2 hours ago, Ident said:

and its being coded for ATC services then how will BATC handle VFR when it comes?

I’m sure BATC will figure that out when it supports VFR though. I do appreciate the comparison but I feel as though it’s a bit wasted considering BATC flat out doesn’t support VFR right now though. 

 

2 hours ago, Ident said:

you learn to state what you plans are once airborne in the cold call.

I agree, in VFR, something BATC does not support. You can mind you, take off at an uncontrolled airport in BATC and pick up an IFR when airborne. 

 

2 hours ago, Ident said:

With BATC, you need to pick where you park and BATC has to feel like that spot works for your plane.

No you don’t? You can ask BATC for an assigned gate or any gate it decides on. 

 

2 hours ago, Ident said:

Where BATC will not let you pick an approach

Of course you can when flying IFR, but again you’re trying to do this in VFR that BATC doesn’t support. 

 

2 hours ago, Ident said:

With SI you just state where you would like to go after landing without needing to pull up a map of the airports parking spot

I’m confused BATC does the exact same thing if you choose to do so. 
 

Like I said appreciate what SI can do in VFR and it sounds amazing, but comparing this to BATC that doesn’t support VFR yet, seems silly imo. Sure when BATC provides VFR would a comparison of how it does VFR would be useful.

6 hours ago, guenseli said:

Depends, what successful means.

Regarding functionality, yes.

Regarding sales, no. Never ever will I buy or even try it for 200$ per year. At 50$ I will start thinking, but then it must be exceptional good!

Correct functionality is what I meant.

On 3/18/2025 at 12:15 PM, UAL4life said:

BATC has the best voices by far in Premium. However the traffic does some crazy stuff like nosedive into the runway teleport into the air, do an instant 360 and keep flying, push and starts that are way too fast. They also don’t support historical weather which I’m sorry I’m not going to only fly at night when I get home. 
 

I’ve now switched back to SI using PSXT which gives me lots of traffic and SI can detect that traffic and make you hold short etc. Also the chatter is really good.

 

SI recognizes PSXT planes? That's impossible.

5 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

1) I agree, in VFR, something BATC does not support. You can mind you, take off at an uncontrolled airport in BATC and pick up an IFR when airborne. 

 

2) No you don’t? You can ask BATC for an assigned gate or any gate it decides on. 

 

3) Of course you can when flying IFR, but again you’re trying to do this in VFR that BATC doesn’t support. 

 

4) I’m confused BATC does the exact same thing if you choose to do so. 
 

5)Like I said appreciate what SI can do in VFR and it sounds amazing, but comparing this to BATC that doesn’t support VFR yet, seems silly imo. Sure when BATC provides VFR would a comparison of how it does VFR would be useful.

1) I have not taken off from an uncontrolled airport in BATC yet. Since it seems you have or know more about this, does BATC offer the service where you contact a FSS while on the ground to pick up your clearance with void times or must you get that in air? To compare apples to apples, can you pick up an IFR clearance after taking off in VFR  (both controlled airport and uncontrolled airport for this example) without a flight plan on file with Simbrief in BATC? A pop-up IFR clearance? Honestly I havent tried SI yet to see how it will handle a pop-up IFR clearance without anything on file with Simbrief. I've read that it will do it, but not sure if it will just give you direct or try and create a route for you.

2) I dont fly airliners so all my experience with BATC has been with either a Duke or Comanche. BATC is heavily geared towards airliners currently it seems which is great. However, A) no a particular parking spot needs to be stated for BATC Ground in order to get progressives and with the whole let them assign one gives me heavy flashbacks to default ATC which it picks spots designed off of your plane size and then from a list in alpha-numeric order. As you can see in my example, I always just state the FBO that I am going to and I get progressive taxi to it. SI will mess this up as both BATC and SI are being developed quickly to improve but it seems for now, that BATC will rely heavily on using an actual parking spot number to work where with SI it uses AI to reference where on the airport the location you are asking for is located and gives progressive that way.

3) I have never been able to ask for and get a requested approach with BATC. My understanding as to why is because theres a small window from when they stated your first descent call and before they give you what approach to expect, that the user at that point can make the approach request. Since I fly down low, I never get that window. 

However, with my example, once ATC gives you an approach with BATC you can not change that. With SI as you can see, I can request a different approach even after ATC has already given me one. This is on an IFR flight, not VFR flight.

4) When I first got BATC I repeatedly tried telling ATC that I was looking to taxi to a certain FBO and got a negative response. Cant remember if it was "Unable" or what. So then I tried just asking to taxi to the FBO and got the same. It wasnt until I jumped out of the VC and pulled up the BATC window that I learned that I needed to pick an actual spot or let BATC pick one for me. Things could have changed since then as after that I had learned to just look at the airport map and find a parking spot number. However, this was like last week that happened so I still stand behind the statement that BATC does not currently acknowledge a reference area and insists on needing an actual parking spot in order to provide ground taxi.

