Hi all,

Have a weird problem with BATC which occurred mid flight.

My hot key stopped working, so went into the BATC screen and the hot key and UI ping work fine. Went into MSFS nothing no ping no comms.

Restarted computer and both programs

Then tried ATIS frequency in sim  that was fine, opened up BATC screen again and requested push and start fine, when the sim is open no go, no ping or comms.

Changed comm button to mouse button unassigned anywhere else still no go.

Anyone have any ideas before I re-install BATC to see if that solves the problem.

Thank You

28 minutes ago, Nicholas Jackson said:

Hi all,

Have a weird problem with BATC which occurred mid flight.

My hot key stopped working, so went into the BATC screen and the hot key and UI ping work fine. Went into MSFS nothing no ping no comms.

Restarted computer and both programs

Then tried ATIS frequency in sim  that was fine, opened up BATC screen again and requested push and start fine, when the sim is open no go, no ping or comms.

Changed comm button to mouse button unassigned anywhere else still no go.

Anyone have any ideas before I re-install BATC to see if that solves the problem.

Thank You

You might try posting this on their Discord page, they are pretty helpful there. 

Thanks for the reply Bob

Yes sent them a copy of this post also.

 

Regards

 

 

Well, I have tried BATC for a couple of weeks. For me, it is pretty useless on arrival to airport. I am flying either the Fenix A 320 or the PMDG 777. I fly in the US, and all my arrivals that have a star and a landing runway, per simbrief, BATC changes it to a visual approach. The vectoring most of the time for the visual , is terrible. They head me towards the Localizer, about 4 miles from the runway, at a 90 degree intercept angle requiring a steep turn to get on the localizer. I also find that many times the prevailing wind, is ignored, and with a 14 knot tailwind, up told to land on  that runway, when there is an available runway that suits the wind conditions. Just now they changed the arrival runway, but kept the star from the opposite runway, so no way to intercept the localizer.  

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

In the mean time, I am back to PF3 which always works.  

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by Bobsk8

53 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well, I have tried BATC for a couple of weeks. For me, it is pretty useless on arrival to airport. I am flying either the Fenix A 320 or the PMDG 777. I fly in the US, and all my arrivals that have a star and a landing runway, per simbrief, BATC changes it to a visual approach. The vectoring most of the time for the visual , is terrible. They head me towards the Localizer, about 4 miles from the runway, at a 90 degree intercept angle requiring a steep turn to get on the localizer. I also find that many times the prevailing wind, is ignored, and with a 14 knot tailwind, up told to land on  that runway, when there is an available runway that suits the wind conditions. Just now they changed the arrival runway, but kept the star from the opposite runway, so no way to intercept the localizer.  

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

In the mean time, I am back to PF3 which always works.  

Vectors are work in progress and will improve over time, but BATC does consider winds together with local airport operations (preferential runways). The only possibility of landing with 14 kts of tailwind is the weather changing rapidly in MSFS and BATC being a tad behind.

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

Even a simple option to choose "no vectors" that would allow a "cleared for the ILS approach" would allow you to do it yourself instead of those crazy intercept angles. Hope they get it worked out as, otherwise, it is my favorite ATC at the moment. 

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by haskell

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well, I have tried BATC for a couple of weeks. For me, it is pretty useless on arrival to airport. I am flying either the Fenix A 320 or the PMDG 777. I fly in the US, and all my arrivals that have a star and a landing runway, per simbrief, BATC changes it to a visual approach. The vectoring most of the time for the visual , is terrible. They head me towards the Localizer, about 4 miles from the runway, at a 90 degree intercept angle requiring a steep turn to get on the localizer. I also find that many times the prevailing wind, is ignored, and with a 14 knot tailwind, up told to land on  that runway, when there is an available runway that suits the wind conditions. Just now they changed the arrival runway, but kept the star from the opposite runway, so no way to intercept the localizer.  

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

In the mean time, I am back to PF3 which always works.  

I could have sworn that you swore by BATC just a matter of a week or two ago.

Now, its "PF3-is-better" because BATC doesn't have STARs? Very unusual that such an extensive ATC program (that you defended to the core 2 weeks ago) doesn't even allow basic SID/STARs in a flight sim. In fact, you blatantly disregarded much of what other people were referring to towards a different ATC (P2atc) program which you were completely against and stated you uninstalled instantly because you didn't like X, Y or Z. In fact, many of you (you included) took over the thread blasting that other program's future update and discussed various other ATC programs. Not very helpful there.

Judging by how quickly you dismissed Pilot2ATC for frivolous things I think you're doing the same for Beyond ATC, it seems.

In my opinion, this is not very helpful towards other users on here. BeyondATC (not that I own it, or tried it) seems like great software and is still a work in progress. PIA for landings? Maybe instead of completely disregarding something, deleting it, uninstalling it or recommending to others that it's a PIA and etc etc maybe try to provide help? I am sure Beyond ATC is not useless for arrival airports. I am sure someone here has some decent input regarding the software instead of basically dismissing it.

Edited August 31, 20241 yr by Sonosusto

15 minutes ago, Sonosusto said:

I could have sworn that you swore by BATC just a matter of a week or two ago.

