Another plus for FSHud for me is it will use ActiveSky weather so I can fly "historically".  SI had that, but it stopped working and I was told it was going away.  SI has become bloatware to me.  I had numerous problems with SI, some on departure, mostly on arrivals and I filled out the post flight comments in detail about 90% of the time.  Nothing improved or changed.

I like BATC, but inability to use historical weather limits when I can use it.

Also - as mentioned you can change arrival details in FSHud, not only STAR, approach etc but also your arrival gate / parking spot.

Edited October 13, 2025Oct 13 by Joe L

3 minutes ago, Joe L said:

Another plus for FSHud for me is it will use ActiveSky weather so I can fly "historically".  SI had that, but it stopped working and I was told it was going away.  SI has become bloatware to me.  I had numerous problems with SI, some on departure, mostly on arrivals and I filled out the post flight comments in detail about 90% of the time.  Nothing improved or changed.

I like BATC, but inability to use historical weather limits when I can use it.

Also - as mentioned you can change arrival details in FSHud, not only STAR, approach etc but also your arrival gate / parking spot.

BATC has 24h historical weather coverage, just in case you did not know that.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Far better than that grotty green menu!

 

2 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

 

I don't have a grotty green menu.

It is a neat little box in sort of white/grey text, which I place at the bottom left corner of my main screen.

2 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

It then asks you to descend when ready to a cleared flight level, usually corresponding to the first altitude restriction in the STAR, so it's up to you if you delay the descent for a while or start down straight away.

Interest. Sounds like “at pilot’s discretion”. I do get that on occasions when below 20,000ft but generally it’s an instruction, not a request. 😁

2 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

Transition altitudes vary throughout the world - I think it gets them from the navdata (Navigraph).

Very good. Unlike the default FSX, P3D and probably MSFS that has 18,000ft worldwide.

Thanks Ian.

19 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

I don't have a grotty green menu.

It is a neat little box in sort of white/grey text, which I place at the bottom left corner of my main screen.

Sounds like ShowText. That’s what I use. 👍
 

Thanks to those who replied. I’ll leave you alone now. 😁

On 10/12/2025 at 3:07 PM, bennyboy75 said:

For me the actual vectoring part seems to work pretty well most of the time. 

Same.

I made a pretty critical post on SI's "bloatware" in this thread, despite being a subscriber of it since Day 1.

But to focus on the positives - SI as of right now is the first piece of software in any flight simulator that can now nail the vectors and altitudes on an approach - every time. (YMMV).

I did 4 back to back flights in Europe yesterday, all IFR.   3 x ILS and 1 x RNAV.   SI nailed the vectors on every single one.

Now.... if only it could nail the radar vectors on departure.  When you depart IFR and are not using a SID, all you get is "fly radar vectors to XXX (first waypoint)" ..... but no ATC actually gives you that vector!!!  They don't say "runway heading" they say "radar vectors".

Yesterday, after IFR departure and hand off to Departure ATC, I said "please advise radar vector".   The ATC replied "You're already on radar vectors".   😐   I just set a DTO and ATC didn't notice 😄

I really wish they could fix the radar vector departures in the same way they've nailed the approach vectors.

Edited October 13, 2025Oct 13 by JYW

1 hour ago, JYW said:

Same.

I made a pretty critical post on SI's "bloatware" in this thread, despite being a subscriber of it since Day 1.

But to focus on the positives - SI as of right now is the first piece of software in any flight simulator that can now nail the vectors and altitudes on an approach - every time. (YMMV).

I did 4 back to back flights in Europe yesterday, all IFR.   3 x ILS and 1 x RNAV.   SI nailed the vectors on every single one.

Now.... if only it could nail the radar vectors on departure.  When you depart IFR and are not using a SID, all you get is "fly radar vectors to XXX (first waypoint)" ..... but no ATC actually gives you that vector!!!  They don't say "runway heading" they say "radar vectors".

Yesterday, after IFR departure and hand off to Departure ATC, I said "please advise radar vector".   The ATC replied "You're already on radar vectors".   😐   I just set a DTO and ATC didn't notice 😄

I really wish they could fix the radar vector departures in the same way they've nailed the approach vectors.

Radar vectors immediately upon departure are relatively unusual in Europe, usually out of small airfields that don’t have a SID such as Teesside or the Isle of Man. It’s a bit annoying but I just ask for ‘direct XXX’ and get cleared to the first waypoint. I agree that the arrival vectors work out well almost always. Sometimes you’re left a little high or the vectors are quite tight but that makes it more fun to me. I remember the days of FSX vectoring with 50nm finals that were absolutely pointless! 

12 minutes ago, bennyboy75 said:

Radar vectors immediately upon departure are relatively unusual in Europe, usually out of small airfields that don’t have a SID such as Teesside or the Isle of Man. It’s a bit annoying but I just ask for ‘direct XXX’ and get cleared to the first waypoint. I agree that the arrival vectors work out well almost always. Sometimes you’re left a little high or the vectors are quite tight but that makes it more fun to me. I remember the days of FSX vectoring with 50nm finals that were absolutely pointless! 

I fly out of Teesside, Newcastle and Fishburn in the real world 👍 Although I'm not instrument rated (NPPL).

Yes the SI approach vectors can leave you a little high - with the final ILS intercept heading and altitude requiring quite a descent! I agree, it's fun and a good challenge.  (And it can certainly happen that way IRL too).

