Two questions about BeyondATC

[SquadronLeader 62]

I am really enjoying using the early access version of BeyondATC - amazes me how the developers create such a complex piece of software.

I have just had a flight from EGPH to EGCC using BATC. My flight plan was filed with a an arrival on RW23R via the star LAKE1M. Enroute, all went well, I was given clear instructions on flight levels, and the plane (PMDG 737-800) followed the filed route.

My first question is that, simbrief gave me a flight level of 21000, and PMDG was suggesting the optimum flight level of 25000. The only way I could get BATC to recognise the optimum flight level of 25000, was to request an altitude change twice - is that the correct procedure?

My second question is with regard to my approach to EGCC. I was instructed to descend to flight level 7000 and continued to follow the filed flight plan. Then suddenly, I am given radar vectors (3 instructions) to line me up with the runway and it all worked well. My question is why did I get radar vectors and was not allowed to follow the filed flight plan? Is this emulating the real world on the basis of traffic density and positioning etc?

[Farlis 2,323]

The answer is yes, to both to your questions.

[Fiorentoni 4,427]

2 hours ago, SquadronLeader said:

I am really enjoying using the early access version of BeyondATC - amazes me how the developers create such a complex piece of software.

I have just had a flight from EGPH to EGCC using BATC. My flight plan was filed with a an arrival on RW23R via the star LAKE1M. Enroute, all went well, I was given clear instructions on flight levels, and the plane (PMDG 737-800) followed the filed route.

My first question is that, simbrief gave me a flight level of 21000, and PMDG was suggesting the optimum flight level of 25000. The only way I could get BATC to recognise the optimum flight level of 25000, was to request an altitude change twice - is that the correct procedure?

My second question is with regard to my approach to EGCC. I was instructed to descend to flight level 7000 and continued to follow the filed flight plan. Then suddenly, I am given radar vectors (3 instructions) to line me up with the runway and it all worked well. My question is why did I get radar vectors and was not allowed to follow the filed flight plan? Is this emulating the real world on the basis of traffic density and positioning etc?

1) Yes, ATC does not know nor care about what you FMC considers the optimum flightlevel (for fuel usage reasons). You have to ask them for higher.

2) Yes, radar vectors are very common in real life. Sometimes to separate traffic, sometimes to give a shortcut on a very long STAR.

[SAS443 1,731]

1 hour ago, SquadronLeader said:

was instructed to descend to flight level 7000 and continued to follow the filed flight plan. Then suddenly, I am given radar vectors (3 instructions) to line me up with the runway and it all worked well

The Lakey 1M is an "open ended"-procedure, so just by looking at the chart, I'd expect vectors from wpt "ROSUN" at the very latest.

However, if I was on a "closed" procedure which connects to the ILS, I would not expect vectors unless it was for spacing/wx requiring it. But then again, BATC is unable to manage A.I traffic in the first place.

This is one of those scenarios where you would not be as surprised if preceding traffic also got vectoring. And this is why at least I find very little use of BATC currently. ATC is so much more than correct phraseology, it's the challenge to create that mental image where other traffic are, what to clearances to expect later on, in other words to be dialed-in as PIC.

BATC babysitting only your airplane is a good start, but it's missing the big picture.

[sloppysmusic 311]

47 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

BATC babysitting only your airplane is a good start

I didn't know this but it makes sense now. If I'm correct the main point of ATC is aircraft separation and to a lesser but important extent providing help in finding the airport in changing IFR conditions. 

If there is no ai coverage am I correct in assuming the result is similar to making a road trip by car where there are multiple traffic light stops and roundabouts but only you obey them all other drivers ignore them? 

[jon b 2,076]

RNAV STARS connecting directly onto an ILS are becoming more common now in the USA.

In the Uk however the STARS still usually terminate at a holding fix , and from their expect radar vectors to the ILS.

[BrammyH 467]

4 hours ago, SquadronLeader said:

My first question is that, simbrief gave me a flight level of 21000, and PMDG was suggesting the optimum flight level of 25000.

That number I believe is the maximum altitude; not the optimal. 

[martinboehme 536]

2 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

If I'm correct the main point of ATC is aircraft separation and to a lesser but important extent providing help in finding the airport in changing IFR conditions. 

This isn't really even a lesser goal. Of course ATC will provide help if asked, but to put it bluntly, navigation isn't ATC's job -- it's the pilot's job.

