Thank you! buying now...

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

ICAO clearly states to not interpret it that way. 

"Pilot-interpreted Approaches (eg ILS) Phraseology

The phrase ‘cleared ILS approach runway xx’ has, in the past, introduced some ambiguity whereby pilots have taken this to mean they are cleared to the altitude/height depicted on the approach chart immediately prior to the final approach fix. This should not be assumed; normally clearances to descend at this point will be given distinctly. "

//ICAO Standard Phraseology,  A Quick Reference Guide for Commercial Air Transport Pilots.

From Page 155 of the same document:

"In the airport environment, the word ‘cleared’ shall only be used in connection with a clearance to take-off or land. To aid clarity, a take-off clearance will always be issued separately."

Since BATC clears for lineup and takeoff in the same instruction:

"Wind 040 at 3, runway 23L, lineup and cleared for takeoff".

So nope.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by techman

8 minutes ago, techman said:

"Wind 040 at 3, runway 23L, lineup and cleared for takeoff".

Was noted in the beta but ignored. IIRC the dev found it easier to program one instruction instead of adding a few possible ones. Also had to do (again IRCC) with FAA and ICAO differences.

1 hour ago, virtualstuff said:

Well I use Pro-ATC-SR and it has both and more 😎

I've been using pro-ATC for ages now and I'm looking for something to replace it with. It's a bit clunky, abandoned (which everybody knew was going to happen from day one) and after many flights the limited sets of voices so get a bit old. HOWEVER, it handles the "meat and potatoes" of ATC fairly well and allows a degree of flexibility when things go wrong or when real world procedures don't necessarily comply with the algorithm (e.g ask for a runway with taliwind). I considered FSHUD but I read in has performance/stutter issues and I don't see what it will improve upon ( I'm happy with default atc + aiflow/ AIground controlling AI).

At this point, BATC has nice voices but it lacks in core functions in comparison. I wonder if Radar Contact can work with MSFS. This program was made almost 20 years ago and I believe is freeware now. As far as core ATC goes its on par if not better than anything that's out there, just not sure about its MSFS compatibility.

9 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Was noted in the beta but ignored. IIRC the dev found it easier to program one instruction instead of adding a few possible ones. Also had to do (again IRCC) with FAA and ICAO differences.

It saved 0,000078 Premium-Characters 😄

8 minutes ago, techman said:

It saved 0,000078 Premium-Characters 😄

Well, actually, I think around 25 op 45 characters or so...! 😏 

BTW already people are starting to moan about ATC not understanding them or talking nonsense or giving too much instructions and of course all that extra talk costs you money with previous voices...! Curious to see how long people will keep on using them.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by tup61

It sometimes spews out gibberish, but all AI voices are prone to do that, it's not an issue with BATC.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

39 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Was noted in the beta but ignored. IIRC the dev found it easier to program one instruction instead of adding a few possible ones. Also had to do (again IRCC) with FAA and ICAO differences.

Which kind of is exactly what happend 20 years ago when ATC was first introduced into Microsoft Flightsimulator. They programmed FAA phraseology and ignored that this is just valid for the U.S. and not for the rest of the world.  Which gives you all kinds of headaches. Even down to the way callsigns are used. In FAA rules you can group, like 1634 can be called sixteen thirtyfour, but in the rest of the world under ICAO rules you have to name all numbers on their own as one, six, tree, four.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by Farlis

7 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Which kind of is exactly what happend 20 years ago when ATC was first introduced into Microsoft Flightsimulator. They programmed FAA phraseology and ignored that this is just valid for the U.S. and not for the rest of the world.  Which gives you all kinds of headaches. Even down to the way callsigns are used. In FAA rules you can group, like 1634 can be called sixteen fourteen, but in the rest of the world under ICAO rules you have to name all numbers on their own as one, six, tree, four.

Well, BATC does actually use FAA and ICAO phraseology where appropriate. But sometimes some FAA rules spilled over into ICAO and the other way around.

