Just another note but I had another CTD on Saturday evening my time in the US.  As I closed out FS disgruntled after 15 1/2 hours I filed a support ticket with FSHud and prepared to call it a night.  It wasn't an FSHud CTD but the developer here had said to submit a ticket as it send over all your logs so I did.   I don't know where the FSHUD developer lives but literally within 30 minutes I saw the message that I had a response.  Seriously?  In 30 minutes on a Saturday night for something that's not even an FSHud issue.  Now obviously that's not going to be the case every time but I've use the support ticket process 3x now and every time I had a timely and helpful reesponse.

I was told the issue was a random airport (stock) that was causing my CTD (in this case) and pointed to a replacement file to try.  Sure enough I loaded it up, loaded KSFO-WSSS (yes, going to watch F1 again) and let it go overnight.  I've done 2 successful 16 hour flights into WSS since.  

I just want to give a shout out to 1.  The process because I repeatedly see the Dev here say open a ticket so I did and sure enough the response was timely and helpful and 2. those dev's who just go above and beyond as in this case.

Personally, I don't care it the other ATC programs do "this or that" better and that's not a knock but I tend to be loyal to dev's that deserve it and that is definitely the case here.

Thank you @FSHud

-Paul Solk

FSHUD is my main go to now. 

I gave up on SI because the cost was not worth the issues.  I constantly had issues on approach, always having to inquire about which runway and approach was in use, given last minute short cuts that result in unreasonable descents, being cleared to runways not suitable for the AC being used and the AI flat refusing to accept a request for change.

My only issue with FSHUD is spacing on approaches. Seems like more than half the time I am put in queue behind someone too close and end up in a go around.  Last flight into NZAA I could watch a turboprop turn to final and I was vectored in tight behind him, and even at minimum approach speed (as instructed by FSHUD) I was on top of him before short final.  I am not aware of any adjustments the user can make in this regard, but would be nice to increase spacing by a couple of miles to also allow slow AI to clear runways.

10 minutes ago, Joe L said:

FSHUD is my main go to now. 

I gave up on SI because the cost was not worth the issues.  I constantly had issues on approach, always having to inquire about which runway and approach was in use, given last minute short cuts that result in unreasonable descents, being cleared to runways not suitable for the AC being used and the AI flat refusing to accept a request for change.

My only issue with FSHUD is spacing on approaches. Seems like more than half the time I am put in queue behind someone too close and end up in a go around.  Last flight into NZAA I could watch a turboprop turn to final and I was vectored in tight behind him, and even at minimum approach speed (as instructed by FSHUD) I was on top of him before short final.  I am not aware of any adjustments the user can make in this regard, but would be nice to increase spacing by a couple of miles to also allow slow AI to clear runways.

This is an area I would like to see improvement if possible as well.  Especially with aircraft departing the runway causing a go-around.   I can be 2 miles out and see the aircraft in front turning off the active as I get told to go around.  By the time I pass they are well out of the way.   Not sure how the arrival logic can be changed to accommodate that but would be nice to see them given more time to clear before getting the G/A instruction... 

9 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

BATC also does this. Both good programs.

IMO  BATC is better at ATC.

FShud is lights out better at flight injection.

This will get me into trouble but although the voices are better in BATC they are more realistic in Fshud. 

Setup and layout is better in BATC.

Fshud needs a injector ( I also use FSLTL) 

I really like and prefer  the map used in Fshud  but that could just be me.

To me it depends on what is more important

 Live realistic traffic or better ATC.

I have enjoyed both.

Both are not perfect but are getting better with every update.

Thanks for the feedback.

One clarification: FSHud does not require a traffic injector—that claim is incorrect. The only requirement is that AI traffic models are installed for MSFS 2024 (same as with other ATC add-ons). You can simply enable MSFS default traffic; FSHud will intercept and control the default traffic.

From there, it depends on the quality and quantity of traffic you want:

AIG as a source (no injector needed): FSHud reads the AIG flights database. Quality is excellent because each aircraft has a full flight cycle. Quantity can be lower initially because bypassing/overflying flights loaded later.

AIG + AIGTC injector: Adds those bypassing flights for broader coverage.

