16 minutes ago, jon b said:

I think there’s still a long way to go with these AI ATC programs , but I think they’ll get to where they need to be very rapidly indeed

For sure, the tech is growing exponentially and at a rapid rate (check out ChatGPT connected Sora for example). It probably won't be very long, a matter of a couple or 3 years maybe, and there will most likely be programs that will make Vatsim almost obsolete in the sense that you'll have a choice between human or AI and the differences in interaction will be the exact same, the environment will be the only thing that separates them.

12 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

Well yes because the poster wrote "it’s miles better than the default ATC and feels like you’re talking to a human on VATSIM or on a radio."

If it feels like Vatsim then why pay 30 dollars for it when you could just use Vatsim? I thought maybe there was another reason for this rather than the obvious ones you have given.

Exactly, they are obvious because they are the explanation. Having the feel of Vatsim without having to deal with time pressure, human interaction, the rules of Vatsim and the pressure of being in a live airspace is absolutely amazing and well worth a measly 30 bucks.

Just imagine when we have an AI copilot in MSFS. 😎

Where you can literally ask them to do anything (within reason) in the cockpit.

"John, can you grab the weather for the destination please?  And could you set the approach up in the box?".

...and this is done, in complex airliners like the Fenix and PMDG.

I'd personally like that more than the AI ATC.     

But it's all good.

39 minutes ago, Sethos said:

without having to deal with human interaction

ok

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

$10 is just £7.80 in the UK, surely amazing value if the product takes a step forward in ATC realism.

Not happening, I'd stay with Pilot2ATC rather than take a subscription. Fortunately other alternatives are coming without a subscription element. 

G

One thing I hadn’t thought about before when comparing SayIntentions and BATC was the nature of the AI implementation. I was on the SI discord earlier today when it was mentioned that the controllers on BATC don’t appear to be true AI, whereas those in SI are. And by that, they meant that the responses you get from BATC will be scripted, but using AI generated voices, whereas those in SayIntentions are using an AI engine to generate the actual response, separate from the voice, so they are far more flexible. I don’t know if that’s true? (Or if anyone at this stage knows for sure what BATC’s implementation will be like).

But it got me thinking about my experiences with SI over the weekend, and what it was that made it so great was the intelligent responses to my issues such as my missed approach, the diversion or the mechanical failure (feel free to see my massively-too-long post about it in this forum). I had another flight yesterday where I couldn’t clear the icing from my C414, so requested a lower altitude. The controller followed it all up after a couple of clearances to descend by asking me to report if the icing had cleared at the lower altitude.

if BATC can’t do this kind of stuff, then I’ll very happily keep paying the SI subscription so that I can have ATC that does. 

9 hours ago, JYW said:

Income wasn't the key word in my quotation. residual was.

When we buy an addon aircraft, we pay once for that one product.   If the develop would like more funds from us, they develop a further product.

Residual income is where you pay a subscription, "forever" for something.   So 'Dev A' develops an ATC programme. And (unlike an aircraft or scenery addon), we keep paying monthly for it.

AFAIUI the subscription is to pay for fees outside of the base product.

2 hours ago, Redge said:

One thing I hadn’t thought about before when comparing SayIntentions and BATC was the nature of the AI implementation. I was on the SI discord earlier today when it was mentioned that the controllers on BATC don’t appear to be true AI, whereas those in SI are. And by that, they meant that the responses you get from BATC will be scripted, but using AI generated voices, whereas those in SayIntentions are using an AI engine to generate the actual response, separate from the voice, so they are far more flexible. I don’t know if that’s true? (Or if anyone at this stage knows for sure what BATC’s implementation will be like).

But it got me thinking about my experiences with SI over the weekend, and what it was that made it so great was the intelligent responses to my issues such as my missed approach, the diversion or the mechanical failure (feel free to see my massively-too-long post about it in this forum). I had another flight yesterday where I couldn’t clear the icing from my C414, so requested a lower altitude. The controller followed it all up after a couple of clearances to descend by asking me to report if the icing had cleared at the lower altitude.

if BATC can’t do this kind of stuff, then I’ll very happily keep paying the SI subscription so that I can have ATC that does. 

The first video released for BTAC had the controller getting upset at the pilot reading back incorrectly, but I guess that could be scripted.

