6 minutes ago, haskell said:

This would be SO easy to implement. Just a button “Force Simbrief Runway Selection.”

Depending on the length of the flight, I'd rather it work like FSHUD, where I can choose the runway and star I want.

I can see on a long haul the airport flipping runways by the time I get there.

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

A better solution would be a way to select the desired runway out of a list of the runways, with a mouse click. 

This indeed. But I am a 100% certain this will be implemented in time. And I'm sure you won't even have to click a list if you prefer to just ask for it. BATC would be a rather word not allowed ATC addon without such a basic option, now wouldn't it...! 😉

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

This indeed. But I am a 100% certain this will be implemented in time. And I'm sure you won't even have to click a list if you prefer to just ask for it. BATC would be a rather word not allowed ATC addon without such a basic option, now wouldn't it...! 😉

Agreed. The BEST implementation:

BATC: “Cleared for the visual Runway 20”
ME: “Request runway 15”
BATC: “Cleared for the approach runway 15”

Stupid question about charts/radios in general: what exactly are these frequencies for ATIS and ground that are 2**.*? I can't tune anything outside of the 118-132 Hz range, so I'm clearly missing something.

Example: Jeppesen chart for Kanoya RJFY has ATIS: 246.8  and Ground: 236.8

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by Dermot McClusky

22 minutes ago, Dermot McClusky said:

Stupid question about charts/radios in general: what exactly are these frequencies for ATIS and ground that are 2**.*? I can't tune anything outside of the 118-132 Hz range, so I'm clearly missing something.

Example: Jeppesen chart for Kanoya RJFY has ATIS: 246.8  and Ground: 236.8

Since it's a military base, they might be in use by the military. Here is the allocation of frequency bands in Japan:

https://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/resource/e/search/myuse/use0303/30m.pdf

1 hour ago, mmcmah said:

Since it's a military base, they might be in use by the military. Here is the allocation of frequency bands in Japan:

https://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/resource/e/search/myuse/use0303/30m.pdf

Ah...I should have known that was the issue. Thanks.

As much as I like the immersion that BeyondATC provides, I just can't get approaches to work properly. Clearance, taxi, take-off and cruise are all just fine. Yesterday I did even get a descent clearance without declaring "ready for descent" first. So far so good. But then BeyondATC always messes up somewhere on the STAR.

Yesterday, on my flight to ENGM I was cleared down to FL090 which is also a constraint in the STAR (as far as I remember) but after that never heard from ATC again. Then I decided to descent at my own discretion because I was getting really high on the profile. Shortly after, ATC told me that I'm off course (which I wasn't) and cleared me direct to a waypoint which I had already passed. I then simply landed without further messing with ATC. I really hope that they get this fixed. As long as there is a STAR with no vectoring component (as the one I received yesterday), then it should really work...

Ouch... my two previous flights were (almost) perfect but my last flight was absolutely horrendous. BATC made a complete mess of the approach. It cleared me for the ILS while I still had some 90 miles to go by giving me a heading to the right which actually was a heading to the left (and hence in the wrong direction) and it told me to remain 2000 ft while I was still descending to FL090. And after that it kept silent... (just as carlitto777 experienced: I see he posted while I was typing).

Usually when BATC stays silent it has missed a waypoint so after a while I asked ATC to verify my next waypoint (something you really have to do on a regular basis... which really sucks) and sure enough: it told my I was flying towards a waypoint in the STAR I had already passed. So I restarted BATC and reconnected in mid air but that didn't help: it now told me I was going to a waypoint from the approach which was already behind me. Requesting a direct to another fix didn't work (as it never really does when you need it). In fact, BATC got stuck. I had to restart BATC three more times before it finally was with me again and told me to contact tower. Which cleared me for the landing while I wasn't even on the right course...

I completely agree with carlito777: somehow BATC is very immersive and when it works it's great but too often it totally ***** up things.

