msfs Review #1 of Beyond ATC

[ryanbatc 13,125]

Here's a review of the early access Beyond ATC.  My real world background is that I am a current air traffic controller (with tower, terminal and enroute radar credentials) and I also hold a USA private pilot license.  I do not have an instrument rating but I have a lot of experience flying IFR and in IMC.

Also of note I wasn't really aware of how to use SimBrief so I had to ask for help on BATC discord.  (They were quick to respond!)

***Download and Install***

Download and install of BATC was simple, the purchase was simple via online with a credit card.  Since I've really never used simbrief I had to re-login to that site, but since I am a Navigraph user, I was able to connect quickly with my credentials.  I made the mistake of trying to type my simbrief user ID instead of the Pilot ID into the BATC app.  So yes, it's the Pilot ID that BATC is looking for.  I then had issues connecting BATC to MSFS.  I remembered I read a thread here where someone said to run as Administrator.  I tried right clicking on my shortcut on my deskop (Run as Admin) but that didn't work.  So I went into the properties of the shortcut and manually selected Run as Admin.  Then it connected to MSFS. 

***Using BATC***

Once in the sim I loaded at the ramp at KSGS (uncontrolled/non-towered airport).  My routing was KSGS PRESS KRGK.  A simple "local" IFR flight I've done before irl.  I entered my flight plan info into Simbrief, departing runway 16 SGS and landing runway 09 RGK.  I got stuck again because I failed to click "Generate flight plan" while in SB.  Ooops.  Thanks to the BATC support on discord, I was on my way after that.  A minor local issue was that on the ground at SGS I use 121.20 irl (a frequency that allows the tracon to hear us on the ground) for my clearance.  BATC wanted me to use 118.20 instead of clearance.  (This is also a rw tracon freq but I've not used it in the past, because 121.20 works fine).  A tip is that to click the "headphone" icon in the lower right of BATC and it will show you available frequencies.  So "clearance" was on 118.20. 

***Picking up IFR Clearance***

I used that, and got a decent real world clearance.  "N157JT cleared from SGS airport to Red wing airport via radar vectors PRESS, climb and maintain 5000, departure freq 121.20 sq 3632."  At that point I was smiling because that's vastly better than default ATC.  The nitty gritty is that irl I'd never receive that exact clearance because they don't climb us that high initially due to Minneapolis arrival/dep traffic.  Also instead of saying "radar vectors" the clearance would be something like "enter controlled airspace heading 090, climb and maintain 2,500" etc.  But so far good enough hehe.  I "read it back" (I'm using text not voice) and they then say to call number 1 for departure on 121.20.  So BATC us using that 121.2 freq but just not until I'm ready for departure.  I call on 121.20, and am released for departure and am given the typical clearance void if not off by xxxx etc etc.  Very realistic.  Excellent actually.  Being that the software is in early access, the clearance phase is really nice.  The main issue I had was the clearance itself.  "Radar vectors press" to me means I should be given a heading to fly on initial departure, but I wasn't when they released me.  IRL I would have clarified.  No such option in BATC though. 

routing by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

***Airborne***

I depart SGS on ctaf, then switch to minneapolis departure on 121.2 just like irl.  I was climbing through 2000 ft and the check on from BATC was "mpls departure, N157JT, 800 climbing 5000"  I don't know where they got 800 from hehe.  Anyway it tells me radar contact etc etc, and fly heading 175.  Ok, interesting, 175 takes me nowhere near PRESS, it actually takes me away from PRESS.  It also places me more in conflict with MSP arr/dep traffic.  Subsequently they cleared me direct PRESS.  Fine.  Just a hiccup.  This is the part I don't really understand yet.  Am I supposed to select my requested approach procedure in SimBrief?  I didn't set anything specifically because I wanted to see what BATC would do.  They tell me to contact MSP approach on 121.20.  I'm already on that freq.  So at this point there is no option in the GUI to "check on."  Odd.  So they tell me nothing for a while, then issue a heading that turns me to the east, away from PRESS and sort of away from KGRK.  Then I click on "very next fix/waypoint" and suddenly it says "N157JT expect visual approach runway 9."  Ok, so there was a logic issue because I was already on the correct frequency.  Then it get's kinda weird.  "N157JT turn left heading 001."  Ooookaaay hehe.  And I fly away from my destination for about 15 miles.  At that point I figured nothing else will happen so I selected heading to next fix on the GUI. 

