program that looks to be frozen, but it seems to come back with time. Of course I just start up in the 172 and instantly start looking at traffic, rather than going through checklists to start the engine. I'll have to try a real flight.

A couple of questions as I mess around with this more: -Sometimes the traffic controller program hangs for a long time. I alt-tab, and I can see the window, but I can't tab to it (as if it is crashed). It seems to come back eventually. Everything seems to work ok so I just leave it. -I keep getting prompted about making a regedit to fix the 256 path limit. Do I need to do this? I have the oci on a separate short path and drive and don't seem to be having issues (unless my first one is that). I can backup my registry manually and make that edit, but not sure if I need it. -I have a few flight plan errors showing, specifically for Southwest, which is a big airline that I see a lot (oddly enough, very popular in the northeast). I seem to be getting SW traffic, but not a ton. I fired up KDAL and saw lots of SW so it clearly works. Should I worry about these or just ignore them? I did have some American Airlines errors, so I reinstalled the north america plans and those seem to resolve. Overall I'm impressed with the program. Performance is really good. I fired up JFK at 100% traffic and other than an initial hit when it first loaded (expected), it seemed very reasonable. I really like how there's general aviation options too. Not everything flying out there is an airliner. I'm still installing all the various options.

Custom path, not even on the main drive. The linking was automatic and seemed painless. Just like an addon linker. I didn't want to run into path issues, plus I use a 2nd drive for my addon linker anyway. Basically I install to d:\aig_oci\ and it seems easy.

I started my install earlier tonight and things are mostly working. I fired up JFK with 100% traffic and there was tons of traffic! It definitely takes some work, but as most said, it is worth it. Installing all the global traffic only took maybe 2 hours, it wasn't bad at all. Just had it running in the background. I have good internet so it didn't seem bad. For anyone on the fence, I would say go for it, with a few words of advice: -Make sure you get the version of traffic manager from github and not their main download site (that was so confusing). You should have 1.3+. Inside there's a tutorial pdf, definitely read it before doing anything. -Read the FINE manual first. Maybe even watch the video posted earlier (you don't need the full hour). -Leave yourself lots of time to download and take your time with everything.

An hour long install instruction video? (I get that some of it is testing later on, but it is still very long). Maybe I'll hold out hope for an 11th hour solution in FSLTL. Even the download is confusing. You just have to know to download the beta from Github (I almost installed the old version). However free is the right price.

Does PSXT work without buying anything? It says you need a RealTraffic license in the manual. I don't care if it is just scheduled flights and not real time.

Dumb question - "the injector stays static aircraft only" - does this mean static schedules, or just a/c parked? Anyway any good, free alternatives? I've never used AIG but I'm guessing that's probably it. I mostly use BATC anyway so that will continue to work, but sometimes I like to just start up a flight and launch some traffic without a flight plan. FSLTL was perfect for that.

I'm 100% GA at this point. I haven't touched an airliner since maybe FSX or even 2004? I want to say the last airline I flew was the Dreamfleet 727? I might mix in the occasional business jet, but that's about it. There's a few factors, but time is a big one. Maybe I can find the time to sit down and learn every system on a Boeing or Airbus. However, I'll eventually take a break from them and have to relearn everything. With an A2A or Black Square GA plane, I can get up and running without a ton of work. Another factor - scenery. With 2020 and now 2024, low and slow is actually fun. I remember the days in FSX and before where you had some landclass and maybe rivers. Roads if you bought an addon? But still it was generic landclass. Today? I can fly patters around my local airport and recognize reference points. In the old days, VFR flying wasn't great. At this point too, I just enjoy hand flying patterns more than tons of automation. I get why people like it for sure, but time and other factors just make it not for me.

2020 only for now, but a 2024 version some time later.

I get that a lot too. They are told to hold short, then I'm 30 seconds from landing and they get cleared to go right in front of me. Always right around the same spot. Then the go around involves the vectoring logic again which is a roll of the dice. (although it does seem better since the last patch).

Yes, this is a common thing. Why not just vector us to the IAF for an RNAV approach? BATC seems to prefer to vector you in, often tight and close. When in doubt, clear me to the IAF from my last waypoint and chances are that will make a lot more sense and avoid a lot of the issues we see. Give us time to descend and time to get lined up, rather than coming in tight. Not sure if the program is trying to get us in faster or what. Most of these airports have little to no traffic. I'm only running 5/10 traffic so smaller airports are pretty empty. I don't know if I've ever seen it use an IAF. I usually just fly it anyway and BATC doesn't seem to mind. Just providing feedback. That's a big part of early access. Not sure where people get this idea that early access means "zero feedback". Early access by definition means us being part of the development process with feedback. That's the whole point of early access.

We're not bashing a product. It is early access, which means feedback is important to that process. I'll be the first to admit to getting frustrated and venting. I get very limited time to fly lately, so it is frustrating when a flight goes off the rails. I try to be constructive with my feedback most of the time. (sorry too but this is Avsim, if you take away the griping, it would get really quiet around here). 😀 The other frustration is, when it does work, it is a great product! If it simply didn't work, I'd uninstall and move on. The devs have been open about how they are continuing to work on existing features. Great! I just want to make sure that continues. I'm trying to provide specific cases where the program struggles. For example - GA IFR into medium sized airports without a STAR (or one that can be used).

