13 minutes ago, rutrA said:

Don't forget that now the community is testing this product and reporting bugs.  And the dev released TWO updates within 24 hours.

I know! I think I've become a bit sceptic after all my beta testing, haha! But when I see the same old bugs being reported (and even new ones appearing) I think 'If he can't solve these problems during all those weeks of beta testing, how can he solve them now?' During beta testing already I often thought the dev took on more than he can handle (also because he has no clue how ATC actually works, as he states himself all the time). But again, I really do hope he will find a way to make BATC work reliable. The interface and the idea behind it all is great so that's a start already, of course.

And btw... FSHud has similar problems with vectors being odd or off: it's not only BATC that's having problems. It shows how hard it is to create an ATC addon... Specially if you have no knowledge of the basics.

1 hour ago, tup61 said:

I am reading some good and honest reviews here. I do wonder though how long people will be saying 'it went well... despite a few problems'. The problems I am reading about I also encountered during the beta, nothing new here. And I also started off by saying 'it went rather well...' but after weeks and weeks of flights that didn't go well you stop saying that. I also warned the team when I noticed beta testers started to work around problems. Like Tuskin38 said: 'I've started ignoring it after the initial decent clearance'. A lot of beta testers got used to specific problems, learned how to work around them and then said 'BATC works well!' while it didn't. More and more beta testers started to report flights that were 'perfect' but they often were perfect because they learned how to prevent or avoid problems caused by BATC. I don't think paying customers will be as friendly as most beta testers were.

But well, we'll see how it goes. I am off to Discord now to see if there already is another payment method so I can give the EA a try myself.

Yes… but exactly the same happens for SI and FSHud. Both have recurring critical problems, that have to be workedaround regularly, and people just „adapt“ to it. And those two are out much longer, mind you.

17 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Yes… but exactly the same happens for SI and FSHud. Both have recurring critical problems, that have to be workedaround regularly, and people just „adapt“ to it. And those two are out much longer, mind you.

Totally agree. Which is why I mentioned FSHud in my post above yours (I have no experience with SI). I love FSHud, it's pretty reliable, but I often have to ignore what it says too! I have the feeling BATC can become better (a lot better) than FSHud which is why I am rather passionate about it, haha! (If that's how you say it.)

BTW Part of my frustration with BATC (during the beta) also came from the fact that the dev doesn't really know anything about ATC. It took a few weeks (!) to finally make it clear (with the help of one of the real world ICAO controllers) when and how ATC should tell you the expected approach plus transition. And still the phraseology is sometimes wrong or limited.

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by tup61

22 hours ago, techman said:

No problem paying for this. The dev was very clear about the functionality. He had a somehow stellar marketing campaign running and all this stuff, but after the discord-survey it was pretty clear what you will get for your money. The "installation as admin" is a clear problem though.

So at the end - he did a lot of work in advance and now he has to make some money - no problem with that. Nobody of us is working for nothing.

This is a somewhat cryptic comment for those of us not on the Discord for this product.

Hello

Is it possible to install batc on a network laptop? I watch some vidéos and it seem not

 

Few questions:

Can I initialize descent or am I at the mercy of the programs vnav calculation? can I request an alternate runway or procedure even if won't follow wind direction?

1 minute ago, grandfred29 said:

Hello

Is it possible to install batc on a network laptop? I watch some vidéos and it seem not

 

No, not possible.

Just now, ha5mvo said:

Few questions:

Can I initialize descent or am I at the mercy of the programs vnav calculation? can I request an alternate runway or procedure even if won't follow wind direction?

Usually you can tell ATC you want to descent: you do not have to wait until ATC tells you to descent. You can't request alternates in any way.

13 hours ago, Danno said:

Just for clarity, there is still AI in the game if using BATC?  And the usual default MSFS controllers communicate back and forth with them?  That’s what I’m thinking is happening reading these posts. If so, that’s ok with me but wondering if BATC and default traffic sometimes talk over one another because one doesn’t know the other exists. 
 

You can use FSLTL in the background and you get AI separately.  But without any interaction or control by the actual ATC it's a no from me until they can get that sorted (and I know theyve been totally transparent about this in EA)

10 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

I've started ignoring it after the initial decent clearance and just following the flight plan down, ATC does not yell at you if you do that.

Interesting suggestion!