FSLTL injector: Also provides bypassing flights, but full flight cycles for each aircraft are not known.

As you noted, “FSHud is lights-out better at flight injection.” That’s largely because FSHud lets you choose and mix traffic sources to match your preference, instead of locking you into a single internal database.

1 hour ago, FSHud said:

One clarification: FSHud does not require a traffic injector—that claim is incorrect.

FSLTL injector: Also provides bypassing flights, but full flight cycles for each aircraft are not known.

Now I'm confused! You say it doesn't require an injector - then mention FSLTL Injector (!?).

Would that mean you'd get AI traffic - but only if you have MSFS AI traffic enabled ... OR ... you disable MSFS traffic then *do* use FSLTL injector. 

1 hour ago, Adamski_NZ said:

Now I'm confused! You say it doesn't require an injector - then mention FSLTL Injector (!?).

Would that mean you'd get AI traffic - but only if you have MSFS AI traffic enabled ... OR ... you disable MSFS traffic then *do* use FSLTL injector. 

To get traffic:

You can enable default MSFS traffic
OR
use FSLTL injector
OR
use AIG/BGL traffic sources
OR
use external traffic source with AIGTC

OR
Comabine between any of these options to get traffic from multiple sources.

It is written in Traffic Manual:
https://www.fshud.com/site/knowledge/traffic-settings-v2

Edited October 6, 2025Oct 6 by FSHud
Modify text

That's as clear as it could possibly be ... many thanks!!!

On 10/5/2025 at 3:48 PM, jcomm said:

FSHUD and BATC provide you with the chance to talk yourself or use your Co-Pilot for the job, as well as for the tunning of the required freqs.

Thanks. Does either of these (preferably FSHud, as I still also use P3D) also provide the check-list possibility?

1 hour ago, d.tsakiris said:

Thanks. Does either of these (preferably FSHud, as I still also use P3D) also provide the check-list possibility?

Not currently, no—neither FSHUD nor BATC (BeyondATC) includes built-in checklist functionality for aircraft operations.

🔧 FSHUD:

• Focuses on realistic ATC and traffic management.

• Offers co-pilot support for radio tuning and ATC communication.

• Does not handle aircraft checklists (e.g., preflight, startup, approach flows).

• Users typically rely on aircraft-specific systems (like PMDG or FBW) or third-party checklist tools.

🎙️ BATC (BeyondATC):

• Prioritizes natural voice interaction and realistic ATC phraseology.

• Also allows co-pilot handling of radio comms.

• No current support for procedural checklists or aircraft flows.

P.S.: I couldn't have done it better than my dearest MS CoPilot 🙂

Edited October 7, 2025Oct 7 by jcomm

1 hour ago, d.tsakiris said:

Thanks. Does either of these (preferably FSHud, as I still also use P3D) also provide the check-list possibility?

Can't speak for BATC but not part of FSHUD.  After a number of years I actually went back to FS2Crew with their Animated Co-Pilot but it is obviously very limited in terms of planes and you need to purchase the base version for every aircraft you want to use it with.  But if someone is as boring as myself and sticks to the same planes then it's great for the checklist component you asked about.  

FSHud in of itself I can't recommend enough.  With or without checklists and especially if you want something that is cross platform. 

 

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

Edited October 7, 2025Oct 7 by fra147

12 minutes ago, fra147 said:

 

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

Currently active runways are calculated according to different factors, sometimes calculation aligned with reality, sometimes not.
Airport customization is part of roadmap 2025 features which we are still working on.

@FSHud thanks 

On 10/5/2025 at 8:36 AM, d.tsakiris said:

Can FSHud, maybe with an additional add-on, be a replacement for these types of flights?

I also used MCE with PF3. It worked very well. I now use FSHud and sometimes, I also use MCE. You can use MCE with FSHud. FSHud can automatically communicate with ATC, while MCE will provide the checklist you want.

 

Enjoying FSHUD but noticing that the volume for the radio voices is so loud, and the volume control in the FSHUD app doesn't seem to make any real difference. Sorry I can't post on discord because of a %^$& phone verification issue so wondering here if anyone has suggestions. Thanks!