FSHud - Air Traffic Control - 2025 Roadmap

Discussion Hub Tools & Utilities
1

What’s coming in 2025?

✈️ Emergency Handling:

Request emergency landings or diversions for weather, medical, or technical issues.

Experience dynamic traffic adjustments and detailed guidance for safe resolutions.

🛫 Airport Configuration Editor:

Fully customize airport operations, including renaming taxiways, defining runway usage, and creating custom traffic procedures.

Ensure all AI traffic follows your updated configurations for consistent realism.

🤖 AI-Driven ATC Communication:

Engage in natural, context-aware conversations with ATC, powered by AI for more immersive experiences.

Enjoy dynamic problem-solving for diversions, emergencies, and tailored guidance.

This roadmap reflects our commitment to enhancing realism, functionality, and immersion for all users of FSHud - Air Traffic Control.

2 Likes
2

Will we be able to fix broken 3rd party airports by adding missing connections from runways to taxiways?

3

I think it is more easier to fix it on airport side (BGL files) which brings the consistency with scenery.
Rather than adding some additional - custom data known by FSHud only.
So airports that are missing taxiways properly connected to runway is a common problem, not FSHud problem.

4

Will you guys be bringing VFR Support to FSHud anytime soon? Or is that not on the current roadmap?

1 Like
6

I am glad that development is continuing. Unfortunately, I have just experienced a setback, but I am sure this can be corrected. (I know that most people fly larger aircraft than I do; I always fly the Vision Jet.) We have previously reported that when the runway threshold is reached, the controller does not hand over to the tower, so I have to taxi 20-30 feet past the line. As a result of the complaint, this was resolved about six months ago, and since then, the handover has always taken place before reaching the threshold. I was grateful for that. I assume that this required virtually increasing the size of the aircraft in the program. However, since the release of FS2024 SU3 and the FSHud update, the program is unfortunately back to working the way it used to. If it was possible to fix this before, please change it back, because the earlier handover hardly bothers anyone, unlike when it doesn’t happen in the expected situation. Thank you very much.

7

Hello,

Following issue was fixed some time ago - please check on latest beta version.
If you still have a problems with it - please report via ticket including simulator, airport, aircraft and it’s livery.

Thank you

1 Like
8

I love it! The #1 ATC that have proper vectoring!

9

Just have to say, once I realized that I needed to sync navigrsph charts and also update the program..

I had a very positive experience today with it. I did a flight with the fokker f27 and it vectored me onto ILS 23 Auckland very well.

Im not one for knowing how atc should work but I was definitely pleased..

Just one question and suggestion.

Question

When departing with an old vor aircraft, should I be getting vectors from departure onto a radial or is that all down to the pilot.

Suggestion

This goes to all atc developers…. There should be a button you can push so the program knows that your

A) in an old aircraft and you can only do vor/ndb flights which results in vectoring for approach/departures

B) for if you want to pretend that your GPS is down and you want to use vor etc.

Just so that you don’t get the pre scheduled rnp approaches when your flying an old school aircraft be it a piper or 727.

An example is that F27 flight from Gisborne to Auckland, I left the approach blank in navigrsph but fshud gave me instructions for an gps arrival based star. But if there was a toggle in the FShud display for “old school/no gps” aircraft so the program gives you the relivant radio navigation approach or vectors you without having to request a change. That would really bring this program alive.

And for atc to be completely random and every so often, mix it up and chuck in a vor dme arc approach. For example, instead of vectors VOR finals onto 36 Rotorua airport, atc request and vectors you to do a 299 VOR DME arc onto 36.

Or.

Christchurch airport atc vectors you straight onto 29 without having to fly over the Christchurch vor like what happned with me with a flight today in msfs.

If the developers could implement that function especially in fshud, it would basically take it to the next level.

10

Hello and thanks for feedback.

Regarding ground becacon navigation on aircraft that is not equipted with RNAV.
I think there is some misundrestood - and I will explain how to solve it.

  1. You have to make sure that your flight plan doesn’t contain any RNAV waypoints.
    I guess you can do it in SimBrief or FSHud flight planning system.

  2. You have make sure that departure and arrival airports contains non-rnav procedures.
    Otherwise - perform visual approach/vecotors departure.
    In terms of visual approach - FSHud will give you heading vectors up to runway-in-sight point.
    For vectors departure - FSHud will give you heading vectors then direct to initial waypoint (which must be ground beacon according your flight plan VOR/NDB).

