BeyondATC Released (EA)

[Andrew2448 252]

19 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

BATC bases runways on weather AND preferential runway data. You might want to post the offending airport on Discord, it will be taken into the database and you'll never again get the tiny crossing runway in those situations. Database already has many airports. What airport was it in your case? It either has no data for it yet or it's simply a bug in the calculation. Either way it's worth reporting it on Discord.

Yeah I know about their manual airport system. From what I've seen in discussion on the discord their special operations is only applying for <5-8 knot low wind conditions which really doesn't cover all of these situations. And there is no differentiation for aircraft type which can play a factor in runway assignment. I'm not feeling too confident that their plan of manually updating airports with a limited amount of information is really going to solve this. And with users not having the ability to see what airports have these special operations already implemented it's just a giant logistical mess. Using the simbrief data that is already available, as it's a requirement to use the program, and which has already done the hard work of pulling from real world data where possible seems like a better solution in my opinion. I hope they can something out that ends up giving more realistic assignments all around. 

 

For example, the latest one was KMSP, winds 230/11. BATC chose 22, a crossing runway, but real life operations are running 30L/30R and that's what simbrief gives you. Their low wind special operations would not apply in this situation.

Yesterday I was given a runway completely opposite to the wind condition at KPHX. It was winds 070/8 and BATC assigned 25L when real life is running 07R/8. That one really cannot be explained.

The other day someone in their discord in an A320 was given runway 4 at KDCA (5000 feet), which as far as I know would never happen in real life. They'd given you 1 (7000 feet, the longest runway available).

Edited May 12 by Andrew2448

[Fiorentoni 4,418]

1 minute ago, Andrew2448 said:

Yeah I know about their manual airport system. From what I've seen in discussion on the discord their special operations is only applying for <5-8 knot low wind conditions which really doesn't cover all of these situations. And there is no differentiation for aircraft type which can play a factor in runway assignment. I'm not feeling too confident that their plan of manually updating airports with a limited amount of information is really going to solve this. And with users not having the ability to see what airports have these special operations already implemented it's just a giant logistical mess. Using the simbrief data that is already available, as it's a requirement to use the program, and which has already done the hard work of pulling from real world data where possible seems like a better solution in my opinion. I hope they can something out that ends up giving more realistic assignments all around. 

It's not that hard. Preferential runways are available in the charts within Navigraph. As long as those match with the database, it's basically just like in real life.
Using the simbrief data is not possible, because Simbrief data is created at the planning state. What if wind changes?

Oh and aircraft type *is* considered for the assignment (via the Simbrief IATA type, mostly for what's the minimum runway requirement for the type).

 

[Andrew2448 252]

25 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Using the simbrief data is not possible, because Simbrief data is created at the planning state. What if wind changes?
 

Ok I should clarify what I meant by that. I think BATC should chose it's departure flow direction from your simbrief runway because that is up to date weather and what you will depart with (I've also had it choose opposite to real life on departure).

For landing, I think it should start with your simbrief runway because that is accurate to current weather conditions and almost always accurate to real world ATIS/current real world operations. If you check the logs, BATC is making these nonsensical runway assignments when it first loads, pulling the same current weather data that simbrief is using. If winds don't change much over your flight duration then great, you've still got a nice accurate runway choice from simbrief that has a high likelihood of matching real world ops. If winds change appreciably then BATC can run their own calculations and switch the runway mid flight, but I'd argue the vast majority of people are running 1-3 hour flights where the chance of major wind shifts are low so this would not happen often. If they did it this way I'd bet 90% of the runway selection complaints would disappear. Obviously none of this applies to long haul flyers.

I fully recognize and can appreciate the difficulty of solving this problem. I just don't think their current path of relying on discord threads of 100+ posts where you can't be sure your specific airport suggestions were ever acknowledged or implemented manually into the program is the best direction to go when simbrief does 90% of the hard work for you and will work in the vast majority of situation. 

Edited May 12 by Andrew2448

[Fiorentoni 4,418]

3 minutes ago, Andrew2448 said:

I fully recognize and can appreciate the difficulty of solving this problem. I just don't think their current path of relying on discord threads of 100+ posts where you can't be sure your specific airport suggestions were ever acknowledged or implemented manually into the program is the best direction to go when simbrief does 90% of the hard work for you and will work in the vast majority of situation. 

Simbrief has much less data about preferential runways than BATC already has now. E.g. yesterday Simbrief gave me 10L for EIDW with a headwind of 7 kts. In real life according to the charts (and what BATC correctly did) 28L/R is used up to 10kts of tailwind.

[haskell 307]

The runway issue is so easily fixed. Either: add add “force arrival runway” choice like Pilot2ATC has or, even better, just allow “request runway 27L” option (like IRL.)

I got assigned a crossing grass runway on a small airport. With BATC your only option is to end the software if it gives you a runway you can’t use. 

[Fiorentoni 4,418]

19 minutes ago, haskell said:

The runway issue is so easily fixed. Either: add add “force arrival runway” choice like Pilot2ATC has or, even better, just allow “request runway 27L” option (like IRL.)

I got assigned a crossing grass runway on a small airport. With BATC your only option is to end the software if it gives you a runway you can’t use. 

Sure, there needs to be a backup for those cases. I'd say anyone agrees on that, and from what I've read, the devs are already working on it.

[Farlis 2,323]

57 minutes ago, haskell said:

The runway issue is so easily fixed. Either: add add “force arrival runway” choice like Pilot2ATC has or, even better, just allow “request runway 27L” option (like IRL.)

I got assigned a crossing grass runway on a small airport. With BATC your only option is to end the software if it gives you a runway you can’t use. 

Indeed. At the stage where you get the "expect Runway X" you should be able to say "Negative, requesting Y instead" or "Can we get Y instead?"

And at the current state with no Traffic around BeyondATC should always grant that request. Only in later stages when there is also traffic around it can account for operational reasons to deny a request for a Runway in the opposite direction.

Edited May 12 by Farlis

[thepilot 595]

Even in its current state this addon is brilliant already. I did a quick flight from Kefalonia to Athens tonight, and even got cleared for the backtrack before calling ready for departure. This option didn't even exist in FS9/X/P3D. I have been watching some of the Aegean/Olympic justplanes program lately and the Greek premium voices were unbelievably realistic. It was a simple A to B flight for sure, but give BATC one or two more years of development and it will be the real deal.

Edited May 12 by thepilot

[Ron Lefebvre 127]

Well it was fun to try out, but going back to FSHud.

 

[Langeveldt 294]

10 minutes ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Well it was fun to try out, but going back to FSHud.

 

Yep, me too..  Good luck to them, and it is fun, but until it can control or even advise of AI aircraft then it's not really an ATC.  And if the skies are empty, then who needs ATC anyway?  Just load the simbrief flight plan into your FMS.  Glad to support the project though.  

[motishow 132]

14 minutes ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Well it was fun to try out, but going back to FSHud.

 

yes, this is a joke compared to fshud........... no control of ia , and a lot of airports doesn't exist in beyondtoatc when you import a FP from simbrief 🙂 

[Fiorentoni 4,418]

14 minutes ago, motishow said:

 a lot of airports doesn't exist in beyondtoatc when you import a FP from simbrief 🙂 

Like which ones please?

[motishow 132]

2 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Like which ones please?

PAJN  for eixample

[Tuskin38 6,645]

30 minutes ago, motishow said:

no control of ia

AI injection is coming in the future.

Edited May 12 by Tuskin38

[motishow 132]

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

AI injection is coming in the future.

then I will try in the future