The way BATC screwed up my last approach was so bad that it makes you wonder if they will ever be able to fix it... I was simply flying published approaches (with a transition, which usually goes well) and even this BATC managed to make a mess of. If BATC can't even get the basics right now... Add to that all the problems with not being able to use quite a few airports due to bad data... The amount of bugs and problems posted on Discord is immense. And it's utterly useless to post something there because it is out of sight within a few minutes.

In short: BATC is great but also totally and utterly unreliable.

I didn't have enough time but restarted the flight with FSHud and immediately noticed that while BATC seemed to do a good job on thie first part of the flight FSHud did it better. First of all it gave me the initial altitude (which BATC doesn't do because they say it's more realistic if the SID shows an expected altitude but well... I like it when ATC tells me the initial altitude) but secondly FSHud kept the constraint in the SID (which has you flying at 4000 ft for quite a while) which is something BATC never ever does. BATC always ignores constraints in the SID. Now they always say that ATC is allowed to override constraints but imho that's just an easy way to brush away an ommission or bug in their software because BATC always overrides almost everything.

The same goes for bad altitude assignements: they always say 'You are the PIC' when BATC doesn't guide you well and that this is realistic but also here I do think that 'You are the PIC' is just an easy escape out because they have no clue how to solve it. You don't buy an ATC addon to tell it what to do: you want it to tell YOU what to do and reliable too.

BTW I prefer how FSHud tells you the STAR and approach including transition in one go and ON TIME. BATC often is way too late with this.

So will I stop using BATC and do I regret my purchase? No! 🙂 There is something about it I like a lot... but my next flights will be with FSHud because I can't stand the uncertainty that BATC comes with. Besides, I do like to have some traffic around me.

Would I recommend BATC to anyone? No! 🙂 Not if you simply want to fly and enjoy it. If you are totally into nice voices with accents and don't really care about reliable ATC then yes, I'd recommend BATC!

Now let's see how I think about all this tomorrow... LOL!!!