I flew into Teeside in the sim just yesterday.  SI ATC kept me at 4,000 during the vectored 'downwind', then on the final turn for ILS intercept told me to get down to 2,000 - which I had to do pretty darn quickly!

Edited October 13, 2025Oct 13 by JYW

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@bennyboy75and @ConstVoid, thank you both for your feedback.

One question I didn’t ask was does your sim start you down before ToD where relevant such as when flying Airbus or Boeing? RC does so I initiate a 200fpm descent to keep it happy.

Does SI keep you at your cruise until the CDU indicates ToD? That was necessary in RC4 for the 40nm rule where you have to be at a required altitude / FL.

Ian, does SI know about different Transition Altitudes or does it treat the world as 18,000ft? If so, yuck! 🤮

I think this has been answered for you but SI seems to give a realistic TOD around the same time as the aircraft wants you to head down. A much earlier descent clearance is a good clue that your track miles will be somewhat less than you have in the procedure in the box. 

I only really fly in the UK, Europe and the Middle East so can’t give you a definite answer on how it handles things in the USA but usually you’ll be cleared down to the first restriction on the STAR and then you’ll be cleared further in good time to meet any further restrictions. I fly this in VNAV in a Boeing or managed in the Airbus to respect all the constraints on the way down.

If it’s a STAR that ends with you being spat out onto the approach it may just clear you to the platform altitude and for the ILS and leave you to it or in the case of a lot of UK procedures - Manchester being a good one - where the STAR ends way before the centre fix, you’ll be vectored towards it. I’ve always been very impressed with how it handles all this. BATC would often just give up at this point and send you off to the North Pole. 

Local transitions are respected but it can be a bit funky at times, for example I’ve been descended to a flight level and give a QNH, and similarly been descended to an altitude and not given one! Overall though it’s well worth it. 

6 minutes ago, JYW said:

I fly out of Teesside, Newcastle and Fishburn in the real world 👍 Although I'm not instrument rated (NPPL).

Yes the SI approach vectors can leave you a little high - with the final ILS intercept heading and altitude requiring quite a descent! I agree, it's fun and a good challenge.  (And it can certainly happen that way IRL too).

I flew into Teeside in the sim just yesterday.  SI ATC kept me at 4,000 during the vectored 'downwind', then on the final turn for ILS intercept told me to get down to 2,000 - which I had to do pretty darn quickly!

Agreed! I’ve never been unable to handle an approach given to me by SI, as you say in real life these things do happen. The one time I had a jumpseat ride (pre 9/11) was an 737-500 into Milan and I remember the crew getting very agitated at us being left very high on the vectors into Linate. I actually enjoy being kept on my toes in this way. You really have to think about the profile, speeds, energy management and all the other real world stuff as opposed to when you fly ‘offline’ as it were, you just pick a waypoint to aim for and set yourself up for the approach. It’s been a game changer for me in terms of immersion.

3 hours ago, bennyboy75 said:

If it’s a STAR that ends with you being spat out onto the approach it may just clear you to the platform altitude and for the ILS and leave you to it or in the case of a lot of UK procedures - Manchester being a good one - where the STAR ends way before the centre fix, you’ll be vectored towards it.

Comparing Manchester - my local airport - is interesting. On a flight up from Heathrow my cruise is around FL190. I have to be at FL120 40nm out placing me  close to TNT VOR.

I’m then given vectors initially direct to EGCC and cleared down to FL90. Then around 15nm out I’m instructed to fly the downwind leg - 053 - and cleared down to 3,500ft.

A left turn onto 330 then follows around 13 miles out with a final turn onto 270 for the ILS23R intercept. All these instructions cone from RC. At no point do I overfly DAYNE.

How does your approach for a similar flight compare?

Thec real life approach is overfly DAYNE followed by a right return to 360. Then there’s a single turn from 360 to 270 followed by the intercept on the localiser. Very different to RC but RC’s procedures cover pretty much all runways not surrounded by high ground. The chap who did the trig was a mathematical genius.

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

For those of you old enough to have used Radar Contact v4 what are your impressions of SI compared to that program now 20 years old?

I’m sure it does some things that weren’t available in RC but generally is SI an improvement?

RadarContact had one thing that SayIntentions is sorely missing: Your voice. 😉

10 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

And does phraseology match the area you're flying in? FAA for the US, ICAO for everywhere else? There are some significant differences.

BeyondATC does, SayIntentions not so much. In SI you see the first unrealistic discrepency in the way it hands out clearances. They are clearly FAA Clearances and you get them everywhere. With BeyondATC it makes a difference where you fly in what phraseology you get, whether you told to descend via a STAR or given step downs etc.

Edited October 13, 2025Oct 13 by Farlis

8 minutes ago, Farlis said:

RadarContact had one thing that SayIntentions is sorely missing: Your voice. 😉

🤣 Some would say that’s a good thing!

I would have expected all payware ATC programs to differentiate between the two systems. Then again we had two real life AT Controllers in the RC team so the phraseology was spot on for the time.

SaynotoAI

One nice thing about SI is it allows you to take a look at previous flights and here's how it handled a previous flight into EGCC:

Here I'm cleared for the descent by Dublin (perhaps a little later than the airspace boundary in real life - although the next communication was to handover to London)

I was then given further descent and vectors to MIRSI from WAL, which pretty much follows the path of the SID before being vectored around and cleared to the centre fix. All in all, this worked out nicely.