fra147

Thanks! I did a couple of flights yesterday and everything was pretty smooth (only a stuck Ryanair on the taxiway at LICJ but I suppose it depends on the source data)

Ok, thanks for your reply. I hope to run some more tests this afternoon and report any further “oddities” if they come up. Regarding the overlap, I’m not entirely sure whether the aircraft was static or live, as I had stepped away from the PC during the turnaround phase between the previous flight and the new boarding. However, my impression is that, since other aircraft had already been loaded, it was likely a live aircraft that arrived and overlapped with mine by about two-thirds. It felt as if a slight discrepancy in spacing was no longer enough to prevent the overlap. As for the redistribution, I took a screenshot which I’ll try to attach. I was surprised by the relatively low number of live aircraft compared to static ones, and by the fact that there were fewer aircraft than usual at Terminal 5, but overall more aircraft than before at EGLL (apparently shifted toward Terminals 1 and 2). I’ll reassess this impression in the next tests. I don't fully understand how to manage "generic park" and the possible relation between Max Parked and the % Target. Thanks again for your work. Your software provides an impressive level of realism — I’m completely addicted to it. https://ibb.co/9mc3xLfY

Hello, I’ve done a couple of flights with the beta and overall everything seems to be working well. During landing at Heathrow I didn’t experience any spacing issues with other aircraft. Of course I’ll need more testing, but so far it looks like everything is functioning correctly. I only noticed one thing, which had never or very rarely happened before: once at Terminal 5, while waiting for departure, an AI aircraft almost overlapped with my parking position. Another thing that seems different is the redistribution of traffic between live and static aircraft. There also appear to be some new percentage settings that are not entirely clear to me, and by adjusting them I likely altered the ground distribution of aircraft.

If I had to make a request, LTFM Istanbul would also deserve a proper rendition for MSFS 2024. Aside from waiting for an LFPG, which is currently completely missing…

Personally, I’m happy about it. I don’t really understand the criticism—more choice is simply better for the community. If this new developer does better, that’s a win for everyone; if they do worse, it’s worse for them—not a problem for customers. PS: if Fenix ever revisited the idea of doing an A350 at the same level as their A320 family, I’d be the happiest simmer around.

After a lot of hesitation, I bought a Tobii last weekend at FSWeekend and I’m very satisfied. I had previously tried some open-source solutions and even Eyebeam demos with an iPhone, but this is on a completely different level, especially in terms of ease of setup. I’ll also say that, even though I initially thought I wouldn’t use eye tracking much, I actually find it excellent. Even in a limited way, I really enjoy just being able to look at things during procedures. The only downside is that I find it a bit inconvenient when using the MCDU and managing the upper overhead panel, so during those phases I tend to disable it. One major issue, though: the mounting system included in the box only worked for a few hours and then became unusable. I just can’t get it to stay attached, even after buying new double-sided tape. It’s as if the weight of the Tobii makes it come off. I’m trying some alternative (i.e. fixing only tobii under the monitor with the tape) but I haven’t found a definitive solution yet.

Hi, here I am...attached a part of the log. Thanks

Thanks...I tried several time with the method suggested in the manual without any success. As soon as I will come back to my home base, next week, I will send you my log text (by email?). Thanks

Hi Kiek, first of all, thank you very much for PSXT and for the continuous updates and improvements you keep delivering. It’s really appreciated. I would like to ask for your help regarding a license issue I’m experiencing between RealTraffic and PSXT. When I run PSXT while RealTraffic is running (connected/logged in), everything works fine and the license is correctly recognized. However, if I try to run PSXT in standalone mode, it does not recognize my RealTraffic license, even though the license code in the RealTraffic file/page is exactly the same. PSXT reports that no valid code is found. I have double-checked the code and also tried the PSXT ChatGPT support, but I keep getting the same generic suggestions and I haven’t been able to resolve the issue. This issue occurs both with the previous PSXT version and with the latest release (published last Friday/Saturday), which I had hoped would resolve the problem. Unfortunately, the RealTraffic license is still not recognized when running PSXT in standalone mode. Ideally, I would prefer to run PSXT in standalone mode, without having to start multiple applications every time. Is there a known solution or a specific configuration required to make the RealTraffic license recognized by PSXT when running standalone? Thanks again for your great work and for any clarification you can provide. Best regards, Francesco

You give great hope to many.... we hope it will be soon :)

I couldn’t find the link, but Farlis explained it perfectly.

A wide-body with their level of quality would be amazing… I know Aamir keeps saying it’s difficult/impossible going to happen, but I can’t stop dreaming of a A350 from them....what a dream :) Sorry for the off-topic

I’ve finally also tested the new beta build, and despite going through the usual steps like clearing the Rolling Cache etc, I’ve noticed a clear regression compared to previous releases. There’s noticeable annoying flickering on ground textures in payware sceneries, around a 15% FPS drop compared to the gains seen in earlier builds, and some stutters during taxi, takeoff, and landing runs. Not a complaint, just a report — hopefully this helps highlight what seems to be a marked regression compared to the initial versions of the SU4 Beta.

@FSHud thanks

I’ve been going through this thread (not all 18 pages though!) and it’s great to see many positive comments about how much FSHud has improved lately. I used FSHud back in the MSFS 2020 days, but haven’t yet moved to the MSFS 2024 version — I’m seriously considering it. What held me back before was the lack of realistic runway operation patterns, for example at airports like Heathrow, Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Rome Fiumicino (departures on 25 and arrivals on 16 or 34 depending on conditions). I remember reading in the January roadmap about plans to allow full customization of airport operations — including runway usage and traffic procedures. Since I’ve been away for a while and haven’t read the whole thread, I was just wondering if those features are already implemented, in beta, or still planned for a future update. Thanks! Francesco