**Minor Update 1.0.30.EA**

```- Parking naming corrected to accurately represent prefix - number - suffix

 

- Improvements to requests for parking spots to match above naming and allow for example Gate 24 Left to be requested when Left or Right gates exist. This should significantly improve the ability to request the gate you want.

 

- Fix the issue where DECT based ATIS was not working if the windows username contained a space

 

- Reduce the low wind value in the airport ops files to improve runway to real life usage accuracy. Note - BATC always creates its own ATIS and runways in use - do not assume that by looking at a 3rd party source BATC will be exactly the same.

 

- Fix auto tuning for the Fly the Maddog aircraft

 

- Remove runway 35 from LPPT using airport ops definition as 3rd party sceneries still have the runway defined.

 

- Use a lookup table for aircraft metadata rather than relying on the sim to return correct data regarding aircraft wingspan etc```

18 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Ouch... my two previous flights were (almost) perfect but my last flight was absolutely horrendous. BATC made a complete mess of the approach. It cleared me for the ILS while I still had some 90 miles to go by giving me a heading to the right which actually was a heading to the left (and hence in the wrong direction) and it told me to remain 2000 ft while I was still descending to FL090. And after that it kept silent... (just as carlitto777 experienced: I see he posted while I was typing).

Usually when BATC stays silent it has missed a waypoint so after a while I asked ATC to verify my next waypoint (something you really have to do on a regular basis... which really sucks) and sure enough: it told my I was flying towards a waypoint in the STAR I had already passed. So I restarted BATC and reconnected in mid air but that didn't help: it now told me I was going to a waypoint from the approach which was already behind me. Requesting a direct to another fix didn't work (as it never really does when you need it). In fact, BATC got stuck. I had to restart BATC three more times before it finally was with me again and told me to contact tower. Which cleared me for the landing while I wasn't even on the right course...

I completely agree with carlito777: somehow BATC is very immersive and when it works it's great but too often it totally ***** up things.

The way BATC screwed up my last approach was so bad that it makes you wonder if they will ever be able to fix it... I was simply flying published approaches (with a transition, which usually goes well) and even this BATC managed to make a mess of. If BATC can't even get the basics right now... Add to that all the problems with not being able to use quite a few airports due to bad data... The amount of bugs and problems posted on Discord is immense. And it's utterly useless to post something there because it is out of sight within a few minutes.

In short: BATC is great but also totally and utterly unreliable.

I didn't have enough time but restarted the flight with FSHud and immediately noticed that while BATC seemed to do a good job on thie first part of the flight FSHud did it better. First of all it gave me the initial altitude (which BATC doesn't do because they say it's more realistic if the SID shows an expected altitude but well... I like it when ATC tells me the initial altitude) but secondly FSHud kept the constraint in the SID (which has you flying at 4000 ft for quite a while) which is something BATC never ever does. BATC always ignores constraints in the SID. Now they always say that ATC is allowed to override constraints but imho that's just an easy way to brush away an ommission or bug in their software because BATC always overrides almost everything.

The same goes for bad altitude assignements: they always say 'You are the PIC' when BATC doesn't guide you well and that this is realistic but also here I do think that 'You are the PIC' is just an easy escape out because they have no clue how to solve it. You don't buy an ATC addon to tell it what to do: you want it to tell YOU what to do and reliable too.

BTW I prefer how FSHud tells you the STAR and approach including transition in one go and ON TIME. BATC often is way too late with this.

So will I stop using BATC and do I regret my purchase? No! 🙂 There is something about it I like a lot... but my next flights will be with FSHud because I can't stand the uncertainty that BATC comes with. Besides, I do like to have some traffic around me.

Would I recommend BATC to anyone? No! 🙂 Not if you simply want to fly and enjoy it. If you are totally into nice voices with accents and don't really care about reliable ATC then yes, I'd recommend BATC!

Now let's see how I think about all this tomorrow... LOL!!!

I'm sorry but you got a lot of things wrong:

1) The approach was certainly a bug, but you should have always the option (when on arrival freq) to report established on final. So you could have flown the heading to intercept the final course and report established and you would have been sent over to tower. No need to restart.

2) I've done quite a lot of flights with BATC and not once did it mess up the approach yet. Could have been lucky, but calling it "totally and utterly unreliable" is a far shot. From what I've read on Discord (which by the way has by now as many people reporting their great flights as those reporting bugs... and as you know, people more likely come to report bugs than to report all is working) for most people it's working perfectly at least in 80% of the cases, which is pretty good for early access.
EDIT: The same for taxi instructions. Got perfect ones on 100% of my flights (using payware scenery only, that is).

