5 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

So that means, I'm also allowed to descent at my discretion in order to intercept the localizer and glideslope? I'm asking, because today I did get a "cleared ILS 06" from ATC but was never cleared to descent further. Never heard from ATC again until I decided to descend without clearance to intercept the ILS. This was confusing to me, because I would have expected to get further clearances to descend down to the FAF.

Yes and no. Yes if you can intercept the glideslope from your current altitude. No if you can't. Being "cleared" for an approach without any further information means you are cleared to intercept the localizer and glideslope. Most ATC tools in the sims seem to have modelled it to be an automatic clearance to do whatever necessary to intercept, even descend on your own discretion. In most cases you should be able to intercept the localizer and the glideslope from quite above the altitude of the FAF, so you shouldn't have to descent manually anyway in those cases.
Don't forget to call in "Established on final" if ATC does not hand you off to tower after the interception.

Did 2 flights today. EGLL - EGAA and then EGAA - EGPH. I got vectored to the ILS both times and everything worked well. Also altitude instructions were correct (or at least feasible). On the second flight I was first cleared for a STAR, then approach changed its mind and vectored me in. That was pretty cool as it saved me quite some time. BATC is great when everything works. 

4 minutes ago, Shack95 said:

Did 2 flights today. EGLL - EGAA and then EGAA - EGPH. I got vectored to the ILS both times and everything worked well. Also altitude instructions seemed okay. On the second flight I was first cleared for a STAR, then approach changed its mind and vectored me in. That was pretty cool as it saved me quite some time. BATC is great when everything works. 

 

Minor Update 1.0.26.EA

 

- Added Upgrade to Supporter's Pack option for anyone that has the base product and wishes to upgrade for only half the price.

- Added ability to call established on an ILS approach.

- Added the active runway as a UI info box to IFR clearances, even if it is procedure not to speak the active departure runway in the clearance.

- Continued fixes for speech regcognition with a focus on "Runway Niner Right" and "Niner".

- Many voice tweaks; added more Premium Voices.

- Added new auto-Respond Character AUS Male.

- Fix for a crash entering the options menu.

- More fixes for crashes when binding buttons from a non-US keyboard.

Some problems I have after 10 flights or so.

- I really really dont like that I cant ask for a different runway or different aproach . I thought that wont be a problem but it really is. And I dont understant why, even the default ATC let you chose those if you really want.

- If I try to request engine start and only engine start I`m getting a cleared to align or backtrack the runway, I have no idea why.

-When its asking you to call when ready to descent and you confirm will call when ready to descent the AI will interpret that you are ready to descent and give you a lower altitude. On the same note, if you asked by mistake (like me pressing first option when in climb) for descent the whole flight is bricked. I was 500 miles away of my destination in climb and asked for descent. From there all I was getting was a heading and a lower altitude. Had to fly offline rest of the way.

-you ask for descent once and thats it. You cant ask again even if you are at the asigned altitude, you need to wait until you get further descent even if that is way late.

-I got a visual approach and because I couldnt find the airport fast the ATC activated missed approach and even if by then I had runway in sight and was ready to land I couldnt tell that and had to go around.

-Some of the time is a really good idea to omit saying your callsign. If I`m getting a new frequency just saying my callsign at the end lower the chance of being understood by 50%. If I readback only the frequency no problem almost every time.

I`m kinda dissapointed because I feel that the state of the program now is in no way ready to launch. And I`m only speaking about the IFR part not traffic. IFR aproach has maybe a 50% chance of going okey and they said that part is mostly done and in 2-4 months will have traffic. Yeah, not gonna happen. Maybe in a year will have traffic if they will fix the current problems with approach and vectoring. I`m almost certain that they run out of money and they need to lauch something asap whatever the state. The poll was only to have an excuse when people will complain about the multiple bugs and missing features.

Just flew RJFS to RJFY and it went really smooth. Good vectors into the ILS. I used the auto-reply feature mostly as the Japanese accents are SO strong, it's hard to understand a lot of what they say. Still fun for the immersion, though. 

1 hour ago, Tva said:

I`m kinda dissapointed because I feel that the state of the program now is in no way ready to launch. 

