For me it’s either pretty spot on or an absolute dumpster fire, around 50/50 at the moment.
 

It seems to work best when there’s a STAR followed by a transition to the approach so it can pretty much leave you to get on with it, which is fine but not entirely realistic as rarely would you fly the whole STAR and transition. I have tried giving it routes where the last waypoint is quite some distance from the airport to force it into vectors but the results are generally very poor with it getting very confused or giving me headings and a descent to the platform altitude when I’m still 100 miles away. It’s very satisfying when it works out though! 

8 hours ago, Speedbird 217 said:

Was just given my first intersection take off at EGLL (N8 for 09R) - nice to see this being implemented! Not sure if this is a new feature but haven't had this before in over a dozen or so flights.

What really? I was 100% sure intersections are not in yet. Maybe the scenery has this as the start of the runway in the data. Did ATC say something about intersections? Did it say hold short N8 or something like that?

24 minutes ago, bennyboy75 said:

For me it’s either pretty spot on or an absolute dumpster fire, around 50/50 at the moment.
 

It seems to work best when there’s a STAR followed by a transition to the approach so it can pretty much leave you to get on with it, which is fine but not entirely realistic as rarely would you fly the whole STAR and transition. I have tried giving it routes where the last waypoint is quite some distance from the airport to force it into vectors but the results are generally very poor with it getting very confused or giving me headings and a descent to the platform altitude when I’m still 100 miles away. It’s very satisfying when it works out though! 

This exactly. When it works its great but too often there are problems. The part up to the STAR is pretty spot on at this moment but the part starting with the STAR can be a complete mess. Even the flights that do work out well have odd things happening, like being assigned different altitudes or given odd headings.

The biggest problem of them all right now imho is that BATC way too often misses a waypoint and stops talking because it is waiting for you to still pass a waypoint that's behind you. Very annoying. Everytime an update appears I am hoping to (at least) read something about this but nothing so far. It's also a bit disappointing that even though the bug has been mentioned a lot of times I didn't really see the devs saying anything about it. (But hey, it is extremely easy to miss something on Discord LOL)

BATC is still great and nice but as I said before it is far from reliable. You never know how a flight will turn out and where it might go wrong.

1 minute ago, Fiorentoni said:

What really? I was 100% sure intersections are not in yet. Maybe the scenery has this as the start of the runway in the data. Did ATC say something about intersections? Did it say hold short N8 or something like that?

Afaik the intersection is simply part of the taxi instructions. BATC doesn't give you a specific intersection based on your plane and the length of the runway. It simply is the intersection that's closest to the start of the runway. Again afaik.

Personally, I haven't had even a single problem on several flights I've done with this so far. Literally everything worked perfectly and realistically, including STARs with and without restrictions and vectors. Choosing runways also works nicely with the database of real world configs, like landing 08L and R and departing 09, 15L and R at KIAH. Some of the things it does like choosing when to give initial altitudes and descent instructions and when not are also welcome coming from other ATC addons that never did this according to real world procedures.

Very impressed with this. If they pull off traffic injection and control this will easily be the best ATC addon available.

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

What really? I was 100% sure intersections are not in yet. Maybe the scenery has this as the start of the runway in the data. Did ATC say something about intersections? Did it say hold short N8 or something like that?

I didn't do anything differently. I've had a handful of 09R departures ex EGLL before with BATC and it always gave me taxi via Alpha, N11 (which is the end of the runway).

Last night I got Alpha, N8 and no issue requesting clearance from N8.

Scenery has not changed and I departed from T5A as usual, so nothing different.

I was about to say I haven't had many issues either and I've been impressed, until I just had a flight from LOWI to EKCH and the software completely fell apart. Lining up at the hold short to RWY26, it started just constantly repeating the instruction. Restarted it and it kept doing it, it actually started playing the voices multiple times and no matter how many times I restarted it, it fell right back to this repeat cycle. Just closed down the software and gave up the flight, so that was a bit of a disappointment.

11 hours ago, bennyboy75 said:

For me it’s either pretty spot on or an absolute dumpster fire, around 50/50 at the moment.
 

Exactly my findings, when it works it's great, but manages to confuse itself a lot.

For me it is making vector approaches far, far too tight - by the time you have completed the turn to base it's generally too late to make the turn to final (that's at  approx 200 kts).

In terms of basic voices it seems to have issues with the number 4, hearing that on the ATIS as well as ATC.

Interesting flying into Belgrade, it managed to give vectors and a visual, but no IFR approaches as runway designation has changed....

 

G

I finally ordered a headset with the mic. I waited forever for this and always supported these guys when this was in dev and was against releasing this early. Should I get it? Is it worth it now? Should I wait for SayIntentions to get cheaper? I think SI sounds a tad better than BATC. Decisions decisions... 

I'm on my 3rd flight in Europe, going between some towered/non towered fields and so far I love this program. It's such a clean easy to use interface, and the potential of it is exactly what I've been hoping for ever since being disappointed by ASOBO in 2020.

I love the voices and accents it's pretty spot on and believable. Looking forward to the AI traffic someday as right now it's very lonely up there with just me getting controlled. So far no issues or weird handling of my flight etc but I'm sure eventually I'll see a hiccup, but that's a given for something in development. 