  3. FSHud can assign you RNAV procedures, but you always can change it in change arrival/departure settings.

Regarding your suggestion - in terms of FSHud it will only be prevented from giving your arrival/departure procedures (there is already some implementations for it according to aircraft engine type).

Hope it clarifies the things better.

Thank you

11

With more experience, handing over at the runway threshold is fine after all. Sorry! However, there is another problem that I have been experiencing since the updates. There is an FSHud route plan, e.g., today’s case is LIMC - LFLL. FL 110 and later are not changed, even though we have to fly over the French Alps, and that is not enough. But this is not as disturbing as the following. I receive a landing procedure for ILS 35R. I follow it. The descent is fine. In the final stage of the runway approach, the control switches to vector approach mode and deviates from the runway approach. Let’s assume that this is sometimes necessary because the traffic is so heavy that it is required. However, I must note here that this has happened to me in the vast majority of cases, say seven times out of ten, in different places. This is not normal. Even this might be okay, but what happens? It turns back and forth, to the right, but before it even finishes turning, it turns left again, then even further to the left, then right again, and there seems to be no purposeful concept behind it. Until I fly over the runway or turn back and forth fifteen times, then it guides me to the opposite seventeen direction and announces “estabilis on localizer” without having previously announced which runway I am landing on instead of 35R from the opposite direction!

12

Agree, happens to me too all the time when ATC is supposed to vector me onto the final approach.

13

I just want to say thank you for a great product! I mainly fly large airplanes and haven’t had any issues.

14

@GrapeJuice12345

When this happens - always review the FSHud map and expected flight path on the top of the panel.
This will give answers for all of your assumptions why it happens.
If there is still a problem - open a ticket (it is mentioned everywhere in FSHud space).

Thank you

15

If this happens almost every time, and as you can see, not only to me (refer to GrapeJuice12345), then what explanation could I find for this in the route plan? Since the updates, it has been observed that during the landing procedure already specified by the controller, it deviates during the approach phase and switches to vector control, deviating from the runway direction. This vector control automation is very poorly designed, and not just since the update, by the way. Take the case where there is no takeoff or landing traffic at a relatively low-traffic airport, today’s case being LZIB. If the goal is a vector landing, roughly three direction changes would be enough to guide the aircraft onto the runway along the desired line. In contrast, there are about 15 direction changes, which are unreasonably frequent. We will change tickets if necessary, but perhaps you can interpret what you read in the forum if improving the program and ensuring it works correctly is more important than observing formalities?

16

If it was happened almost every time (as you mentioned) - this problem was a known problem because many other users was reporting it as well and we could reproduce it.

I’ve also mentioned multiple times to open a ticket - so we can see application logs in order to understand what exactly happening and provide exact answer or fix if necessary.,
But you still prefer to talk about it here - why?

17

I can say the following: I highly recommend the FSHud program to anyone who wants much better control than FS’s built-in ATC program. Basically, I have been very satisfied with it for a year and a half. This is the forum where I have received answers to my questions so far, so I thought I would post here again in order to make it even more perfect.

1 Like
18

I acknowledge that you guys need the exact information to be able to fix a problem. Happy to launch a ticket next time. The vectoring has been inaccurate from my point of view but user error could play a role too. It is very important that the Fshud flightplan and what is in the box match 100% including the transitions, intercepts etc. Can you confirm that from your point of view the vectoring is absolutely correct? Fshud is a great product, enjoying it from the start.

19

Vectoring is one of the most complex parts in the application.
Currently according users common opinion and our testing - it is the best thing on the market.
(Other software doesn’t provide vecotoring in such precised way).

However - there are million factors - this is the reason when it can work inproperly.
For example - with your post and @UP1952HU post I have no idea what FSHud version, aircraft, simulator, airport scenery and NavData AIRAC you’re using.
There is also much of necessary information that can be read only from the logs to clarify what was happened.

This is exactly the reason why I’m asking to communicate via ticket system and not the forum topic of Roadmap 2025 Announcment.

Thank you

1 Like
20

Just to re-iterate @fshud3909 's point - As per this section of the Code of Conduct

3rd Party Support/Bug Reporting should be sent to the designated support funnels of each 3rd Party Developer, and should not be conducted in these forums.

So please use FSHud’s ticket system as requested.
Thanks!

2 Likes
21

My experience is that vectoring always gets me to where I need to be, just not always in the most direct way possible.