1 hour ago, HighTowers said:

That latest video is rather impressive.  Of course there is some weird stuff and errors happening, but this is a massive step forward to be controlling AI traffic in this manner with separation and alot of varied language that doesnt sound scripted at all.   We really havnt seen AI traffic be controlled in such a manner before in the flight sim world.  

One thing that impressed me on a recent flight into EDDF was hearing multiple AI aircraft being given the instruction "after KUGUK, fly heading NNN". (KUGUK is a waypoint on the SPESA 3G and 5R arrivals.) This is something I could see a real-world controller doing, and it made things feel that much more real.

On the other hand, BATC made me fly the whole transition, rather than giving me a shortcut. Traffic didn't seem to be a factor. So it's still very much a mixed bag (as expected).

I just watched and listened to the voices again and it's just remarkable. I hope that they fix the bugs and release this soon. It's really impressive!

As for how the dev is handling customers (testers) requests to fix bugs, when I did any beta testing I received the beta, tested the airplane, airport, or utility, and then sent feedback to dev. The dev then made corrections and then issued another beta. It doesn't seem to me that this is the approach that BATC is taking. Maybe they have too many users sending conflicting feedback?

Thanks again to all the early supporters.

18 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

That's why I say: Ask on Discord. Because often enough there's explanations for this:

1) Being vectored off the STAR is very common in real life (in Europe at least), and can mean a shortcut, more space for separation, or it just fits better the current active approach. So that's perfectly normal, even though at the moment it's still quite rare in BATC.

2) The vector you got away from the approach direction was going to give you more track miles, either because BATC thought you were still too high or because a direct turn would have been too tight for BATC's calculations. If you would have flown the given vectors, after one or two minutes you would have given a new vector onto final (with enough time and space to lose altitude and speed and configure etc.)

That's not to say that there aren't any bugs - there are plenty of them. But often enough it's just a misconception or misunderstanding and by solving that, people can keep enjoying BATC instead of waiting for a fix that is never gonna happen 🙂 Therefore, don't hesitate to ask over at Discord! There's a lot of mods and a lot of community mentors and even the devs are regularly there to answer questions.

No misconception or misunderstanding here, I can assure you. I've been using BATC since the early beta and the final phase of the flight still has major problems. Concerning your two points:

1. I wonder if BATC does shortcuts at all in its current state... Afaik shortcuts aren't implemented/supported yet. But I could be wrong on that: perhaps they are experimenting with it in order to get seperation working. But anyway, the vector I was talking about actually was the vector to final (as I already posted) so there weren't anymore vectors coming. I also kept on flying for a few minutes to see where it would lead me but when I noticed it would lead me into disaster (as I already expected) I decided to ignore the final vector and went back to the publised approach.

2. As I said the vector was the final one and I was at the final approach altitude already. And it was in fact the vector that would actually lead me to a too tight (read: impossible) turn... If BATC would have let me fly the procedure all would have been perfect. So don't make it sound as if BATC would have solved it all if I only listened: it was BATC that almost screwed up the approach and it was me who prevented this by ignoring BATC.

So again: no misconception or misunderstanding here: BATC simply is very buggy in the final phase of flight. Not odd at all with an EA and experimental alpha but sometimes it's better to simply acknowledge that: there is no need to defend BATC like you usually do and (sort of) put the blame of most problems on the user.

I am not saying this as an attack to you btw: I really do respect and appreciate your calm tone of voice here and on Discord and how you always try to help people. 😉

 

4 hours ago, HighTowers said:

We really havnt seen AI traffic be controlled in such a manner before in the flight sim world.

FSHud is controlling AI traffic a lot better than BATC (at this moment). Of course BATC does a few things better than FSHud (like voices and voice control) but when it comes to controlling traffic FSHud is way ahead of BATC and has been for quite some time already. I don't mean to turn this into a BATC vs FSHud topic but saying 'we haven't seen AI traffic be controlled in such a manner before in the flight sim world' is simply not true. Not at all.

38 minutes ago, mistolip said:

 

2. As I said the vector was the final one and I was at the final approach altitude already. And it was in fact the vector that would actually lead me to a too tight (read: impossible) turn... If BATC would have let me fly the procedure all would have been perfect. So don't make it sound as if BATC would have solved it all if I only listened: it was BATC that almost screwed up the approach and it was me who prevented this by ignoring BATC.

So again: no misconception or misunderstanding here: BATC simply is very buggy in the final phase of flight. Not odd at all with an EA and experimental alpha but sometimes it's better to simply acknowledge that: there is no need to defend BATC like you usually do and (sort of) put the blame of most problems on the user.

I

The only way I have been able to have a satisfactory approach with BATC, 95% of the time, was to totally ignore anything involving vectors, and just fly the published approach. As soon as BATC turns an ILS or RNAV into a "visual" approach, that is the beginning of disaster. 