Would also explain how BTAC can get away with a one time fee if they're not actually generating the dialogue on the fly since that would cost AI time just like the voices..

Edited March 7, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

13 hours ago, El Diablito said:

Well yes because the poster wrote "it’s miles better than the default ATC and feels like you’re talking to a human on VATSIM or on a radio."

If it feels like Vatsim then why pay 30 dollars for it when you could just use Vatsim? I thought maybe there was another reason for this rather than the obvious ones you have given.

I can see why GA users would like this and it certainly sounds like a better option than the stock atc in the sim.

All those reasons given are valid but the main reason is real simple.  I can fly whenever I want and wherever I want without having to worry about the VATSIM controller logging off or there not being any coverage to begin with and flying on an unrealistic Unicom frequency the whole time.  With this program I get the ATC experience without restriction.  To me that makes it worth it.  I also had not thought of the implications of true AI vs what BATC is implementing.

 SI truly uses the AI to generate responses to you like a person.  Tonight I had not heard any chatter for awhile and thought I had missed a frequency change.  So I asked and the controller said you’re still with me.  Then I said ok, well it’s really quiet on the frequency tonight so I wanted to make sure I had not missed it.  The AI controller replied with “it is a quiet night tonight but I hope you’re enjoying the peaceful quiet up there this evening”.

I've had a little go on the 24 hour trial.  Two possible dealbreakers for me.

Non interaction with AI traffic/fake AI callouts.  The whole point of ATC is surely traffic separation? 

There is also a big delay between when you make a call and when you hear anything back. Can be 20 seconds. This breaks immersion for me. I am on reasonable internet in the UK. 

It's an interesting space, but the large monthly subscription and the above make it a no from me at the moment.  

Edited March 8, 20242 yr by Langeveldt

Traffic injection will come, its beta.. 

On 3/7/2024 at 4:19 AM, thetford569 said:

SI truly uses the AI to generate responses to you like a person.  Tonight I had not heard any chatter for awhile and thought I had missed a frequency change.  So I asked and the controller said you’re still with me.  Then I said ok, well it’s really quiet on the frequency tonight so I wanted to make sure I had not missed it.  The AI controller replied with “it is a quiet night tonight but I hope you’re enjoying the peaceful quiet up there this evening”.

I did my first couple of flights with the demo of SI - really feels like you are communicating with humans!  At my destination airport I was asked to call midfield left hand, which I did.  The response was to 'extend downwind, I'll call your base'!  When on the ground I was asked to exit at Foxtrot and call ground.  I called ground clear of the active and requested taxi to Northgate Aviation - the AI controller recognized to FBO and gave me 'taxi to Northgate  via Foxtrot, Alpha, Echo'.

Well worth the subscription. As other have said, with services like VATSIM, you can often have no ATC, or ATC that goes offline on you.  With SI, every controller is there all the time.  I have tried Pilot2ATC and others, but found the experience poor.  SI makes the airspace feel real, with human like responses.

I also like having box 2 tuned to 123.45 - you get a commentary of ground features.  Flying from San Obispo to the North West I was told there was a castle 4 miles heading 335.  I was given the history of the castle and who owns it now!  to the west of Obispo, there are several hills/mounds - the AI informed me they were volcanic plugs.  Bird reserves, view points, towns, beaches are all announced and a history given. 

Edited March 8, 20242 yr by MrBitstFlyer

11 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

- the AI controller recognized to FBO and gave me 'taxi to Northgate  via Foxtrot, Alpha, Echo'.

Did the taxi clearance matched the real taxi layout of this airport or was it totally random as it was during the Beta? When I stopped being interested by SI (as a Beta tester), SI had no clue about what scenery you have installed, accurate or not, nor the real layout and relied on best guess (most of time totally non-sense).

Did you try not to reply to any communication in flight to simulate you don't recognize your call sign? Last time, I did it, SI forgot me 😉

Taxiways are not implemented yet. Also Traffic is not implemented yet. Both to come. 

IFR works, they are working on finetuning at the moment (like descent is not given on time etc.). But it reads the flightplan from simbrief, gets SIDs and STARS, and is following from Start to End. 

58 minutes ago, techman said:

Taxiways are not implemented yet.

I use Foreflight as my EFB - all taxiway routings have matched Foreflight airport diagrams so far.