10 minutes ago, tttocs said:

To each their own, and I'm certainly not questioning others' choices.  Do what works for you.  What I saw in the video would NOT work for me.  As for "boring" or "playing checkers with yourself" well, I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.  All three of the programs are working from your flight plan and are intended to give you, well, pretty much what you tell it to.  Just not sure I see the distinction.  Having an inner voice changed over to a computer generated one that gets so much wrong from a procedural point of view just doesn't work for me.

That's what I like about SI – it now supports NOTAMs and will close runways, taxiways, approaches etc based on real world notices. 
Soon it will also keep track of restricted airspaces and will vector you around or just plain refuse entry accordingly.

To me it's been the only ATC tool that's growing at an incredible pace and is adding really unique features.

1 hour ago, tttocs said:

To each their own, and I'm certainly not questioning others' choices.  Do what works for you.  What I saw in the video would NOT work for me.  As for "boring" or "playing checkers with yourself" well, I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.  All three of the programs are working from your flight plan and are intended to give you, well, pretty much what you tell it to.  Just not sure I see the distinction.  Having an inner voice changed over to a computer generated one that gets so much wrong from a procedural point of view just doesn't work for me.

Again, not criticizing those who feel differently, just a bit disappointed that the state of the art hasn't advanced more.  Would love good ATC that would introduce unknowns, the need to react to real world changes and traffic patterns and so on, throwing me the odd curve ball.  But outright procedural errors, vectors into mountainsides and taxi routes that give unwanted airport tours aren't what I have in mind.  These are simply annoyances to me.  If others can look past the errors and feel it improves immersion I certainly respect that.  It's just not (yet) for me.

Now, off to a good game of checkers with my favorite opponent!

Scott

How many times have  you tried BATC?  Just curious.

 

8 hours ago, tttocs said:

Oh. My. Goodness.  I haven't looked at ATC apps in a long time, but with the increasing availability of AI I'd hoped things had improved significantly.  There are certainly improvements, but...  Each of the three apps in this video would annoy me more than help with immersion.  Interactions ranged from OK, to non-standard to outright wrong (though at one point the creator was his own worst enemy by insisting on a crossing clearance for a runway he'd already been cleared to cross). 

I know a robust ATC implementation is a hard nut to crack, really I do, but there's still a long way to go. 

"Say Intentions" seems to me to have the most potential, but it's obviously still limited, rough and pricey.  For now, I think I'll continue to self-vector and use the pretend ATC that lives in my head.

Scott

I find that playing the pilot & controller can be a lot of fun, and ATC Chatter does a good job filling in the gaps. For real pilot training, I don't recommend any ATC program because the pilot can develop bad habits. Experience in a real ATC environment is the best training. Afnow ter that, then they can enjoy any ATC program with MSFS.

Right VATSIM is the closest to real world ATC, but BATC is right up there in realism. I have enough real world experience that I can use the default ATC & default chatter and still make each sim flight enjoyable.

Check out BATC or do some more research. The next update will come with AI Traffic control.

5 hours ago, Georgleboui said:

To me it's been the only ATC tool that's growing at an incredible pace and is adding really unique features.

From what I've seen and read, I would agree.  I'll definitely be watching to see how this develops.

Scott

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

How many times have  you tried BATC?  Just curious.

 

As should be very clear, i was reacting to what I saw in the video.  All three featured products made what are, to me, multiple immersion killing mistakes on what was a relatively simple flight.  The kinds of things that, again for me, would detract from, rather than enhance the realism of an IFR flight.  If you feel otherwise, great.  Enjoy!  We don't all react to things the same way. 

If you think something was mis-represented in the video, or something in my comments was off, I'm open to hearing about it.  I'm generally open to trying new things, but only if I see evidence that the new thing will be worth my time and effort.

Had a very enjoyable flight this afternoon from Henderson, NV to Placerville, CA.  CAVU but big time winds, including nasty gusting crosswinds on final.  AWOS claimed a 4 KT crosswind.  Actual was 15G25 according to the GPS.  Plane and pilot mostly in one piece.  Had to request a flight modification from my internal controller due to the winds and associated difficulties descending over the Sierras.  He was mostly cooperative but did chastise me for getting a bit behind the flight.  He was not wrong.

Fun!

9 hours ago, tttocs said:

As should be very clear, i was reacting to what I saw in the video.  All three featured products made what are, to me, multiple immersion killing mistakes on what was a relatively simple flight.  The kinds of things that, again for me, would detract from, rather than enhance the realism of an IFR flight.  If you feel otherwise, great.  Enjoy!  We don't all react to things the same way. 

