23 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

Where BATC is getting the performance boost is handing all the injection within the app

So, you think that BATC simulating 100 planes on EGLL only vs. FSLTL and AIG also simulating another 100 planes on Gatwick and City airports has no impact on the fact that BATC has higher FPS on EGLL? Well then...

7 minutes ago, kiek said:

Aha that's quite different from your previous posts about no performance hit at all! 🙂  

The difference between BATC and PSXT is minimal:  -17 fps vs -20 fps! And don't forget you can get 100 live aircraft easlity in PSXT on top of that without much extra costs.  
The number 160/165 you mentioned in previous posts and/or here is - apparently- due to other mechanisms. That was what confused me, one can of course use that with PSXT too...

BTW: I would have been surprised if BATC would do the injecting job much better then PSXT because both programs use the same method of injecting. We both have to use the SimConnect interface, that's all there is (unlless they, like Pete Dowson in the past with PSUIPC, have "hacked" MSFS/SimConnect).
 

 

Nico...I love your program and it is great.  With BATC, the performance hit is negligible at best.  Again, I have high end system and use Lossless.  I get consistent 60fps with your program and with BATC.  And I am using 100% traffic.  I have tested at heavy airports like KJFK, KDEN, and LEMD.  BATC is only in it's alpha phase so little hard to compare apples to apples.  That said, in the end, it will be user preference.  I wish for continued success with your program as it is and has been top notch in my book. 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by knich

Performance is excellent so far, but we need to wait to see what impact all the upcoming features are going to have on BATC. But so far, I am very encouraged by what I am seeing. 

BTW, I am seeing screen flickering when running BATC. Anyone else seeing this?

7 hours ago, mistolip said:

Took off from ENHD yesterday and there was no traffic at all. But well, perhaps that airport is closed on sunday.

It's not closed on Sunday, but there's just one departure in the morning at 9:10 am, and then the next one isn't until 2:15 pm (checking at https://flyhau.no/en/departures). So it sounds like you just flew in that "gap" when there wasn't any traffic in real life either.

8 hours ago, mistolip said:

However, the first problem I ran into was that when it gets busy it also gets hard (to sometimes impossible) to talk to ATC (using button control in my case). Just like with default ATC you can only 'talk' when the AI-traffic is silent so you have to wait (and wait and wait) until the right moment and then quickly 'talk' before someone else is talking again.

This can actually happen in real life too when things get busy. I noticed this on a flight out of EDDF -- had to wait for a bit to get a transmission in, but it didn't seem excessive and actually quite immersive in a way that I wasn't able to talk to ATC immediately.

I agree with your observations about arrivals -- there's still a lot of work to be done in this area and this is the main thing I would say is lacking at this point.

I did a few flights and I like it, but clearly it's still buggy. I still wasn't able to figure out (didn't spend that much time on it) whether when the time is changed, the traffic is re-injected to match current time. Does anyone know? 

I am not so sure they have the departures and arrivals properly handled. I did DEN-LGA yesterday, departing 17L at Denver, it handed me off to departure frequency and kept me on it for about 55NM eastbound from DEN and eventually handed me off to the center freuqency, this can't be right. Granted, the arrival and departure chatter was mad busy on the frequency, so I'm not sure if their logic is prioritizing these flights or what. 

1 hour ago, Drumcode said:

I did a few flights and I like it, but clearly it's still buggy. I still wasn't able to figure out (didn't spend that much time on it) whether when the time is changed, the traffic is re-injected to match current time. Does anyone know? 

I am not so sure they have the departures and arrivals properly handled. I did DEN-LGA yesterday, departing 17L at Denver, it handed me off to departure frequency and kept me on it for about 55NM eastbound from DEN and eventually handed me off to the center freuqency, this can't be right. Granted, the arrival and departure chatter was mad busy on the frequency, so I'm not sure if their logic is prioritizing these flights or what. 

1) Not sure, this was changed with today's update anyway so I have to look later today. In general you would change sim-time to the one you want *before* starting the BATC flight in most cases, I guess.
2) I think (not sure again, but from my experience) the handoff to center in BATC is done via the altitude, so when you're closing in to the upper flight levels (e.g. 17000) center has to take over because center coordinates flights in that altitude. So when you were climbing rather slowly, this could be possible. But it could indeed be a priorization issue, too, since all instructions are worked off a queue and if there's 20 AI that had their instructions queued before yours, you'd be waiting a couple of minutes.

Traffic is in a clear alpha state, bugs are to be expected. That's why it's not yet available for everyone, but only for the supporters acting as testers. Once it's out for everyone (weeks or even months from now), it should be in a much better shape. So I'd recommend using it only if you effectively want to help as a tester.

48 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Traffic is in a clear alpha state, bugs are to be expected. That's why it's not yet available for everyone, but only for the supporters acting as testers. Once it's out for everyone (weeks or even months from now), it should be in a much better shape. So I'd recommend using it only if you effectively want to help as a tester.

Very true. However, my main issue is that my main problems concern the basics that have nothing to do with traffic. As I said before, BATC it great up to cruise, after that it's just as unreliable as it has always been for me. I see no improvements in the descent and approach phases. ATC fails to talk to me, gives wrong (final) headings, lets me fly all over the place, etc. Things that have been happening for months and months already. But off course BATC is still EA as well as experimental).

