Cloud Surfing

That 90/120 minute slider makes the tool a lot more useful for airliner flights, in my opinion. For PMDG/Fenix type flying I often want something short enough for an evening, but still long enough to feel like a proper IFR sector rather than a quick hop. One small filter that might be useful later is an airliner-friendly option, basically avoiding routes into very small strips or awkward airports when a heavier aircraft is selected. Even without that, it's already a nice idea.

From what I’ve seen so far, most of the examples are still Garmin-style glass rather than more complex airliner displays. I’d probably wait for a confirmed PMDG 737 report before relying on it for the PFD/ND, but if it handles those cleanly it gets a lot more interesting for me too.

I've had that happen a couple of times when GSX seems to keep stale SimBrief/turnaround state after arrival. What usually works for me is either re-importing the SimBrief flight after landing, or just not pre-selecting the arrival stand before departure and setting the gate once I'm actually on the ground at destination. If I lock the stand in too early, GSX sometimes seems to compare against the wrong airport and throws that mismatch message. If you're using turnaround mode, I'd also try clearing the active turnaround/services first and then calling progressive taxi again.

A one-week no-commitment trial is a sensible way to do it. For me the main test would be how it behaves in busy IFR arrival and departure banks with my own traffic models, because that is where these ATC tools usually separate themselves pretty quickly. If the trial lets people judge that with their normal setup, it should answer the real question better than any feature list.

If you only want pushback for GA right now, I honestly think GSX is a bit overkill just for that. I use GSX mainly because I also fly the 737 a lot, so for me the extra ground stuff and airport coverage make the price easier to justify. If your current use case is mostly the Bonanza and you do not care about servicing, I would probably try the cheaper or freeware route first and only move to GSX if you know you are going back to airliners regularly.

Same here on the immersion side. I can live with a generic accent a lot easier than a broken callsign, and QANTAS turning into CANDICE would definitely pull me out of it too. For me the actual vectoring and traffic handling still matter more overall, but better regional pronunciation would make the whole thing feel much more convincing.

For me the easiest way to tell is just to look in the Community folder and check whether the AIG OCI package actually has a sounds folder in it. If traffic is spawning but the airport still feels oddly quiet, that’s usually the first thing I check before assuming the injector is the problem. I only run AI Manager when I’m installing or updating. For normal flying it’s just the injector on its own. If Verify Setup keeps passing but you still have no ambience, I’d also try a quick test at a busy default airport with higher traffic density, just to rule out it being a low-traffic moment rather than a bad install.

For me GSX is still useful, but mostly for ground-side immersion rather than something I expect to be light. In 2024 I notice the hit more at heavier airports, especially once you already have extra traffic and scenery in the mix. If a flight is otherwise smooth and GSX is what tips it over, I usually just skip it for that session rather than chasing ten different tweaks.

I haven't seen anything credible for 2024 either. I'd be all over a good Cheyenne if somebody does one. Right now the closest substitutes for me are the Lear 35 when I want that older-school business jet feel, or the CJ4 if I want something more modern, but a proper Cheyenne would still be an instant buy.

Same here. I usually skip the cinematic promo videos and wait for a proper systems walkthrough or a cold-and-dark startup instead. That tells me a lot more than five minutes of dramatic camera cuts. If the airplane is good, it will still look good without all that fluff.

Nice to see this happen. I still use AIG mainly for the model coverage and airline schedules, so having a clean basepack again should make reinstalls a lot less painful. That alone is a pretty solid quality-of-life improvement.

I see the same thing here, and with Tobii it stands out even more because those tiny head movements keep the edges in motion all the time. For me the worst offenders are still power lines, fences and some distant roof edges. What helped a bit on my side was staying at native resolution and using DLAA instead of chasing more aggressive upscaling, but it definitely hasn’t eliminated it. It feels more like an edge handling / anti-aliasing weakness than a single bad setting.

In the PMDG I usually leave the arrival and approach unset until the runway picture is more settled, then load the STAR/approach when ATC gives me something usable. If you preload one runway and BATC changes it later, the cleaner fix is normally to replace the arrival from the DEP/ARR pages rather than just appending bits to the route. If it starts building a mess anyway, I just clear the bad legs and reselect the arrival instead of trying to salvage the whole sequence.

Good to see this moving forward. For me the scheduled traffic part is especially welcome, because that usually does a lot for making the world feel less generic on IFR flights. I still care more about how it behaves in day to day use than feature lists, but this looks like a genuinely useful step in the right direction.

