2 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Obviously FSHud has no such issues because it controls AI traffic.

FSHud has issues with basically everything else. Apparently people see a lot more in this not even yet released BeyondATC - which does not control traffic - than in the already available FSHud - which does control traffic. I think that says a lot about FSHud. I mean it's like there's a reason people are e.g. still flying more the PMDG 737 than the LatinVFR A321neo, even though the latter has an EFB.

51 minutes ago, Sethos said:

The very foundation and reason why B-ATC was even conceived was clearly the rise of more natural sounding AI voices and a desire to have a more natural sounding environment, which all the other ATCs completely fail at. Not to just have ATC program

"sounds" like a brilliant idea to waste everyone's time / money etc. with no regard for integrity ..... ps in the "real" i always understood the core message despite static / accent / expectations

3 minutes ago, vadriver said:

"sounds" like a brilliant idea to waste everyone's time / money etc. with no regard for integrity

What a loaded post, integrity? Wasting everyone's time? Give me a break. That is the sort of rhetoric used for calling out scam artists. They are showing off exactly what their software contains and are very transparent about development, no need for bombastic, dismissive posts like that. 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Sethos

Yeah, worrying.  It's one thing not controlling AI traffic, but then surely clearances when there is AI traffic around have to be taken care of, otherwise we may as well not bother right?  Even the default ATC, for all it's jankiness, will not take two aircraft off on the same runway at the same time.  

5 minutes ago, Langeveldt said:

Even the default ATC

but it's because of the voices ................

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

So at release it will be good to learn communicating with ATC in a realistic fashion and will give you some illusion of interactivity. More like an "ATT" "Air Traffic Talk"-Program instead of an "ATC" program.

If you look at it this way I completely agree.

But then it just is not an ATC addon but something else we haven't had before, an Air Traffic Talk addon like you legitimately call it. And seen as that it will be great.

To be considered a serious ATC addon however it would at least have to be able to keep the user clear of AI traffic (which is not the same as controlling AI traffic).

 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by RALF9636

Peculiar the direction this thread took. People showing up with a history of in the last few months, only posting in a competitor ATC addon subforum or posting about it, using a competitive sim and making absolutely dismissive posts in here and select individuals keep repeating the same point like they just announced AI control is never coming -- Despite them having announced AI awareness and control is absolutely planned. I repeat, they have announced it's coming yet that point seems to fly completely over some people's heads 🤔 It's starting to smell like an agenda.

5 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Peculiar the direction this thread took. People showing up with a history of in the last few months, only posting in a competitor ATC addon subforum or posting about it, using a competitive sim and making absolutely dismissive posts in here and select individuals keep repeating the same point like they just announced AI control is never coming -- Despite them having announced AI awareness and control is absolutely planned. I repeat, they have announced it's coming yet that point seems to fly completely over some people's heads 🤔 It's starting to smell like an agenda.

 

It's disappointing though, as everything else looks superb and polished, that we will have to wait years, and not months, not to be routed straight into a tubeliner. It's 2023, MSFS has been out for years, and we are struggling with base level AI awareness? 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Langeveldt

Just now, Langeveldt said:

It's disappointing though, as everything else looks superb and polished, that we will have to wait years, and not months, not to be routed straight into a tubeliner. 

But what is disappointing? It's not released! It's not even slated for release this year, they have plenty of time to add features and polish what they have, to add literally what you people are asking for, what is the problem? I'm completely baffled.

2 minutes ago, Sethos said:

But what is disappointing? It's not released! It's not even slated for release this year, they have plenty of time to add features and polish what they have, to add literally what you people are asking for, what is the problem? I'm completely baffled.

Like I said, the fact decent AI and ATC are years away, and not months.  But hey, voices!  

2 minutes ago, Langeveldt said:

Like I said, the fact decent AI and ATC are years away, and not months.  But hey, voices!  

Seems like you are conflating the platform's drawbacks and what every other ATC has failed to do and somehow decide to dump that blame on B-ATC, because they are trying to do exactly what you are asking for yet complain because you can't have it right now, which sounds more like immature impatience more than anything else.

4 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Seems like you are conflating the platform's drawbacks and what every other ATC has failed to do and somehow decide to dump that blame on B-ATC, because they are trying to do exactly what you are asking for yet complain because you can't have it right now, which sounds more like immature impatience more than anything else.

I don't really care what it sounds like!  

Absolutely not on here looking for likes.  

Anyway back to the subject matter. 

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Langeveldt

*SIGH*

This "conversation" has started to circle... 

Personally I really look forward to Beyond-ATC! It's still (very much) a work in progress, and the developers have very much acknowledged that. It has huge potential, and the possibility of having natural sounding ATC communications (which is not Vatsim) is - for me personally - a long awaited addition.

6 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Getting a different runway than AI traffic is one thing. It can be considered acceptable - as long as ATC takes care of a proper separation.

But two aircraft cleared for takeoff on opposite runways at the same time is something else. It is not acceptable.

I have been using PF3 for years and currently use FSHud. Obviously FSHud has no such issues because it controls AI traffic. But also with PF3 I never experienced such an issue. PF3 takes into account the runway in use by AI traffic and assigns that runway to the user as well. If the user insists on using the opposite runway PF3 allows that but takes care of proper separation. PF3 won't give takeoff clearance when there is AI traffic ready for departure on the opposite runway.

So not controlling AI traffic is no excuse for not taking AI traffic into account at all. Other ATC addons do better in this regard.

 

PF3 also won't give you takeoff clearance when an aircraft is on approach for the active runway. 

-delete-

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Tuskin38