If you think something was mis-represented in the video, or something in my comments was off, I'm open to hearing about it.  I'm generally open to trying new things, but only if I see evidence that the new thing will be worth my time and effort.

Had a very enjoyable flight this afternoon from Henderson, NV to Placerville, CA.  CAVU but big time winds, including nasty gusting crosswinds on final.  AWOS claimed a 4 KT crosswind.  Actual was 15G25 according to the GPS.  Plane and pilot mostly in one piece.  Had to request a flight modification from my internal controller due to the winds and associated difficulties descending over the Sierras.  He was mostly cooperative but did chastise me for getting a bit behind the flight.  He was not wrong.

Fun!

The videos are months old, many changes since then. I thought you never actually tried BATC, and that is why you made the statements that you did.

Fshud 2.0 has better voices than batc and the ia traffic control is suberb…. That’s all man

2 hours ago, motishow said:

Fshud 2.0 has better voices than batc and the ia traffic control is suberb…. That’s all man

The voices in BATC , the free one's are very good. FShud hammers performance and FPS.

Another ATC Program debate. Great.

Looking forward to the updated UI. Feature rich and I already have decent voices installed. Plus the ATC chatter really fills in the gaps. Dont get cheap voices though. Get the good kind and increase the speed/rate of them.....you hardly notice how they sound. I've listened to the other programs and have zero time for VATSIM. Those other programs voices just like P2atc with my "good" voices already installed. Pilot2ATC just works for some of us.

Want Beyond ATC? Cool. Keep it. Want FShud? Cool. Keep it.

 

Edited August 21, 20241 yr by Sonosusto

17 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

Another ATC Program debate. Great.

Exactly - in particular since it happens in a thread created to announce a new version of - surprise, surprise - not one of the programs being debated over the last 2 pages …

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The voices in BATC , the free one's are very good. FShud hammers performance and FPS.

Not in the upcoming v2

1 hour ago, SierraDelta said:

Exactly - in particular since it happens in a thread created to announce a new version of - surprise, surprise - not one of the programs being debated over the last 2 pages …

Welcome to AVSIM. 

46 minutes ago, motishow said:

Not in the upcoming v2

Are you a beta tester? V2 has not be released so  have no idea if the new voices will be better than BATC, but we also have no idea of how well BATC will perform when they are able to control the FSLTL fleet.

There's also the nav data update issue with FSHUD. I read the a Navigraph subscription is recommended. Some ustomers could be turned off by that requirement.

38 minutes ago, RobJC said:

Welcome to AVSIM. 

If some members want to just find out about an update, I thinks that boring. I like it when we are able to discuss the pros and cons of each available add-on as long as they are related. I think it's the best way for us to make an informed decision of what to purchase.

So, again if a member doesn't want to discuss a topic, they can move on to the A319 thread or whatever else they find interesting.

On 8/18/2024 at 12:23 PM, tttocs said:

To each their own, and I'm certainly not questioning others' choices.  Do what works for you.  What I saw in the video would NOT work for me.  As for "boring" or "playing checkers with yourself" well, I'm not sure I get where you're coming from.  All three of the programs are working from your flight plan and are intended to give you, well, pretty much what you tell it to.  Just not sure I see the distinction.  Having an inner voice changed over to a computer generated one that gets so much wrong from a procedural point of view just doesn't work for me.

Again, not criticizing those who feel differently, just a bit disappointed that the state of the art hasn't advanced more.  Would love good ATC that would introduce unknowns, the need to react to real world changes and traffic patterns and so on, throwing me the odd curve ball.  But outright procedural errors, vectors into mountainsides and taxi routes that give unwanted airport tours aren't what I have in mind.  These are simply annoyances to me.  If others can look past the errors and feel it improves immersion I certainly respect that.  It's just not (yet) for me.

Now, off to a good game of checkers with my favorite opponent!

Scott

Were you implying that Pilot2ATC vectors you into mountains, gives you the runaround with taxi instructions, or etc? Or is this regarding a different program?

Checkers by yourself isn't fun. Neither is being vectored into a mountain. Good thing you're on this thread for P2ATC. It doesn't do any of that at all. Follows most procedures fairly well. It has plenty of settings that can give the program more leeway vs you just telling it what to do (if you want more suprises). But you telling it only what to do would be lame. Which, yeah...would be boring. It does missed approaches especially when there's an AI traffic on final or entered the runway, it does change runways if the weather permits..... Also, you can "autoplan" and it sets up SID/STAR etc for you. I like using simbrief as a guide. Integrates with simbrief really well by the way. Navigraph, too obvisously. Me, I like using simbrief as a guide and selecting best SID/STARs.

Also been using this program for several years and it doesn't taxi me everywhere. Usually pretty simple taxi procedures, too.