So from that point of view, it's fair to say that there isn't strictly any point in an ATC addon that doesn't control AI traffic or at least separates you from it. If you were the only plane in the sky, you'd simply go direct to the IAF every time (MEA / MORA permitting). I think the premise of BeyondATC, as it currently stands, is that there is an implicit assumption that there is traffic out there somewhere, and BeyondATC is issuing the kind of instructions that you'd expect to get to stay separated from that traffic. I'm able to accept this premise and enjoy BeyondATC in its current iteration, but I understand that others may not.

[martinboehme 536]

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

However, if I was on a "closed" procedure which connects to the ILS, I would not expect vectors unless it was for spacing/wx requiring it.

This is pretty dependent on the country. As an example, many airports in Germany have long "transitions to final" that have a very long downwind. These transitions to final connect to the approach but will almost always be shortcut by ATC to a greater or lesser extent depending on traffic. These shortcuts may come in the form of a "cleared direct" but are also often given as vectors.

[sloppysmusic 311]

11 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

I think the premise of BeyondATC, as it currently stands, is that there is an implicit assumption that there is traffic out there somewhere, and BeyondATC is issuing the kind of instructions that you'd expect to get to stay separated from that traffic.

Thanks for clarifying that but it raises another few questions:

If BATC is not actually providing separation but 'virtual/imagined' separation then what is it basing its course guidance on? Random deviations to give appearance of some kind of external aircraft behaviours or some kind of scripted deviation algorithm? I'm sure it's not just telling you to follow the flight plan you filed? When does it offer direct vectors to final as opposed to following your STAR/APR?

If BATC is not influenced by ai planes, will you ever get GA's or altitude holds/holding patterns assigned then to avoid errant planes/runway incursions? Surely not unless they are again randomly generated or scripted for the appearance of realism?

[martinboehme 536]

8 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

If BATC is not actually providing separation but 'virtual/imagined' separation then what is it basing its course guidance on? Random deviations to give appearance of some kind of external aircraft behaviours or some kind of scripted deviation algorithm? I'm sure it's not just telling you to follow the flight plan you filed? When does it offer direct vectors to final as opposed to following your STAR/APR?

Not sure what the answer to any of these is. I've seen various types of behavior on the flights I've done so far, but that just seems to be down to what the algorithm happens to do - it doesn't seem very sophisticated yet. 

10 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

If BATC is not influenced by ai planes, will you ever get GA's or altitude holds/holding patterns assigned then to avoid errant planes/runway incursions? Surely not unless they are again randomly generated or scripted for the appearance of realism?

I believe it currently doesn't do any of those.

[Farlis 2,323]

9 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

If BATC is not influenced by ai planes, will you ever get GA's or altitude holds/holding patterns assigned then to avoid errant planes/runway incursions?

How would we know since it does not insert and control any traffic at this early access stage?

[sloppysmusic 311]

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

How would we know since it does not insert and control any traffic at this early access stage?

I have no idea that's why I'm asking! I do know the default ATC definitely detects and reacts to AI as I regularly get GA commands after an ai plane gets stuck on runway or FSTL injects one on my flightpath (or INSIDE my plane if I'm really unlucky!) 

[RALF9636 1,999]

3 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

I didn't know this but it makes sense now. If I'm correct the main point of ATC is aircraft separation and to a lesser but important extent providing help in finding the airport in changing IFR conditions. 

If there is no ai coverage am I correct in assuming the result is similar to making a road trip by car where there are multiple traffic light stops and roundabouts but only you obey them all other drivers ignore them? 

 

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

However, if I was on a "closed" procedure which connects to the ILS, I would not expect vectors unless it was for spacing/wx requiring it. But then again, BATC is unable to manage A.I traffic in the first place.

This is one of those scenarios where you would not be as surprised if preceding traffic also got vectoring. And this is why at least I find very little use of BATC currently. ATC is so much more than correct phraseology, it's the challenge to create that mental image where other traffic are, what to clearances to expect later on, in other words to be dialed-in as PIC.

BATC babysitting only your airplane is a good start, but it's missing the big picture.

For the big picture and the full immersion of being part of a properly sequenced and separated air traffic flow I use FSHud. It just had a new update adressing the few remaining issues and it works great.

I really see no point in using a so-called air traffic control addon that just does not control air traffic.

I see many simmers enjoy the voice interaction BATC (and SI) provide, so hopefully both BATC and SI can keep going and evolve into real ATC addons some time in the future. Until then, I enjoy FSHud, the only real ATC addon currently available.

 

[martinboehme 536]

13 minutes ago, Farlis said:

How would we know since it does not insert and control any traffic at this early access stage?

When @sloppysmusic asked "will you ever get GA's or altitude holds/holding patterns assigned", I think they didn't mean "will we ever get this during the lifetime of the product" but "will you ever get this on a flight with the current version of BeyondATC".