On the ground traffic side, what I notice most is how FSHud follows the airport configuration. When you set which runways are active, the departures and arrivals adjust their flow accordingly. The whole taxi and ground movement pattern changes too, not just which direction planes take off and land. That makes a big difference when you are doing offline IFR and want the environment to feel consistent. I keep the subscription mostly for that reason. The traffic around the airport just feels more connected to what you have configured, which matters when you fly the same routes regularly.

12 hours ago, UAL4life said:

... but their updates have dried up recently as well.

Yes, but that is often a sign that something big is on the way. FSHud_Admin has previously indicated that improvements to voice interaction, AKA "AI", is supposed to be the next thing on the roadmap.

That ground traffic question from jcomm is interesting. From what I have seen, FSHud does influence ground movement when the traffic add-on is active. When I set specific runways as active, the taxi routes and holding positions change accordingly. It is not perfect - I still see the occasional odd behavior near the gate - but the overall ground flow feels more connected to the airport configuration than what I get from standalone traffic injectors. The sequencing on approach is where I notice the biggest improvement though. For my late evening sessions with historical traffic loaded, the arrival patterns look pretty close to what you would expect during the busier period.

Those subscription concerns are fair. I've had moments where I questioned it too, especially when flying at smaller GA airports where the traffic density is low anyway. For the kind of offline IFR I do though, mostly at busier airports with the 737, the departure sequencing is what makes FSHud worth keeping around. The traffic flow actually adjusts when you change the airport configuration, and that makes the whole ATC handoff sequence feel more natural during climb-out. Not perfect for every use case, but for my typical session it does the job.

My personal chart for AI Traffic Flow in MSFS2024.

1. PSXT (lack of ATC option, which is not a secret at all). Other than that - it's unbeatable though some aesthetic issues inherently present. AIG must be present in your sim for best results. Not cheap.

2. BATC (well balanced ATC + best non PSXT traffic, including sequencing, runway configs, taxiways proper paths. Including is a live option, if you have Navigraph membership). AIG is mandatory

3. SI (the best ATC + slowly evoving AI traffic). Daily AI traffic updates still lead to nowhere, I don't see those long arrivals lines similar to BATC. AI kamidadze approaches sometimes are pretty much like it's FS2002, and yes FS2002. Not cheap.

4. FHUD - okeish and predictable, but very rudimentary. I have a feeling that potentially, their airport configurator would have work as a replacement for ADE that we had back in P3D days (and the folks from AIG forum think the same), but I see that still a lot of work ahead.
   
   Personally I think that SI has better potential, albeit their AI traffic mechanics is still in deep-deep Beta.
   
   And yes, you need AIG for the best outcomes for all 4 options. AIG is free, and thanks for all those saints who work there.

Edited Tuesday at 06:38 PM3 days by G-YMML1

That chart is a useful comparison. I would not call FSHud rudimentary exactly, but I get the point - it is more limited in scope than something like SIAI or BATC with their full ATC simulation. Where it works for me is the traffic flow around the airport itself. One thing I have not seen mentioned yet is how the turnaround cycle plays out at busier European hubs. When I fly low-cost routes into places like EGKK or EDDM with the 737, I notice that the arriving aircraft actually park, sit for a while, and then depart again later in the day. It is not just instant spawn and go, which makes the ramp feel less artificial during a typical short-haul turn. The subscription question really depends on the flying you do. For my regular 737 routes at major European airports, the difference in how traffic sequences and flows around the airport is noticeable enough to justify it. For GA at smaller fields, I can see why it might not be worth the extra cost.

That chart covers a lot of ground. I would not call FSHud rudimentary either, but I think the comparison depends on what you actually need from the tool. For my offline IFR sessions with the 737, the vectoring and separation behavior during climb-out is where FSHud tends to shine. The traffic actually sequences itself around the airport configuration in a way that feels coherent, and I have not seen that level of flow consistency from the other options I have tried. The airport configurator point is interesting too. I can see how it could grow into something more substantial, but even now it does a decent job of keeping departures and arrivals aligned with what you have set up. For the kind of flying I do at busier European airports, that predictability matters more than having every feature under the sun.

On 7/29/2026 at 8:23 AM, Andreas79 said:

That chart is a useful comparison. I would not call FSHud rudimentary exactly, but I get the point - it is more limited in scope than something like SIAI or BATC with their full ATC simulation. Where it works for me is the traffic flow around the airport itself. One thing I have not seen mentioned yet is how the turnaround cycle plays out at busier European hubs. When I fly low-cost routes into places like EGKK or EDDM with the 737, I notice that the arriving aircraft actually park, sit for a while, and then depart again later in the day. It is not just instant spawn and go, which makes the ramp feel less artificial during a typical short-haul turn. The subscription question really depends on the flying you do. For my regular 737 routes at major European airports, the difference in how traffic sequences and flows around the airport is noticeable enough to justify it. For GA at smaller fields, I can see why it might not be worth the extra cost.

I use BATC with FSTL for my Airliners . Wondering what everyone is using for GA and VFR flights ? FSHUD ??

For me FSHud is mainly an IFR tool. I fly the 737 almost exclusively, so I mostly notice what it does during approach and departure phases at busier European airports with historical traffic loaded for my evening sessions. The vectors and sequencing work well for that kind of offline IFR workflow. For VFR I can see it being useful if you want traffic around you, but at smaller GA fields the density might not be there to make the subscription worthwhile. Historical Flights is really what keeps me subscribed - loading earlier daytime traffic at a European hub makes the whole environment feel alive during a late night session. For pure GA or VFR flying though, other injectors might fit better.

That depends a lot on where you tend to fly. From my experience with the 737 at busier European airports, FSHud adds enough to the IFR side to justify keeping the subscription. The traffic flow during approaches and departures is genuinely better than what I have seen from standalone injectors, and the airport configuration control ties the whole environment together. For VFR at smaller airfields, I can see the value being thinner since the traffic density is not really there. One thing that has kept me around though is the voice side - the pronunciation has improved noticeably compared to older versions, and that matters during a longer IFR session where you are listening to ATC for most of the flight.

I see the predictable comment in the comparison above, and for my kind of flying that is actually one of the stronger points. When I do procedural approaches at smaller European airports with the 737, FSHud keeps the traffic behavior consistent through the whole descent without suddenly doing something unrealistic just to create variety. That matters more at regional fields where you are not getting full radar vectors from ATC. For busier airports the traffic flow is obviously more complex, but even there I have found the predictability helps me plan the approach phase better instead of reacting to random traffic movements around the field.

That predictability point is one I keep coming back to too. At busier European hubs the traffic flow during approach is complex enough that having consistent behavior instead of random movements actually helps with descent planning. With FSHud historical traffic loaded for my evening sessions, the arrival sequencing stays coherent all the way through, which matters when you are trying to manage a proper approach into a field like EDDM or LFPG during a simulated busy period. It is probably even more important at the smaller regional airports you mentioned, where you do not have full radar service sorting things out.

5 hours ago, Andreas79 said:

I see the predictable comment in the comparison above, and for my kind of flying that is actually one of the stronger points. When I do procedural approaches at smaller European airports with the 737, FSHud keeps the traffic behavior consistent through the whole descent without suddenly doing something unrealistic just to create variety. That matters more at regional fields where you are not getting full radar vectors from ATC. For busier airports the traffic flow is obviously more complex, but even there I have found the predictability helps me plan the approach phase better instead of reacting to random traffic movements around the field.

Expand to Edit