Same here. This is exactly why I only use the marketplace for a pretty short whitelist now and buy most things elsewhere after a bit of research first. For AI traffic in particular I would not touch something like that anyway, I just run AIG on PC because at least I know what I am getting. A blacklist or hide-developer filter would honestly be a very sensible compromise if they are not going to police it properly.

I’m interested in this one, but I’m probably in the wait-and-see camp for now. For me the real test with a long-haul airliner in 2024 isn’t just the exterior model, it’s whether the FMS/VNAV side feels solid enough to fly a normal IFR leg without too many workarounds. If they get that part right, it could be a very good addition.

You're not the only one. In my experience with stock live traffic in 2024, pushback from gates has been pretty inconsistent. I still see a lot of taxiway spawns and gate pops or disappearances, especially once the airport gets busier. That's basically why I can live with the default live traffic for some airborne ambience, but I still don't really trust it for believable airport surface behaviour. If you already have AIG models and FSLTL statics in place, what you're seeing sounds more like current sim behaviour than something broken on your end.

That’s pretty much where I landed too. The default real-time traffic can look convincing enough in the air, but once the airport gets busy the lack of any quick traffic reset or nearby-aircraft cleanup becomes the real drawback for me, not the visuals. That’s why I still separate the two jobs in my own setup. For airline presence and model coverage I can live with AIG or better models on top of the sim traffic, but for the actual IFR flow I still prefer a dedicated ATC layer because the ground behavior and spacing are what break immersion first. If Asobo eventually gives the stock traffic better control on the ground, I think a lot more people would be happy to stay native. Right now it still feels like the eye candy has moved ahead of the logic.

For me the loss of FR24 makes it less appealing too, but I wouldn’t write it off completely yet. If they can get the airborne side working again, schedule-based traffic with decent model coverage can still be good enough for a lot of offline IFR flying. Right now though, if it’s only giving you parked traffic, I’d wait before rebuilding a setup around it.

If you mostly fly airliners, I think BATC can still make sense, but I would not look at it as a straight FSLTL replacement. For me they solve two different problems. BATC can still be enjoyable on a normal filed IFR flight where I mainly care about the ATC flow, spacing and vectors. But if what you really want is that broader sense of airport life and traffic around the world, I would still treat that as a separate traffic-layer decision. So if your expectation is replace FSLTL completely, I think you'll probably come away a bit disappointed. If your expectation is usable ATC for planned airline IFR flights, then I think it can still be worth it.

That is pretty much my issue too. BATC can look good when I fly a normal IFR sector with a proper SimBrief plan, but once I just want to load in somewhere and have believable airport traffic around me, it starts to feel too tied to the filed flight. That is where the value drops for me as well. I do not really mind historic rather than live traffic if the airport still feels active, but I do mind having to build the whole flight around SimBrief just to make the traffic layer come alive. For VFR or short hops that gets old quickly.

From what I’ve seen, default MSFS live traffic is still the weak link if accurate model matching matters to you. It can look decent at some airports, but once you know the airlines and routes the wrong models and liveries still stand out pretty quickly, even with AIG installed. Personally I treat it more as a fallback than something I’d build my whole traffic setup around. If visual live traffic is the main goal, PSXT still makes more sense to me. If the priority is having ATC actually manage the traffic picture, I still end up preferring AIG flightplans and models with FSHud instead.

Same here. For me it is not only that the lights are too bright, it is the way they bloom into oversized blobs and become harder to read at a glance on approach. In 2020 I found runway, taxiway and nav lights much easier to judge during an evening IFR flight. In 2024 I still get moments where the whole night picture feels less natural than it used to.

You're probably not doing anything wrong. From your screenshots it looks like the basic SimBrief route is just KJQF DCT PEGTE DCT KHKY, but FSHud is auto-building extra procedure legs around KER4, JOTTA, ALDOH and ZOMAR, then failing on the JOTTA segment. I'd try it in this order: 1. Import the route without SID, STAR or approach if possible. 2. If FSHud already added them, clear those procedure legs first and keep it as the simple direct route. 3. Check that your SimBrief navdata cycle and FSHud navdata match, because this kind of error often comes from procedure mismatches. 4. As a quick test, try rebuilding the same short hop directly inside FSHud and see if it still invents the extra legs. For a route that short, I'd personally keep it very simple and let ATC assign the departure or arrival later if needed. The main clue is that JOTTA isn't in your original route, so the problem looks more like procedure interpretation than a bad SimBrief import on your side.

If you're mainly an IFR/payware user, I'd just get Standard. That's the route I'd take now because most of my time ends up in PMDG/Fenix-type aircraft anyway, so the higher-tier bundles don't really change much for me. If one specific included aircraft really matters to you, then it can be worth it, but otherwise I'd keep the extra money for add-ons you'll actually use.