I am on the supporter's pack, but it's gotten better about handing me the ILS instead of the visual. That said, real life ATC gives out visual approaches all the time. When they clear you for the visual, you can still fly the published ILS approach.

If BATC gives me a visual, I just fly the published approach.

I haven't had a vectored approach in a while to test if it's any better about getting me to the FAF.

The traffic stuff has seen an improvement as well. I am now getting speed restrictions, etc.

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

The only way I have been able to have a satisfactory approach with BATC, 95% of the time, was to totally ignore anything involving vectors, and just fly the published approach. As soon as BATC turns an ILS or RNAV into a "visual" approach, that is the beginning of disaster. 

This is exactly what is happening to me...

32 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

I am on the supporter's pack, but it's gotten better about handing me the ILS instead of the visual. That said, real life ATC gives out visual approaches all the time. When they clear you for the visual, you can still fly the published ILS approach.

If BATC gives me a visual, I just fly the published approach.

I haven't had a vectored approach in a while to test if it's any better about getting me to the FAF.

The traffic stuff has seen an improvement as well. I am now getting speed restrictions, etc.

My experience, when you ignore the vectors in the visual, BATC goes silent, for the remainder of the approach and landing. 

16 hours ago, bahnzo said:

As it is, the default ATC in MSFS is better fleshed out and working than BATC is.

No offense, but by saying this, you've totally discredited yourself for this discussion. Or any discussion.

I purchased this mostly to see AI implementation, so I bought the $60 or so package. I’m an IFR rated PPL and was particularly looking forward to how STARs and SIDs are handled. I’ve done 8-10 flights so far, all commercial ATP style stuff, and I’m a bit baffled as to the programs abilities. It feels as if it’s doing the same handling for every flight and I find it too predictable and a bit boring as a result.

Some phraseology is off or incomplete a little bit at times, and while the premium voices are amazing, the program is having a hard time keeping up with traffic to a point where it’s dicey to get your landing clearance in time. Sometimes I don’t hear from a controller after my decent request for way too long. I then just decent per STAR as I don’t want to mess up my approach because of a sleepy controller after a two hour flight.

So far, in all my flights it made me fly the full approach which can get annoying at times. I also always get a squawk code of 1000, but that might be user error.

I feel like it has potential, but I thought it would be further ahead in development and in handling more complex, yet standard IFR situations.

Cheers,

Pete

9 minutes ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

I purchased this mostly to see AI implementation, so I bought the $60 or so package. I’m an IFR rated PPL and was particularly looking forward to how STARs and SIDs are handled. I’ve done 8-10 flights so far, all commercial ATP style stuff, and I’m a bit baffled as to the programs abilities. It feels as if it’s doing the same handling for every flight and I find it too predictable and a bit boring as a result.

Some phraseology is off or incomplete a little bit at times, and while the premium voices are amazing, the program is having a hard time keeping up with traffic to a point where it’s dicey to get your landing clearance in time. Sometimes I don’t hear from a controller after my decent request for way too long. I then just decent per STAR as I don’t want to mess up my approach because of a sleepy controller after a two hour flight.

So far, in all my flights it made me fly the full approach which can get annoying at times. I also always get a squawk code of 1000, but that might be user error.

I feel like it has potential, but I thought it would be further ahead in development and in handling more complex, yet standard IFR situations.

Cheers,

Pete

Pete have you tried say intentions yet wondering if that's a little better now I saw that fshud is adding voice too so would like to check that out.

16 minutes ago, Silverbird said:

Pete have you tried say intentions yet wondering if that's a little better now I saw that fshud is adding voice too so would like to check that out.

Not yet, my wife put me on a flight sim budget until the end of the month 😎.

2 hours ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

Not yet, my wife put me on a flight sim budget until the end of the month 😎.

LOL. Busted. 

Edited September 18, 20241 yr by Drumcode

2 hours ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

Not yet, my wife put me on a flight sim budget until the end of the month 😎.

lol I definitely understand 😁

4 hours ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

Not yet, my wife put me on a flight sim budget until the end of the month 😎.

24 hour free demo - I own BATC,  fshud,  ptatc and SI.   Ok no traffic (yet) but SI is just super.  No disrespect to the others - since I shamefully own them all,  I figure my opinion may matter to some. 

12 hours ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

I also always get a squawk code of 1000, but that might be user error.

Where were you flying?

If you have a mode S transponder, many European countries will assign a 1000 squawk code, and your aircraft will then be identified by its unique mode S address. If you want to get around this (so you get a discrete squawk code), I guess you could change your aircraft's equipment codes in Simbrief. (In real life, this would of course be a no-no, but this is just the sim.)