Me on the 110 heading kinda pointed at RGK.  I was expecting a "N157JT red wing airport 1 oclock, 10 miles etc" but nothing hehe

notvectoredtoRGK by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Here's the "left heading 001" hehe 

hdg001 by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Me clicking on heading to next fix

atcui by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

 

***Approach***

It suddenly tells me "N157JT, turn left heading 200 intercept runway 9 localizer descend and maintain 4000."  Erm okay, but you told me to expect a visual.  Not a biggie and not totally unrealistic irl - I would have at least looked at the available approach plates at RGK.  Obviously the software is a bit confused now.  It has me on an illegal heading to intercept the localizer (inbound course 091 - a valid intercept would be 30 degrees either side so from my heading a 120 eventually).  But I do this anyway, just to see what it will do.  It does nothing.  I never received an approach clearance.  I just wave at RGK as I fly the localizer remaining at 4000....  And then I quit MSFS haha.  Obviously I will do more flights.  I think the fact that I was already on 121.20 when they asked me to switch freqs threw off the program.  It's odd that it planned a visual for me (perfect for the weather conditions, but I was hoping to be able to select an approach), and then decided to try to have me intercept the localizer.

Here's the 200 heading and down to 4 for the loc interpcet hehe

visualbutILS_intercept200lol by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

Me intercepting well above GS

ilsintercept by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

And a bonus upcoming paint from me for the turbine duke.... waving at Red Wing.... hi and bye!

helloooodownthere by Ryan Butterworth, on Flickr

 

[Dermot McClusky 532]

Haven't read through it yet, but considering your background and level-headed history in the forums, looking forward to your thoughts and wanted to get in and say thank you in advance!

[espent 1,494]

Thank you.  Looking forward to hear more inputs from you on BATC. 

 

So far it looks like Clearance -> TOC is much better than TOD -> Gate. 

[ryanbatc 13,125]

5 minutes ago, espent said:

Thank you.  Looking forward to hear more inputs from you on BATC. 

 

So far it looks like Clearance -> TOC is much better than TOD -> Gate. 

This is my initial impression.  That being said I'm not flying a big ole airliner from a big airport to big airport.  I assume this is who they are targeting with BATC.  Next I'll fly the same plane but on a longer route.  BATC may have been confused because the distance was so short.

[crosswind 827]

I can concur with your findings Ryan, I used the A2A PA24 to get a feel for the app and see how fasted paced or not the learning curve would be and I was pleasantly surprised at the ease of use right out of the box  after I got around a few of the quirks.  I actually flew KRIC to KLYH and for some reason the controller had a difficult time giving me vectors for RWY 35.

Just finished a flight from KDCA to KLGA in the FSS 175 and we were just about spot on.  I failed to commence the descent on the RNAV arrival to see if ATC would give me an assigned altitude to descend to - instead I was asked to check my equipment.  

I'll try to dabble around some more over the weekend if I have some time.

 

Cheers

[Silicus 901]

I did a few airliner flights with BATC and clearance, taxi out, departures are always spot on. Decent and vector to final not so much, but after landing and taxi to gate spot on again! 

It is an amazing piece of work and once it is out of EA it will be even more immersive then it is right now.

Thank you for your GA review! 

[ZoblebV8 61]

You are flying the Turbine Duke... 

/drool 

[ryanbatc 13,125]

51 minutes ago, Silicus said:

I did a few airliner flights with BATC and clearance, taxi out, departures are always spot on. Decent and vector to final not so much, but after landing and taxi to gate spot on again! 

