Got both SI and BATC and it's kind of exciting following the progress of each. They are, like many have said already, very different programs; though the end result is supposed to be... ATC. I've noticed on the latest update stream from SI that they said the very earliest we'll see traffic from them is November/end of year at earliest. And they are already dampening expectations of skies "filled with traffic" https://youtu.be/54yLqah5_-M?t=1125. Not that I personally expected skies full of traffic - it's just the tone and direction that seems they are going does not sound very positive to me.

I think BATC, although a bit more "conservative" will end up being the payware ATC leader, eventually. It's like the train that keeps chugging along, whereas the more expensive, faster bullet train of SI seems to encounter many technical hurdles. Sure, SI is a lot more "exciting" and not as much "on rails", but BATC keeps on chugging along. BATC seems pretty solid lately for commercial type IFR flights. They do need to work on adding VFR some day though (but traffic is #1 priority once IFR is ready).

Since SI is subscription, and even with the recent reduction in cost it is still a bit too pricey for what I feel I am getting (especially with the latest announcement of toning down of traffic expectations and somewhat negative talk toward other ATC programs which was surprising) I'll need to drop that one soon, and stick with BATC. Who knows, perhaps MSFS 2024 will have a better ATC than we have now is MSFS 2020, and one that includes speech recognition. The ATC voices in MSFS 2020 aren't really that bad, they just need a lot more voice variety IMO.

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, KERNEL32 said:

Since SI is subscription, and even with the recent reduction in cost it is still a bit too pricey for what I feel I am getting (especially with the latest announcement of toning down of traffic expectations and somewhat negative talk toward other ATC programs which was surprising) I'll need to drop that one soon, and stick with BATC. Who knows, perhaps MSFS 2024 will have a better ATC than we have now is MSFS 2020, and one that includes speech recognition. The ATC voices in MSFS 2020 aren't really that bad, they just need a lot more voice variety IMO.

Agree 100%.  I used both programs for about 2 months and ended up cancelling SI as I prefer BATC for the type flights I am doing (GA/Airliner IFR).  I think SI is trying to do so many things at once that they are losing sight of the core ATC issues.  The Dev keeps saying "that's how it works in the real world" I think to get around a lot of the problems it faces with structural ATC.  I don't believe he has any ATC or piloting experience yet seems to think he knows everything about how ATC and aviation works.  For example, he seems to think ATC will hardly ever call for your descent and that you always have to ask for it IRL while on an IFR flight plan which is simply not the case. So instead of acknowledging this is an issue, it is portrayed as "that's how it works IRL!". When you are left hanging on approach the response to that issue is "...well, ATC forgets about you all the time IRL!"  The way some of this stuff is being approached just seems odd to me and I would guess it is because it will be very difficult to get it all working like it should.  If you are into only flying VFR or novelty type stuff like tour guides, cabin crew and just "talking to AI" then maybe it's the right program but even that seems to get stale after a while.  I much prefer the voices in BATC as well.  I seemed to always have the same exact dude in SI. I did like the way they were doing some of the ATC chatter by using other SI users historic transmissions at the proper locations/frequencies. When using BATC, run a program called 'FS ATC Chatter' at a low volume just to give some background noise.

Edited July 6, 20241 yr by Flic1

Found a temporary fix for changing to the next frequency only to find that it does not exist. If I let BATC Auto tune the frequency it works, and the frequency exists. Now I change over to the ATIS and the arrival airport to pick up the ATIS and then manually tune back I get the frequency does not exist that part is the only downfall. So for now I will let BATC auto tune for me.

We've been hard at work on the upcoming traffic system and haven't had a lot of time for videos, but as we near our big milestone of having a fully-working gate to gate traffic system we thought it was about time we get back to sharing our work with the latest and greatest BATC has to offer in a new video! This is what we were showing off at the FS Expo, and if you didn't have a chance to attend, you can now check out the traffic system that will be coming to the Experimental Branch of BATC. (Keep in mind this free update will be pushed out to everyone that owns the product in due time, but we plan to push it available for early testing via the opt in Experimental Branch available to all supporter's pack members.)

In this video we show what we believe to be the is the most integrated, realistic traffic injection system available on the market. It boasts a huge performance improvement over the currently available offerings, full integration into the BATC ATC system, ATC prioritization handling, accurate gate-per-airline modeling, per-airframe flight performance, dynamic flight plans, situational awareness, highly-detailed traffic sequencing systems and much more!

Enjoy!

Discord. 

Edited August 4, 20241 yr by rutrA

42 minutes ago, rutrA said:

We've been hard at work on the upcoming traffic system and haven't had a lot of time for videos, but as we near our big milestone of having a fully-working gate to gate traffic system we thought it was about time we get back to sharing our work with the latest and greatest BATC has to offer in a new video! This is what we were showing off at the FS Expo, and if you didn't have a chance to attend, you can now check out the traffic system that will be coming to the Experimental Branch of BATC. (Keep in mind this free update will be pushed out to everyone that owns the product in due time, but we plan to push it available for early testing via the opt in Experimental Branch available to all supporter's pack members.)

In this video we show what we believe to be the is the most integrated, realistic traffic injection system available on the market. It boasts a huge performance improvement over the currently available offerings, full integration into the BATC ATC system, ATC prioritization handling, accurate gate-per-airline modeling, per-airframe flight performance, dynamic flight plans, situational awareness, highly-detailed traffic sequencing systems and much more!

Enjoy!

Discord. 

Sold!

You had me at "a huge performance improvement over the currently available offerings" 😅 (if it pans out of course).

On 7/6/2024 at 3:23 PM, KERNEL32 said:

BATC seems pretty solid lately for commercial type IFR flights. They do need to work on adding VFR some day though

 

On 7/6/2024 at 3:41 PM, Flic1 said:

I prefer BATC for the type flights I am doing (GA/Airliner IFR).

GA  - which is it, as these two posts say the opposite!

wow look very promising the traffic in that video , nice  that we gonna test that soon, let hope performance don't  f  the Addon like happening with fshud

Edited August 4, 20241 yr by michdb8

11 minutes ago, michdb8 said:

wow look very promising the traffic in that video , nice  that we gonna test that soon, let hope performance don't  f  the Addon like happening with fshud

Devs say performance is even better than with AIG/FSLTL, let alone FSHud

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

 

GA  - which is it, as these two posts say the opposite!

You can fly "GA" aircraft in BATC with ATC but it will need to be IFR for now.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

GA  - which is it, as these two posts say the opposite!

I should have just said IFR flights.  I do think it works better with airline-style flying though as you tend to use more SID/STARs.  If flying GA without any arrivals, you have to rely on vectors which are still not working very well.  It would be nice if when assigned a Visual approach, you could report 'Field in sight' much further out.  That would avoid many issues I think. It does not give you the option to report 'In sight' until you are pretty close to the airport (within just a few miles).

1 hour ago, Flic1 said:

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

GA  - which is it, as these two posts say the opposite!

I should have just said IFR flights. 

Ok, SI is by far the better product for me.  I'll keep my eye on BATC if GA is included 

Also from the discord, the VR toolbar v1.0 is "coming soon!", which will really be a welcome addition for me. I've pretty much tabled BATC until I can get this.
 

Love it and can’t wait for the traffic, even if it is buggy. 
 

Question for @rutrA as this is now not live traffic but database driven, can the model/paint matching happen based on the tail number from FR24?

Also, a lot of people are complaining about the “taxi to the active” piece. Can you guys sort that out?