Boy, I'm with you! They should have told you outright it would be incomplete and buggy. In fact, they should have had a statement in writing with a giant font and a voice that reads the entire statement out loud telling us it would be buggy and incomplete before we bought it. Why didn't they do anything like that? If they had, I could have chosen to not spend my money on something incomplete and buggy! Like an adult who can make my own decisions! Oh well, if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

1 hour ago, Dermot McClusky said:

They should have told you outright it would be incomplete and buggy

Didn't you read the screens during the purchase process that said essentially that?  I can recall at least two screens (prior to actually making the purchase) that warned that the software was early access and to expect bugs. It is also clearly stated on their website.

2 minutes ago, nobleord said:

Didn't you read the screens during the purchase process that said essentially that?  I can recall at least two screens (prior to actually making the purchase) that warned that the software was early access and to expect bugs. It is also clearly stated on their website.

Indeed there was. In huge letters! Both a 'warning' notice AND a confimration box, that you were understanding the caveats of purhasing and using the software. I assume (and hope) that the above poster was being sarcastic.

8 minutes ago, nobleord said:

Didn't you read the screens during the purchase process that said essentially that?  I can recall at least two screens (prior to actually making the purchase) that warned that the software was early access and to expect bugs. It is also clearly stated on their website.

 

3 minutes ago, anden145 said:

Indeed there was. In huge letters! Both a 'warning' notice AND a confimration box, that you were understanding the caveats of purhasing and using the software. I assume (and hope) that the above poster was being sarcastic.

Good lord, you guys, my comment was DRIPPING w/ sarcasm. I literally spelled out exactly what BATC had done for people who were purchasing it. 

Hunted by the „don‘t understand your callsign bug“, I share the disappointment many of you have. From my experience with Pilot2ATC, FSHud, BeyondATC and SayintentionsAI, let me say… Dear developers, without being asked, my advice to you is: Please don‘t even think about controlling other traffic or adding feature after feature if the basics do not work.

I'm really sorry, guys, but I really, really don't understand your incentive to come in here and moan and cry about features which are missing, bugs and general instability and/or misunderstandings in the voice-recognition system etc... they LITTERALY spelled it out for you, when you CHOSE to purchase the software! Please calm down.

You wanted it released in Early-Access and it's released as Early-Access, with all the caveats and bugs and missing features that entails. Trust me - I've had games where Early-Access was unplayable. This ACTUALLY does work and you CAN complete a flight with it. Yes there's bugs and it's sometimes hard to hear and reply to the controllers - but come on... Really? It's not as this could come as a surprise.

You have a developer, which have been COMPLETELY OPEN to the development process and have warned you, that this software has bugs etc... in more honest words than many other developers have done. Nobody asked you to 'jump' into Early-Access!!! You were given the OPTION of doing so with all the warnings and cautions (even in the actual purchasing process!)... and yet you still come in here and moan and rant about it being unreliable... there's just no winning.

Sorry for my rant... 

Well let me tell you: I've done 4 flights in BATC and 3 of them worked perfectly. The other one had a crash of BATC in the end, but I was able to restart and continue the flight before landing.
In SI I had done about 6 IFR flights and all of them bugged out sooner or later, breaking the flight ATC-wise.

I'd say for Early Access (with 2 warning screens before you even get to purchase) that's pretty solid, exactly how Early Access should be. Working most of the time, but with bugs and glitches and unpolished.
 

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

I'd say for Early Access (with 2 warning screens before you even get to purchase) that's pretty solid, exactly how Early Access should be. Working most of the time, but with bugs and glitches and unpolished.
 

I've really enjoyed it so far. I'm curious to see where they take it in the future. I think ATC will always be one of the more difficult aspects to simulate w/ software alone, so I think they have some very high walls to climb. It's worth trying to climb them, though!

I was really enjoying it upon initial release but the more I fly the more completely nonsensical runway assignments I'm getting is really making it hard to enjoy. Tiny crossing runways that are essentially never used in real life because the winds technically favor it the most. Opposite direction runways to what real life is running very frequently. The ability to override runway assignments is desperately needed, or even taking into account the runways on your simbrief plan when the wind math is "close" because simbrief manages to do an excellent job of matching real world operations in my experience.

8 minutes ago, Andrew2448 said:

I was really enjoying it upon initial release but the more I fly the more completely nonsensical runway assignments I'm getting is really making it hard to enjoy. Tiny crossing runways that are essentially never used in real life because the winds technically favor it the most. Opposite direction runways to what real life is running very frequently. The ability to override runway assignments is desperately needed, or even taking into account the runways on your simbrief plan when the wind math is "close" because simbrief manages to do an excellent job of matching real world operations in my experience.

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.