Now, its "PF3-is-better" because BATC doesn't have STARs? Very unusual that such an extensive ATC program (that you defended to the core 2 weeks ago) doesn't even allow basic SID/STARs in a flight sim. In fact, you blatantly disregarded much of what other people were referring to towards a different ATC (P2atc) program which you were completely against and stated you uninstalled instantly because you didn't like X, Y or Z. In fact, many of you (you included) took over the thread blasting that other program's future update and discussed various other ATC programs. Not very helpful there.

Judging by how quickly you dismissed Pilot2ATC for frivolous things I think you're doing the same for Beyond ATC, it seems.

In my opinion, this is not very helpful towards other users on here. BeyondATC (not that I own it, or tried it) seems like great software and is still a work in progress. PIA for landings? Maybe instead of completely disregarding something, deleting it, uninstalling it or recommending to others that it's a PIA and etc etc maybe try to provide help? I am sure Beyond ATC is not useless for arrival airports. I am sure someone here has some decent input regarding the software instead of basically dismissing it.

You make a statement about someone's  post without reading what they actually wrote. Try arguing with someone else, why don't you. . 

2 hours ago, haskell said:

Even a simple option to choose "no vectors" that would allow a "cleared for the ILS approach" would allow you to do it yourself instead of those crazy intercept angles. Hope they get it worked out as, otherwise, it is my favorite ATC at the moment. 

I  feel that they need to sort out the approach issues, before adding AI traffic control into the mix. Having AI traffic control, and then you are faced with a confusing approach doesn't leave the user with a good impression. They could do one of several things. one would be your suggestion of no vectors, another would be a functional way to change landing runway, and another would be to ask for a ILS or Rnav approach only. The way it stands now, in the US, is no matter what Star you are on, you end up with a vectored Visual approach, many times to a runway that doesn't connect to the star you are assigned. 

I use it on all my flights and have noticed that it works fine with a procedural approach or if there are vectors to final of an ILS. The vectors are of varying quality but get the job done. I’d agree with Bob that the two occasions I’ve had vectors to a visual approach have been hopeless, with final at four miles and about 3000 feet too high. If there was an option once you were within range to declare visual and be left alone, that would be better. 
i also would like to see better ways of selecting a gate after landing. If you’re using the button version then it only gives you the option of a small number of gates at big hubs. 

I like BATC. It has a lot going for it, but both Benny and Bob are right.

Most flights end up being visual vectors to final.

That would not be the end of the world, but the vectors are really bad.

Bad enough to make you miss your landing completely.

 

15 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well, I have tried BATC for a couple of weeks. For me, it is pretty useless on arrival to airport. I am flying either the Fenix A 320 or the PMDG 777. I fly in the US, and all my arrivals that have a star and a landing runway, per simbrief, BATC changes it to a visual approach. The vectoring most of the time for the visual , is terrible. They head me towards the Localizer, about 4 miles from the runway, at a 90 degree intercept angle requiring a steep turn to get on the localizer. I also find that many times the prevailing wind, is ignored, and with a 14 knot tailwind, up told to land on  that runway, when there is an available runway that suits the wind conditions. Just now they changed the arrival runway, but kept the star from the opposite runway, so no way to intercept the localizer.  

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

In the mean time, I am back to PF3 which always works.  

Geez Bob, you're up and down like a cheap yo-yo.....a month ago in this thread you were raving about BATC....

You seemed pretty keen on it a few weeks ago too

Then again a few days before that.....

 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, KL Oo said:

Geez Bob, you're up and down like a cheap yo-yo.....a month ago in this thread you were raving about BATC....

You seemed pretty keen on it a few weeks ago too

Then again a few days before that.....

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. 

BATC is great software I am sure. Just some kinks to work out. 

Edited September 1, 20241 yr by Sonosusto

17 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well, I have tried BATC for a couple of weeks. For me, it is pretty useless on arrival to airport. I am flying either the Fenix A 320 or the PMDG 777. I fly in the US, and all my arrivals that have a star and a landing runway, per simbrief, BATC changes it to a visual approach. The vectoring most of the time for the visual , is terrible. They head me towards the Localizer, about 4 miles from the runway, at a 90 degree intercept angle requiring a steep turn to get on the localizer. I also find that many times the prevailing wind, is ignored, and with a 14 knot tailwind, up told to land on  that runway, when there is an available runway that suits the wind conditions. Just now they changed the arrival runway, but kept the star from the opposite runway, so no way to intercept the localizer.  

So every approach, is a PIA, and you can't ask ATC for a different approach, because it doesn't work at all. They are trying to add control of AI, but there are many things that need fixing in the ATC program first, in my opinion.  

In the mean time, I am back to PF3 which always works.  

edit

Edited September 1, 20241 yr by Rocky_53

4 hours ago, KL Oo said:

Geez Bob, you're up and down like a cheap yo-yo.....a month ago in this thread you were raving about BATC....

You seemed pretty keen on it a few weeks ago too

Then again a few days before that.....

 

 

 

 

 

It's like being married, at first it is great, then after spending  some time together. you start to see the problems creeping up. You should be smart enough to figure that out yourself..😉

BTW, it must have taken you a long time to do all that cutting and pasting from my posts...LOL

Edited September 1, 20241 yr by Bobsk8