3) You misunderstand ATC altitude clearances: It's NOT ATC's job to keep the altitude constraints, it's yours! If ATC tells you to climb to FL150, you *have* to keep all constraints on the way, the same for descent clearances. ATC's clearance is the "highest/lowest altitude allowed" if you will, for traffic reasons. It's *not* an override to the constraints. That's 100% true to real life by the way. And to Vatsim.
When they say on Discord "You are the PIC", they basically tell you that you have no idea how ATC works, because there are people that seriously think ATC can/should read your TOD marker on the PFD and give you a descent clearance when on top. Other people don't understand the difference between being cleared to an approach and being cleared for landing. That's not to be meant derogatory, it's just an observation: A lot of people are using BATC that are totally new in this business and it shows. I've yet to see a single case where they said "YOu are the PIC" and it was not a lack of understanding of the user how ATC works / what it does. And they are always explaining these things, it's not like they say "Go away and learn".

4) As others pointed out you seem to have a personal agenda since you left beta. I've seen you getting outright the last warning on Discord because of your behaviour. I understand that this influences your view on the product, so I'm not criticising you for this attitude, just pointing out. I can actually relate to that because I've had it happen with FSHud a year ago: I was thrown out of the forums and even had my (purchased) account for the product blocked, and all I did was poiting out the (huge) number of flaws. I still don't consider FSHud to be a viable product and have an aversion against their main dev, but I usually just stay silent when it's about FSHud in these forums, because I'd be only saying negative things because of what happened.


 

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by Fiorentoni

25 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I'm sorry but you got a lot of things wrong:

1) The approach was certainly a bug, but you should have always the option (when on arrival freq) to report established on final. So you could have flown the heading to intercept the final course and report established and you would have been sent over to tower. No need to restart.

2) I've done quite a lot of flights with BATC and not once did it mess up the approach yet. Could have been lucky, but calling it "totally and utterly unreliable" is a far shot. From what I've read on Discord (which by the way has by now as many people reporting their great flights as those reporting bugs... and as you know, people more likely come to report bugs than to report all is working) for most people it's working perfectly at least in 80% of the cases, which is pretty good for early access.
EDIT: The same for taxi instructions. Got perfect ones on 100% of my flights (using payware scenery only, that is).

3) You misunderstand ATC altitude clearances: It's NOT ATC's job to keep the altitude constraints, it's yours! If ATC tells you to climb to FL150, you *have* to keep all constraints on the way, the same for descent clearances. ATC's clearance is the "highest/lowest altitude allowed" if you will, for traffic reasons. It's *not* an override to the constraints. That's 100% true to real life by the way. And to Vatsim.
When they say on Discord "You are the PIC", they basically tell you that you have no idea how ATC works, because there are people that seriously think ATC can/should read your TOD marker on the PFD and give you a descent clearance when on top. Other people don't understand the difference between being cleared to an approach and being cleared for landing. That's not to be meant derogatory, it's just an observation: A lot of people are using BATC that are totally new in this business and it shows. I've yet to see a single case where they said "YOu are the PIC" and it was not a lack of understanding of the user how ATC works / what it does. And they are always explaining these things, it's not like they say "Go away and learn".

4) As others pointed out you seem to have a personal agenda since you left beta. I've seen you getting outright the last warning on Discord because of your behaviour. I understand that this influences your view on the product, so I'm not criticising you for this attitude, just pointing out. I can actually relate to that because I've had it happen with FSHud a year ago: I was thrown out of the forums and even had my (purchased) account for the product blocked, and all I did was poiting out the (huge) number of flaws. I still don't consider FSHud to be a viable product and have an aversion against their main dev, but I usually just stay silent when it's about FSHud in these forums, because I'd be only saying negative things because of what happened.


 

Fair enough! But that doesn't change the fact that I like to share my honest opinion and view at any given moment when I feel the need to do so. As I said: "Now let's see how I think about all this tomorrow.' 🙂 I meant that. Could well be I'll be praising BATC tomorrow once again.

People (and devs) shouldn't take everythin too serious... AVSIM and Discord (and similar places) would be utterly boring places if we would all agree on everything and if we all only said the right thing at the right time using the right words. People should enjoy a nice rant every now and then and move on. No harm done. I just like to type long posts every now and then and spit out my current (!) feelings and get everything off my chest.

Unfortunately not everyone sees the fun in that. 😉

BTW I do not agree with absolutely everything you say but that's no problem at all, of course!

EDIT BTW I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss everything I said and pointing out my (apparent) mistakes!

EDIT 2 And the reason I am saying this all there because I am free to do so over here. I wouldn't post the above on Discord (at least not this extensive) because even as a paying customer I fear they might ban me within no time LOL (Although I don't think they would ever block me from the purchases product as FSHus apparently did... Are you absolutely certain they did that on purpose...? That would be really bad...)

