Just looking for some guidance re which I should get late 2025/early 2026? I’m leaning towards BATC as I do a lot of VFR flying (VFR support is of course incoming); but the recently-added airport config tool in FSHud looks to offer an impressive degree of control over runways and parking assignments. My local airport, EGCC, has two runways but one is only open at certain times and is used for either departures or arrivals depending on direction. I’m not sure if BATC can even accommodate this but it appears I could totally customise the airport in FSHud to exactly reflect real-world ops?
I believe both support typed commands rather than always having to use your voice and a headset?
I doubt the voices would bother me but I say that as a prospective customer with no experience of third-party ATC mods. I really like the idea of customising airports to exactly mirror real-world ops and it would appear FSHud now does this way better? I believe BATC uses empirical data to mimic reality but I don’t know to what extent that approach is effective? The upcoming VFR support for BATC is drawing me in but I also prioritise ops reflective of real life.
I have both installed, but use mainly BATC because it gives a more satisfying overall experience.
Both try to level up on airport operations. But BATC does create the ops schedules on user request, while FSHud relies fully on community effort. In my opinion BATC’s strategy will provide better and more consistent quality.
Support on discord is also better with BATC than FSHud. The BATC community is very active, while on FSHud discord sometimes it’s really quiet.
FSHud would gain much by having a Demo. Even SI had a time limited demo. As it is now I am happy with BATC but would be willing to give a demo a shot. I asked several times on their FB page but never got a reply so I guess it is low priority to sell new copies.
The overall package is best in BATC. Voices, ATC controlling, reliability, AI traffic etc. The user base is also huge (between at least 50000 to 100000 users allegedly), so it’s guaranteed to be continously developed at a steady pace.
Sort of off on a tangent here but I wonder what the user base of each is? Would you say BATC is the most popular?
I think I had already made my mind up long before starting this thread (mainly because there’s no subscription with BATC and VFR support is on the way) but I was seeking some more up-to-date advice now we’re almost in 2026.
Obviously there are some things both SI and FSHud will do better but I wanted to buy the one that most suited my preferences, since we all have different priorities.
It sounds like you’ve already spent time looking at BeyondATC, and that what you’re really comparing now is SayIntentions vs FSHud (at least based on what’s been said in this thread).
Not trying to advertise - just correcting a couple of things that keep getting repeated as facts.
One example is the claim that FSHud “relies fully on community effort” for airport ops.
That’s not really what the Airport Configuration Manager is about. The advantage is that you can adjust an airport yourself, and you don’t have to wait for a version update if something changes locally. Most users will set it once and forget it, but if there’s runway maintenance for a month (or local runway usage rules), you can change it in minutes and carry on.
Right now it already supports runway activation and runway activation logic (scoring plus weekly schedules). For example, you can run different rules for Mon–Fri 09:00–21:00, Mon–Fri 21:00–09:00, and Sat–Sun 09:00–23:00. Separately, you can also assign/modify airline codes on parking spots.
At the beginning of January we’re aiming to add procedure enable/disable with weekly schedules, usability by aircraft type/engine for parking/runways/procedures, and parking spot type/size editing.
Sharing configs via files is there for convenience (backup/share), and we’re also planning to ship more built-in “factory” airport configs over time so people have solid defaults out of the box.
On demos: I get why people want one, and you’re right that SayIntentions had a time-limited trial even though it’s cloud-based. We don’t currently offer a public demo/trial, but it’s not because we don’t care about new users - it’s simply the overhead. A trial program isn’t “flip a switch”; it needs ongoing work (support volume, abuse prevention, and maintenance). And on the Facebook point: we do read and reply there, so if someone didn’t get a response, it wasn’t intentional.
The editor was actually a community request for FSHud, since you won’t always get the correct runway logic built in. Not sure how long it takes for BATC to update those, but I for one like having that stuff fixed as soon as I can.
It definitely is, in part because it has better marketing than Hud and doesn’t require a sub for a basic version like SI, but also because it is quite robust and is constantly getting new features - like the recently added CPDLC, so it looks like a safe investment. And, since a ton of people are already using it, they are also there to suggest it, adding to the snowball’s momentum
I myself picked Hud because it was the only one at the time that allowed historical weather (via ActiveSky), and I’ve been satisfied so far. Got a few issues here and there, but I’ve never had to wait more than 24h for the dev to reply, and honestly the biggest issue I have with using it isn’t even a problem with the program itself, but with MSFS losing the callsign data with certain registrations and crashing the sim if a certain airport is in the flightplan. I would say it is worth a buy, though the difference between it and BATC is much slimmer than it used to be; therefore, get whichever you think will suit your needs better
I’ve already discounted SI as its cost over 12 months is far more than the one-time price of either BATC or FSHud. Both BATC and Hud seem to offer a more immersive experience but the lack of VFR support for Hud is a bit of an obstacle as I do a lot of GA/VFR flying.
Thanks to everyone for the helpful replies. I s’pose I could always buy both!
If you do a lot of GA/VFR, BATC is the best option of the two/three. It’s already likely the superior product, but the upcoming VFR capabilities should be the knockout punch here.
But that FSHud feature is really nice, maybe BATC will implement something similar in the future.
And should you decide to try FSHud after all, buying both will still be cheaper than three months of SI
Can’t really compare the two, but I use BATC and have confidence in that it will be continually improved - can’t wait for its VFR addition. I use EGCC quite a lot, as its my nearest major airport, and get frustrated that nothing that I use in MSFS (including addons), understands the working patterns of that airport. Hopefully, BATC will eventually get it bang on.
The first video (Airport Configuration Manager) available in audio translation to English.
Second video (Flight with PMDG 737) available in text translation.
There is detailed guide on how to use Translation in YouTube:
You can also find Airport Configuration Manager official guide:
And additional vidoes on official channel:
Easyjetpilot reviewed it 4 years ago - too much was changed after his review.
I got BATC and am over the moon with it (since it’s infinitely better than Asobo’s default ATC). But curiosity’s getting the better of me and I’m now tempted to buy FSHud too! I assume I can have both installed and just open whichever one I feel like using on any given day?