And btw even the beta FAA controllers had different views on certain things just like ICAO controllers didn't agree on everything. And lets not forget about the many local differences...

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by tup61

8 minutes ago, tup61 said:

.

And btw even the beta FAA controllers had different views on certain things just like ICAO controllers didn't agree on everything. And lets not forget about the many local differences...

I wasn't in the beta but this point is huge.  Even in one facility there are disagreements about what the rules actually mean, and how to say things.  I'm at my 3rd ATC facility and it's totally different than the other two hehe.  Different people different opinions.

7 hours ago, kiek said:

I have no ATPL license either but flown 1000 hours with the Level-D 767 at VATSIM. That helps a lot to learn the phrases that are used in ATC. Talking and listening to ATC is stressful in the beginning, so it helps if you are a bit used to it. You will not learn the right stuff from Beyond ATC I guess, that's why I recommend to work with human controllers at VATSIM first. They will help beginners like you better then BeyondATC.

Furthermore, VATSIM is free and it does a better job then Beyond ATC. At the route EHAM-EGLL there are controllers present most of the time. Speaking about immersion, thats the way to go.

 

until you have a person talking to ATC with a shouting wife or barking dog in the background 🙂 ( take this as a joke please )

Flew KMKE-KCVG in the PMDG 738. I thought it did well. They vectored me for a visual, but I got caught in Imc. So I transitioned to the ILS. I was using FSTL as well.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by Wojoglider

I do not follow the development info / threads on BATC Discord. Have one question, is there any indication regarding the traffic injection feature implementation timeline? Is 2024 release achievable, or should we expect 2025? Is there any rough estimate?

I did a few flights with Early Access BATC and quite liked it for what it does but I'm a bit surprised that BATC in its present state is in this thread discussed as an "Air Traffic Control" program. It controls my a/c, but that's all it does. All the other programs occasionally mentioned here try, with more and less success, to control my a/c in dependence of what other a/c around me are doing. In its present state BeyondATC should rather be named "BeforeATC". It doesn't do anything I cannot do with a Simbrief route, PMDG's FMC and the excellent Aivla Soft's EFB (unfortunately no longer available) in an otherwise empty sky. The proof of the pudding will come when BATC steers me through crowded air space, whether traffic will be generated by MSFS or by the ATC program itself. Venerable RC4 did just that: exemprarily controlling traffic generated by FSX or P3D. Unfortunaly it's not compatible with MSFS.

NB: Real life ATC was created when the airspace became so crowded that some strikt control was neccessary. Crowded airspace was and is its raison d'être. In an empty sky we don't need any.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by agutz

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

I've been using pro-ATC for ages now and I'm looking for something to replace it with. It's a bit clunky, abandoned (which everybody knew was going to happen from day one) and after many flights the limited sets of voices so get a bit old. HOWEVER, it handles the "meat and potatoes" of ATC fairly well and allows a degree of flexibility when things go wrong or when real world procedures don't necessarily comply with the algorithm (e.g ask for a runway with taliwind). I considered FSHUD but I read in has performance/stutter issues and I don't see what it will improve upon ( I'm happy with default atc + aiflow/ AIground controlling AI).

At this point, BATC has nice voices but it lacks in core functions in comparison. I wonder if Radar Contact can work with MSFS. This program was made almost 20 years ago and I believe is freeware now. As far as core ATC goes its on par if not better than anything that's out there, just not sure about its MSFS compatibility.

I agree but until know it's for me unfortunately the best option.
I have a large collection of ATC chatter files for the whole of Europe (per airports and CTR (Maastricht for example Eurocontrol) APP/CLR/CTR/DEP/GND/TWR)
which contribute to the immersion factor...
Updated the voice sets too but still one of the weak points...

I have FSHUD, but it's still heavy on FPS side of things.

So for the time being holding off because it doesn't offer more.