It is an amazing piece of work and once it is out of EA it will be even more immersive then it is right now.

Thank you for your GA review! 

I'm doing a C700 flight from a towered airport to an uncontrolled... the departure was a lot smoother (as expected).  I'm sure the program caters to jets and airliners flying from controlled airport to controlled airport.

[ryanbatc 13,125]

43 minutes ago, ZoblebV8 said:

You are flying the Turbine Duke... 

/drool 

Oh you noticed 😉

[Orlaam 328]

I was a little too cold to really focus on that review.  It's 63 degrees in the cabin!  I'm not sure what I'm more upset about, the fact you are tooling around in the Duke or that BATC is buggy.  I was hoping BATC would be more consistent and accurate.  I'm surprised it isn't.  I would have thought the vectored approach would be more solid on release.  Seems an integral part of the program. 

I'm confused as to why SimBrief needs to present so much information to BATC to work.  I would think departure airport, route, arrival and alternate with altitude would be sufficient.  It really should offer the user the ability to choose different runways and approaches using Navigraph.  I think they said they didn't want to use Navigraph, but a host of add-ons require it.  I mean the default ATC is a joke, but it offers GPS approaches and alternatives than the assigned.  The problem with default has always been forcing you to a runway that's not accurate and not getting you low on time. 

I've always said that an alternative method to ATC that's more useful would be to follow a STAR/SID using predefined altitudes, as we see in FMC/CDUs in aircraft.  Knowing this data at least gives the user the ability to get down on time and meet restrictions.  Then farther out, assigning a runway, but giving the user a choice to change the runway and selecting a published approach.  I realize that cuts out a lot of visual/vectored instructions, thus isn't as realistic, but gives you a more accurate path to and from point A to B.  IOW, you are basically pre-programming your vertical and lateral route and ATC is simulating them telling you what to do.  I don't recall if Radar Contact was appropriate with its vectors or not.  I know it had a significant amount of fluidity with declaring an emergency, requesting new altitudes, and so forth, but I remember not liking it for other reasons. 

I predict BATC is gonna have some work to do before they can really give the user a trouble-free experience.  Trying to account for terrain, mathematical equations accounting for airspeed/altitude/headings must be a logistical nightmare.  Thus why I think they should tie into AIRAC data and predefined SID/STAR/IAPs for a smoother experience.  Offer the user a choice to pick a different runway when the one they offer is garbage, force AI to land at another parallel runway, give options to deviate, enter holds, and reroute for traffic/Wx.  In many ways, ATC programs are like GSX.  You can't always get accurate results because each location is hindered by buildings/terrain, traffic, and more.

[pete_auau 1,175]

4 hours ago, Orlaam said:

I predict BATC is gonna have some work to do before they can really give the user a trouble-free experience

Isn't  this  like  any other  addon  that  just been  released not  going  to be  the  last either

[sloppysmusic 341]

14 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

Isn't  this  like  any other  addon  that  just been  released not  going  to be  the  last either

Yup! Beta testers used to get paid by the devs. Now the beta testers pay the devs! 

[SAS443 1,749]

Thank you Ryan. With your background, your opinion and thoughts are as valuable as they get.

Form what I've seen so far, the amount of hiccups and odd vectors (aswell as the invasive UI), this product is not suitable for me nor my style of flying - which is probably similar to yours. Smaller GA  often with YFR/ZFR  flightplans
 

[jonesrob 108]

Note that initial release is IFR only; VFR and other stuff including traffic to follow. There's a roadmap on the UI.

[tamsini 279]

Isn't this the downfall of pretty much all third-party ATC programs - TOD-gate reliability? The only difference now it that's it's realistic-sounding AI that falls prey to the same issues. Don't get me wrong, it's a HUGE step in the right direction but not sure if we'll ever get to 100% reliability.