Just want to point out that not everyone flies the same way, and that's where we get different results. BATC seems to work quite well from large airports with established SIDs and STARs. For people who only hit the main airports, they probably do rarely see issues. If BATC has exact STARs to follow, it does a lot better. When it has a script, it follows it well. The problem often lies in medium sized airports where there's no STARs (or the STARs aren't available for the types of aircraft some of us fly). KEYW is a perfect example. An airport that has airline traffic, but BATC seems to struggle with. Just one runway, should be an easy vector, but this is where BATC can struggle. It can just lose you completely, or maybe vector you around Miami. I'm often flying a GA plane IFR, and the published STARs are for jets. You would think a single runway without much traffic would be easy, but it can really struggle. MK Studios released a great Key West scenery, so many of us happen to be hitting this airport a lot, so we run into problems, a lot. The big problem is the program advertises (and I quote) "Full IFR for Jetliners and GA". The latter seems to be lacking, and I'm not talking VFR at all, but IFR flight into airports that serve airliners. I'm a big Black Square fan and personally I never, ever fly jetliners anymore. Again I have no doubt that people who stick to the huge airports have a completely different experience.

Another C208 flight from KORS to KBFI (not BLI this time). This one had some hiccups, but nothing crazy. I take off and it ignores my flight plan and sends me direct to destination. Not a huge deal. As I get closer, it clears me visual runway 14L. 14L has no instrument approaches, those are all on 14R. The weather is really marginal at the airport for visual (actually says it is IFR). I request a different runway, but nope. Not allowed. I can't request another approach because there isn't one. Ok, so I take their vectors and altitude and try it. I barely break through the clouds and can see the runway, so ok, I go visual (I had the other ILS dialed in otherwise I would have gotten lost). Ceilings say 800ft, but MSFS 2024 always seems to be more clear than the real weather, so it worked. There's no way I'd be legal for this approach in real life. The weird thing is it was using 14R for other planes, just not me. So, not ideal, but still I didn't get forgotten about and/or any terrible instructions.

Yes, I was surprised, I figured that flight had a low success. I was expecting a small airport like ORS to basically not work. My route (which apparently is the real one Empire Air flies according to flightradar): BFI DCT LOFAL DCT CVV DCT ORS 4000 ft. No SID/STARs obviously. It did want me to fly the visual and I didn't request an instrument. The weather was clear (BLI was socked in, but ORS was clear) and I had the RNAV loaded in case. It did vector me in very tight, I think I had to turn over 300 degrees to line up, but it worked. A 208 isn't hard to get lined up. Altitude wasn't a problem as I was never that high anyway. I was pleasantly surprised to be honest. There's some KSEA to KBLI routes I want to try too. I have no idea how it is going to handle Sea-Tac. In the real world, these C208s don't bother flying STARs as they just aren't getting high enough for a short hop. I'm guessing coming back into Sea-Tac without a STAR is going to be a mess, but we'll see. I'm just learning the Black Square 208 so I want to do more of these. I wish I had time for more test flights.

Not sure if the latest little update worked some magic, but my last 2 flights have been much improved. Made a short flight in a C208 from KBFI to KORS (I assumed BATC would struggle with the small airport and short flight). Other than a very tight turn on final (nothing crazy for a Caravan), everything worked well. Next flight - KFAT - KSNA. More traffic, more going on. I am able to use a STAR here so that seems to help, but the vectoring to the ILS approach is great. Last minute, someone is cleared on the runway, so I take the go around. It vectors me back around, granted a little too close to terrain, but still clear. I was seconds from turning myself, but then the call came in time. Then another good vector for final and an uneventful landing. Just wanted to provide good feedback when I get good results as well. Didn't seem like there was much in the latest update, but things seem much improved for me. This is definitely more like it, and why I enjoy the program. I just call it like I see it.

I saw this in the marketplace finally. So, is it worth $20 to upgrade? The big thing is I already own the Black Square Caravan so not sure how much time the Kodiak will get. I get that they are very different avionics. I'll probably pick it up seeing as they've made some improvements, although still more to come?

I think you have to use Simbrief for the plan for BATC to see it. I don't think it can see an MSFS plan. You should be able to take off from an uncontrolled field and just get clearance.

Yes, I appreceate the dialog and feedback loop. We're definitely looking to provide feedback. I hope to do more flying this weekend (my weeknights are pretty much non-starters these days) and get some meaningful logs. Just some more observations: -Seems like mid-size/regional airports are the issue. KEYW was mentioned many times. MK Studios released a great scenery there, so I hit it a lot. One runway, not a lot of traffic. It should be fairly straightforward, but these seem to be the types of airports where we get lost. I hope to gather some more logs this weekend and share them on the discord to provide more info. I'm guessing the people going to/from the larger hubs are seeing a lot less issues.