EDIT 3 And to get back to your actual points:

1. Good to know. That option is rather new and actually never really noticed it and certainly didn't know that using that would sent you to tower. So also when BATC missed a waypoint and has been silent for a long time?

2. Let's agree to disagree. Imho BATC simply and actually is very unreliable. You never know if an approach will work out well or be messed up completely. The latter just happens to often. But not only approaches: there are more problems than that.

3. Is that so...? I honestly didn't know about 'having' to keep constraints even if ATC tells you another altitude. You learn something everyday... I'll keep this one in mind. Perhaps other ATC addons made me think this wasn't so (because other addons often start nagging you if you don't fly to the assigned alt ASAP).

4. See the first part of this post. 😉

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by tup61

6 hours ago, Dermot McClusky said:

Stupid question about charts/radios in general: what exactly are these frequencies for ATIS and ground that are 2**.*? I can't tune anything outside of the 118-132 Hz range, so I'm clearly missing something.

Example: Jeppesen chart for Kanoya RJFY has ATIS: 246.8  and Ground: 236.8

These are UHF frequencies, which, as @mmcmah has already pointed out, are primarily used by military aircraft. If the airfield doesn't have VHF frequencies, then you're probably not welcome there as a civilian. 😉 I see on the charts that RJFY has a VHF tower frequency but no VHF frequencies for ground or ATIS. I assume the VHF tower frequency exists so that civilian aircraft can divert to RJFY in an emergency.

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

Fair enough! But that doesn't change the fact that I like to share my honest opinion and view at any given moment when I feel the need to do so. As I said: "Now let's see how I think about all this tomorrow.' 🙂 I meant that. Could well be I'll be praising BATC tomorrow once again.

People (and devs) shouldn't take everythin too serious... AVSIM and Discord (and similar places) would be utterly boring places if we would all agree on everything and if we all only said the right thing at the right time using the right words. People should enjoy a nice rant every now and then and move on. No harm done. I just like to type long posts every now and then and spit out my current (!) feelings and get everything off my chest.

Unfortunately not everyone sees the fun in that. 😉

BTW I do not agree with absolutely everything you say but that's no problem at all, of course!

EDIT BTW I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss everything I said and pointing out my (apparent) mistakes!

EDIT 2 And the reason I am saying this all there because I am free to do so over here. I wouldn't post the above on Discord (at least not this extensive) because even as a paying customer I fear they might ban me within no time LOL (Although I don't think they would ever block me from the purchases product as FSHus apparently did... Are you absolutely certain they did that on purpose...? That would be really bad...)

EDIT 3 And to get back to your actual points:

1. Good to know. That option is rather new and actually never really noticed it and certainly didn't know that using that would sent you to tower. So also when BATC missed a waypoint and has been silent for a long time?

2. Let's agree to disagree. Imho BATC simply and actually is very unreliable. You never know if an approach will work out well or be messed up completely. The latter just happens to often. But not only approaches: there are more problems than that.

3. Is that so...? I honestly didn't know about 'having' to keep constraints even if ATC tells you another altitude. You learn something everyday... I'll keep this one in mind. Perhaps other ATC addons made me think this wasn't so (because other addons often start nagging you if you don't fly to the assigned alt ASAP).

4. See the first part of this post. 😉

1. I don‘t know, it‘s available when you‘re on arrival frequency. It‘s a new addition in one of the latest updates.

2. I guess our experiences differ, so yes, let‘s agree to disagree here.

3. ATC *can* tell you to ignore restrictions, usually by adding something like „unrestricted climb“ or „climb now“. This happens mostly in the UK where there‘s a hard AT or BELOW  restriction on many SIDs, which however isn‘t necessary outside of the busy times of day. Mostly restrictions on SIDs are ABOVE (for terrain clearance), so no problem for ATC anyway. Of course when on vectors there are no waypoint restrictions, so all that matters is what ATC gives you.

10 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

1. I don‘t know, it‘s available when you‘re on arrival frequency. It‘s a new addition in one of the latest updates.

2. I guess our experiences differ, so yes, let‘s agree to disagree here.

3. ATC *can* tell you to ignore restrictions, usually by adding something like „unrestricted climb“ or „climb now“. This happens mostly in the UK where there‘s a hard AT or BELOW  restriction on many SIDs, which however isn‘t necessary outside of the busy times of day. Mostly restrictions on SIDs are ABOVE (for terrain clearance), so no problem for ATC anyway. Of course when on vectors there are no waypoint restrictions, so all that matters is what ATC gives you.

1. I will give it a try the next time!

2. 👍

3. Understood. BATC doesn't support that yet, I guess.

In the meantime I posted my findings on Discord: I think you'll appreciate my different tone of voice over there. 😉 

4 hours ago, tup61 said:

And it's utterly useless to post something there because it is out of sight within a few minutes.

Affirmative 👍