I've done one flight so far, from EDDF to EDDB. ATC left me insanely high on the approach -- at 20 miles out, I was still at FL 240! Part of this was probably because my Simbrief flight plan included one of the "transitions to final" that are common in Germany and include a long downwind leg (which in reality almost always receives a large shortcut):

https://aip.dfs.de/BasicIFR/2024APR18/pages/9ED4D75B3EF47C44F00BD8B567960312.html

Despite my pleading for a lower level, BeyondATC insisted that it couldn't clear me lower. The approach controller initially gave me a small descent to FL 210, and then finally directly down to 3000 feet from there. BeyondATC did have me fly the whole transition, and with speedbrake between FL 210 and FL 100, I was able to get back on profile. This was obviously pretty unrealistic though in that ATC should never keep you that high, and they should also usually give a shortcut. (As I was the only aircraft as far as BeyondATC is concerned, I think it would have been realistic to receive something like "after DB462, proceed direct DB452".)

Simply descending at own discretion in violation of the clearance is obviously a workaround (and one that I'll start using). But a simple fix that would make this slightly more realistic is if BeyondATC always honored all requests for a lower level. Then if BeyondATC doesn't get the descent right, we would be able to nudge it in the right direction. (And again, a real-world controller who is controlling only one aircraft would always honor all requests for a lower level as long as they are not below the MRVA -- so this would actually in that sense also be more realistic than stating "unable lower level".)

It may be a while before BeyondATC learns to give shortcuts, but in the meantime, it would be nice to be able to request shortcuts and have them always be honored (maybe with the restriction that the requested waypoint is in the current controller's sector). Until this is possible, I may try to work around this by not adding a "transition to final" in Simbrief (which I hope would then cause BeyondATC to vector me onto final).

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by martinboehme

53 minutes ago, tup61 said:

During beta testing already I often thought the dev took on more than he can handle (also because he has no clue how ATC actually works, as he states himself all the time). But again, I really do hope he will find a way to make BATC work reliable. The interface and the idea behind it all is great so that's a start already, of course.

This is my hope too. They do seem to be passionate and receptive to input -- I'm hoping they'll also be able to deliver changes based on that input.

I suspect controlling AI will turn out to be a big challenge. It's not easy to set up a final sequence at a busy airport so you've got a "string of pearls" on final, and I think it will be a challenge to do this algorithmically. I think realistically we'll have to live with AI aircraft that bust the minimum separation on final. If they can even inject AI and keep traffic flowing somewhat believably in this situation, I'll be satisfied.

13 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I’m very glad I chose to just jump into it though, as it was extremely immersive. Even at the end of the flight I was already a lot more comfortable. It does add to the workload though, and after all we’re flying airliners meant for two pilots, managing everything ourselves. My newly acquired miniFCU did help a lot with reducing the workload.

Anyway, here’s my 5 cents after the first flight:

I've watched only the first few minutes of this flight, but already noticed a flaw.

At Schiphol airport you have to switch to the departure frequency yourself when passing 2000 ft and report that to the Departure Controller. Beyond ATC Tower instructed you to switch, which is wrong.

Beyond ATC did not know that (of course) and I doubt it will use the right procedure at all airports world wide...

Edited May 6, 20242 yr by kiek

54 minutes ago, Tierborn said:

This is a somewhat cryptic comment for those of us not on the Discord for this product.

I wasn´t until yesterday so what are you even talking about? Do a quick search on BATC threads here and you will have all information in a minute.

6 minutes ago, kiek said:

I've watched only the first few minutes of this flight, but already noticed a flaw.

At Schiphol airport you have to switch to the departure frequency yourself when passing 2000 ft and report that to the Departure Controller. Beyond ATC Tower instructed you to switch, which is wrong.

Beyond ATC did not know that (of course) and I doubt it will use the right procedure at all airports world wide...

I think that would be too much to expect, as there much be thousands of different local variations. 

There might have been other flaws during my flight, but to be honest I don’t have enough knowledge of ATC to know for sure. I was cleared for the Lambourne transition to 09L into Heathrow, but never got a descent clearance from 7000ft IIRC. Because of this I had to declare a missed approach. In hindsight I was wondering if somewhere within the ATC instructions, it was implied that I should descend to, say 3000ft. 

7 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think that would be too much to expect, as there much be thousands of different local variations. 

There might have been other flaws during my flight, but to be honest I don’t have enough knowledge of ATC to know for sure. I was cleared for the Lambourne transition to 09L into Heathrow, but never got a descent clearance from 7000ft IIRC. Because of this I had to declare a missed approach. In hindsight I was wondering if somewhere within the ATC instructions, it was implied that I should descend to, say 3000ft. 

Were you „cleared for the ILS“? This implies the descent to the altitude of the FAF.