44 minutes ago, falcon71 said:

Does SayIntentions actually understand what you ask for or does it always allow whatever you want? I wonder, what would happen if you request doing aerobatics over a busy international airport, would it allow that?

Good question - I think that will come in the future. Like BATC, it's still early access. I haven't asked for anything crazy yet but I've always gotten what I asked for.

22 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think you are one of the most level headed posters here at Avsim and I enjoy your answers 👍

thanks very much, abrams_tank, very nice.

strange, over at the other forum nobody never ever said something even remotely similar. 🤣

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by turbomax

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Can other real life pilots chime in? For real life pilots, aside from emergency situations and things that happen once in a blue moon, is real life ATC kind of strict and on rails?

I wouldn't say ATC in real life is "on rails," but there are definitely phraseology expectations. I've used both BATC and SAi, simply because I find these programs fascinating. The truth is, in their current states, I'd honestly prefer to use BATC. The premium voices are second to none, and the ease of use for a normal flight is fantastic. I rarely have any issues while using BATC. There ARE some pretty serious issues from a real world perspective, but the fluidity of the program and ease of use make it a very enjoyable experience. The things that I believe should be at the top of their list (from a pilot's perspective), is the ability to analyze real world airport flows and runway usages, the ability to request approaches to different runways, know when to issue an altimeter setting and when not, give "climb via" clearances when applicable, vs climb and maintain, taxi instructions that are more reasonable. But these are minor complaints -- BATC's methodology is, i'd say more organized and focused.

The thing I like about SAi however, is the potential of the program. They have already started work on HF procedures, emergency procedures, etc. BUT, in it's current state, it's honestly a pretty painful experience. Getting multiple takeoff clearances, weird phraseology, issuing SQUAWK codes that don't exist (i got a "squawk 3287" the other day and ATC wouldn't work properly because it kept asking me to squawk that code). Unfortunately, it's not even near ready yet to consider subscribing to, which is a double edged sword. No subs, no further development. IF they are able to work out the bugs and make this grandiose vision come to light, it'll be a clear winner simply for the ability to integrate so many different aspects of flying into the sim. Sadly, I don't see this happening for quite some time.

If either of the programs have the ability to integrate D-ATIS, PDC, and CPDLC, those would even further potential. I hope these do well because they're truly quite extraordinary. For me, even though I do this for "work," flight sim has always been a great outlet and tool. Flying on vatsim was fun while I was a kid, and student pilot, but with all of the people stepping all over each other, spotty coverage, etc, it's more of a headache than it's worth.

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

I'm not a real life pilot and the closest experience I have is my time on VATSIM, but would you ask ground to "park by the hangar" in real life

If it's my home base, absolutely Yes. 

It's a smaller controlled airfield with a few intl flights and 5 aprons. But the controllers knows just by our callsign where we "want" to park. No need to dig up proper phraseology 😂. 

VATSIM is alot more mechanical and "bland" than IRL IMHO. Which probably depends on several factors.

3 hours ago, V1ROTA7E said:

got a "squawk 3287" the other day and ATC wouldn't work properly because it kept asking me to squawk that code

That‘s what I‘m saying, those bugs with getting a squawk code via clearance and then ATC actually expecting another squawk code, these have been introduced about 2 months ago in one of the updates and are apparently *still* not fixed. Seriously, if they can‘t fix double / different squawks being assigned within 2 months, there‘s something seriously wrong with the framework (i.e.: a roleplaying ChatGPT). In classical coding you‘d just find the buggy code via a debug and just fix it via rewriting the code, probably takes a couple of hours and you‘re done for good, bug is fixed. In a ChatGPT-framework (correct me if I‘m wron) you literally have to *instruct* ChatGPT to give only one squawk code. But will he do it? Maybe, maybe not. It‘s like raising a child.

23 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

That‘s what I‘m saying, those bugs with getting a squawk code via clearance and then ATC actually expecting another squawk code, these have been introduced about 2 months ago in one of the updates and are apparently *still* not fixed. Seriously, if they can‘t fix double / different squawks being assigned within 2 months, there‘s something seriously wrong with the framework (i.e.: a roleplaying ChatGPT). In classical coding you‘d just find the buggy code via a debug and just fix it via rewriting the code, probably takes a couple of hours and you‘re done for good, bug is fixed. In a ChatGPT-framework (correct me if I‘m wron) you literally have to *instruct* ChatGPT to give only one squawk code. But will he do it? Maybe, maybe not. It‘s like raising a child.

I have no idea how all of this works, but if they could train the AI on live/recorded real ATC feeds (it’s just voice recognition, right?) it’d help move things forward. It’s readily available and as real as it’d get regarding phraseology etc. 

Edited June 22, 20241 yr by V1ROTA7E
Clarification

4 hours ago, ricka47 said:

Does SayIntentions actually understand what you ask for or does it always allow whatever you want? I wonder, what would happen if you request doing aerobatics over a busy international airport, would it allow that?

It actually surprises - I once asked ATC if there was any military activity while flying over a US airbase and reported that an strange-looking aircraft flew within 100ft of mine (this was, of course, fictitious). ATC actually responded that there were no known military operations at my location and asked if I wished to file a report, even going so far as asking if I was able to jot down the cell number of where to report. Thought that was brilliant.

But I just wish they could nail the more "normal" ATC operations a little more rapidly and reliably. I just hope it doesn't end up with the same dead-end numerous other ATC programs seem to run into.

The problem with depending on a third party API like ChatGPT or whatever, is that you are essentially held hostage by that company. ChatGPT responses have declined in quality and they are having their own issues scaling up, so much so that I've stopped using it. The technology has potential, but it's just too buggy and random to trust. I cannot use it anymore for anything except basic writing tasks, that I then have to heavily edit. Asking it any questions about real-world stuff is completely random and I have stopped relying on it for anything remotely serious. 

Sure, maybe in 5 years it will be amazing, but I'm not going to sign up for anything that relies on a very rapidly changing API space till things settle down a bit. If ChatGPT changes their terms of use.. a bunch of third-party developers will go out of business. Just like with Reddit's API changes.