Just compared a short flight (LERS-LEGE) doing it once with BATC and once with FSHud directly after each other. BATC had me taxiing at my own discretion, FSHud gave me detailed taxi instructions, BATC had no traffic at all during the entire flight, FSHud showed me nothing at my departure airport but there were two contrails during take off, it had 2 contacts (multiple messages of course) during cruise, 2 contacts during descent and 4 aircraft parked at the destination. BATC told me the STAR in time this time but didn't tell me to descent, FSHud did both, BATC cleared me for the approach while I was still flying in an opposite direction, FSHud gave me a vector and a spot on final heading to intercept the approach and cleared me at the appropriate time. 

Of course you can't really compare the two, BATC is so much newer and EA plus experimental, but it's clear that you should indeed only use BATC if you want to help make it better. If you simply want working ATC look elsewhere. Having said that: I really love the way BATC does things (UI etc.) so I can't wait to see it improve. I do hope that in the end it will become good enough to become my go to ATC solution. (Although FSHud 2.0 looks tempting too... but you can't give that one a try yet.)

1 minute ago, mistolip said:

Very true. However, my main issue is that my main problems concern the basics that have nothing to do with traffic. As I said before, BATC it great up to cruise, after that it's just as unreliable as it has always been for me. I see no improvements in the descent and approach phases. ATC fails to talk to me, gives wrong (final) headings, lets me fly all over the place, etc. Things that have been happening for months and months already. But off course BATC is still EA as well as experimental).

Just compared a short flight (LERS-LEGE) doing it once with BATC and once with FSHud directly after each other. BATC had me taxiing at my own discretion, FSHud gave me detailed taxi instructions, BATC had no traffic at all during the entire flight, FSHud showed me nothing at my departure airport but there were two contrails during take off, it had 2 contacts (multiple messages of course) during cruise, 2 contacts during descent and 4 aircraft parked at the destination. BATC told me the STAR in time this time but didn't tell me to descent, FSHud did both, BATC cleared me for the approach while I was still flying in an opposite direction, FSHud gave me a vector and a spot on final heading to intercept the approach and cleared me at the appropriate time. 

Of course you can't really compare the two, BATC is so much newer and EA plus experimental, but it's clear that you should indeed only use BATC if you want to help make it better. If you simply want working ATC look elsewhere. Having said that: I really love the way BATC does things (UI etc.) so I can't wait to see it improve. I do hope that in the end it will become good enough to become my go to ATC solution. (Although FSHud 2.0 looks tempting too... but you can't give that one a try yet.)

FSHud is no competition with its robotic voices (even with 2.0 it's not up to premium level), no voice recognition and above all and the abysmal performance. That's all I have to say to that comparison. But each to their own.

As for the rest - yes, these things will improve, as you say, it's still early access. They have been working 5-6 weeks only on traffic, so updates for other stuff had to wait. They'll get back to it, now that they can also make it work together with traffic (instead of having to redo everything when traffic arrives).

BATC works perfectly in 9/10 flights for me (not considering traffic), so my experience is vastly more positive. In fact I prefer it over Vatsim by now, especially with traffic. Vatsim has become either a overcrowded place for people that don't listen or don't know how to fly their plane.. or it's empty.

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

1) Not sure, this was changed with today's update anyway so I have to look later today. In general you would change sim-time to the one you want *before* starting the BATC flight in most cases, I guess.

Do you know what happens when using time acceleration? If I depart KJFK at 2300z, then use the PMDG 777 auto cruise feature and land at EGLL at 0530z would BATC sync to 0530z or the elapsed time since taking off at KJFK (which using auto cruise may only be around 60-90 mins)?

21 minutes ago, Speedbird 217 said:

Do you know what happens when using time acceleration? If I depart KJFK at 2300z, then use the PMDG 777 auto cruise feature and land at EGLL at 0530z would BATC sync to 0530z or the elapsed time since taking off at KJFK (which using auto cruise may only be around 60-90 mins)?

Nothing, literally 🙂 BATC AI traffic will continue at its normal 1x rate. You'll be basically overtaking it. It should then however load traffic in on the arrival according to the then-sim time, because that traffic obviously does not yet exist when you're departing. But not 100% sure about that

5 hours ago, kiek said:

The difference between BATC and PSXT is minimal:  -17 fps vs -20 fps! And don't forget you can get 100 live aircraft easily in PSXT on top of that without much extra costs.  

quite rude to come into a thread about another product and advertise yours.

27 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

quite rude to come into a thread about another product and advertise yours.

He does that all the time in almost every thread about AI traffic. Annoying and as avsim staff, I would have banned him long ago for this. But obviously PSXT needs more customers, otherwise this aggressive advertisments are not understandable. If it would be THE product, it would speak for itself without the need for such tactics...

21 minutes ago, AnkH said:

But obviously PSXT needs more customers

What customers? PSXT is free.

RealTraffic, which is needed to see any live traffic with it, is not.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Farlis

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

quite rude to come into a thread about another product and advertise yours.

Rude? I did not started this discussion... It is my right to give my opinion, if someone else in a thread about BATC comes up with a comparison with PSXT.

If he wants to give comments about PSXT he is welcome in my AVSIM (!) forum.