I would like to see emergency options, obviously the ability to request different runways/approaches (although everything I've been assigned so far is what I've wanted), and weather deviation requests. But it's obvious the dev's are going to keep this thing future proof. Highly recommend.

25 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

I finally ordered a headset with the mic. I waited forever for this and always supported these guys when this was in dev and was against releasing this early. Should I get it? Is it worth it now? Should I wait for SayIntentions to get cheaper? I think SI sounds a tad better than BATC. Decisions decisions... 

I have been using SayIntentions for a few weeks and wondering if I should try BATC!😐  I think they both may need a few more months to mature. SI is great and I do enjoy it for a large part of the flights (IFR only with A320 and Duke) but it just gets really messed up starting at TOD (if you are lucky enough to get descent clearance) and approach on nearly every flight.  I really do like the voices and concept though and I think it has a lot of potential.  I personally don't think either one is ready quite yet....

Edited May 22, 20242 yr by Flic1

3 hours ago, Flic1 said:

I have been using SayIntentions for a few weeks and wondering if I should try BATC!😐  I think they both may need a few more months to mature. SI is great and I do enjoy it for a large part of the flights (IFR only with A320 and Duke) but it just gets really messed up starting at TOD (if you are lucky enough to get descent clearance) and approach on nearly every flight.  I really do like the voices and concept though and I think it has a lot of potential.  I personally don't think either one is ready quite yet....

I am waiting for a completely free day (ie empty house and no work) before I try SI - but I'd definitely agree BATC isn't ready yet, 95% of flights (for me) have been fantastic with it until TOD, after TOD it is very hit or miss.

Take this morning's flight as an example, it gave me the STAR fine then dropped me down 5000ft, at that point I made a guess at the approach & transition (don't like the fact it doesn't give you that with the STAR - not sure if that is like real world or not, I like how p2atc gives you the lot). As usual it was very late giving me any further descent (although I let it continue the descent on path, because this happens every flight), then as a pleasant surprise it gave me the same transition & approach.

Then it went wrong, after a sharp turn on the approach it failed to understand I had passed that waypoint - told me I was off course and wanted to vector me back to the "missed" point. Too late in the flight to be able to do anything other than shut it down .. ..

 

G

3 hours ago, Flic1 said:

I have been using SayIntentions for a few weeks and wondering if I should try BATC!😐  I think they both may need a few more months to mature. SI is great and I do enjoy it for a large part of the flights (IFR only with A320 and Duke) but it just gets really messed up starting at TOD (if you are lucky enough to get descent clearance) and approach on nearly every flight.  I really do like the voices and concept though and I think it has a lot of potential.  I personally don't think either one is ready quite yet....

BATC has many bugs with approaches, too, but I‘ve found it MUCH more reliable compared to SI. You can see with it‘s SI it‘s more about hoping that ChatGPT does what he was asked to do, while with BATC it‘s classic scripting: If the script is correct, it will work every time.

EDIT: As for numbers: From my 15 flights with BATC only one has had a bad approch/descent. The others were perfect (except for the occasional sharp 90 degree vector to intercept)

Edited May 22, 20242 yr by Fiorentoni

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

EDIT: As for numbers: From my 15 flights with BATC only one has had a bad approch/descent. The others were perfect (except for the occasional sharp 90 degree vector to intercept)

I think it's about 60/40 for me, so 60% okay flights and 40% flights that go bad. I do have more rather succesful flights but I can sort of take care of those numbers by flying from and to airports I know will work. If I pick airports randomly (as I like to do) I think it's more like 30/70.

The numbers would change considerably if the missing-waypoint-bug got solved... I don't understand why this hasn't been dealt with yet because it's the cause of most problems.

4 minutes ago, tup61 said:

I think it's about 60/40 for me, so 60% okay flights and 40% flights that go bad. I do have more rather succesful flights but I can sort of take care of those numbers by flying from and to airports I know will work. If I pick airports randomly (as I like to do) I think it's more like 30/70.

The numbers would change considerably if the missing-waypoint-bug got solved... I don't understand why this hasn't been dealt with yet because it's the cause of most problems.

Strange this is so different between us. I do get vectors to the FAF most of the time, so that might prevent the STAR bug from happening for me, I don‘t know. Or it‘s different aircraft doing these sharp turns in different ways

3 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Strange this is so different between us. I do get vectors to the FAF most of the time, so that might prevent the STAR bug from happening for me, I don‘t know. Or it‘s different aircraft doing these sharp turns in different ways

It's odd indeed... Where you do usually fly? I only fly in Western Europe. And I only fly the Vision Jet, which, you would say, would have less problems with missing waypoints than a large Boeing or Airbus.

I call it a bug all the time but I do think it's more of a finetuning problem. The dev should make BATC less strict when it comes to passing waypoints. And you'd think BATC should be able to know where you are and in which heading you are flying in regards to a waypoint. Seems like basic stuff to me.

Since this problem is the cause of most problems with BATC (which I think is a fact if you look at their Discord) it surprises me that the dev doesn't mention this at all and nothing seems to be done about it in all the patches we get.

Edited May 22, 20242 yr by tup61