BATC is a great program and I encourage everyone to support it. I highly recommend it if you fly airliners only. My previous post was more about pointing out the different approaches two companies are using to get to the same end result of offering improved ATC. Having used both, I feel like the logic and coding of SI is less scripted and more open sandbox. With that in mind, I feel it not only justifies the price but creates a better path forward for the user experience.

 

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Ident

13 hours ago, Ident said:

These are just a handful of examples but the pattern that I've noticed is the SI is more understanding and accommodating where BATC seems to be more rigid and scripted in how it handles the flight. To BATC credit it is also trying to work other AI traffic where SI is not, but it seems that there are two completely different approaches to how the ATC is designed to handle the users plane.

I don't own SI myself, but I do frequent shared cockpit flights in the Fenix with a friend who has the full subscription. On the flights we've done so far, I feel that SI falls a bit short of BATC/FSHud (which granted, is more rigid, but IMO more accurate). 

We did a flight from EDDL to EDDF, where we didn't get any STAR or approach and were pretty much left waiting for ATC instructions - which came eventually with SI after overflying EDDF at FL120. It seemed a bit arbitrary. 

On a flight from KBOS to KJFK, we didn't hear anything from SI at all a few minutes after takeoff and flying the SID. We expected to be handed over from TWR to APPR, but this never happened. At some stage we were able to tune to NY center overflying JFK at FL200. 

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Cpt_Piett

11 hours ago, Ident said:

With BATC, you need to pick where you park and BATC has to feel like that spot works for your plane. 

I always just use the parking spot BATC routes me to there is no need to pick your own parking spot.

80% of the time in using BATC I do not use it's AI traffic injection and management.  This is no BS:  I've had more conflicts using BATC's traffic than simply using FSLTL and BATC for ATC instruction only.  Just yesterday using BATC's traffic a plane on taxi went right thru me and I've had others taxi directly towards me and not stop and no instruction from BATC for me to hold position.  Some find this ridiculous to not use BATC's injector but in end the experience is just better to use FSLTL's injector and BATC for instruction.  Plus, FSLTL's traffic animation is always super smooth, BATC's isn't, and performance is measurably better w/o BATC managing traffic.

TBH I'm surprised these dedicated ATC programs have as many issues as they do in terms of some basics of ATC.  I find BATC is often TOO LATE with instructions to descend, to change headings, etc.  This stuff seems super basic to decent ATC.

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Noel

BATC announced itself to the community some time ago. They provided informative videos showcasing the products development and detailing how they decided to throw out a lot of prior work in order to get AI Traffic into the mix. At some point SI came onto the field with a completely different PR/marketing approach. They offered a short private beta and released their product with lots of AI learning issues.

SI, was kinda first out of the gate with a very "stupid in the AI but learning quickly with the help" way product. I have a feeling that when the general public thought of AI ATC for flight simming most thought of BATC at the time. Perhaps thats why SI took on a very controversial aggressive marketing approach to play catch up in getting their name out. Even at this recent awards show BATC won as best new tool yet as an ATC tool it only offers IFR.

Its unknown if with SI release before BATC could get theirs released if BATC released their product earlier (less fully featured ready) than they had planned. SI was a complete nightmare of an app when it was released but user could easily see an improvement month over month. I feel early adopters of BATC will be able to say the same thing. The BATC of today is much improved from its 1st month of release.

As consumers we benefit from these two working hard to polish their products to be the best. I also question how much each might of shot their self in the foot with releasing their products when they did, in the state they were at during the time as it only takes a few mistakes to leaving long term negative impressions. 

Its also the user who is the issue. When going and picking some of the above radio calls I did which I got a weird reply from ATC, I noticed in listening to my own voice, the sound sample that AI had to firgure out what I was say, my radio calls werent clear and I too would of questioned what was being said if not in content. 

So yes, there are going to be success stories and there are going to be failure stories. For both when they are running at being great its an awesome addon. However, one wrong error, bad/wrong instruction, etc will completely break the immersion and ruin the experience.

My statement that SI is doing it better is not based on what it does but how it does it. I will gladly go all in on BATC if and or when it offers all the additional features of value that I feel I get with SI. I do want more than just AI ATC and Traffic and dont ever see myself flying airliners.

   

15 minutes ago, Noel said:

I always just use the parking spot BATC routes me to there is no need to pick your own parking spot.

So how does that work in the sim and to mimic real life? Honestly, I want to know. IRL when I land, I know where I want/need to go on the airport and they kinda expect me to say that. So in SI, I just say the FBO, ramp name or hangar location and Ground gives me the taxiways to get there. So how in BATC can you ask to taxi to the FBO and get that because I have tried and it wants me to provide a parking spot location? Whats the correct phase to use in BATC to go to the location you want/need to go to without having to use an exact parking spot location and also be sure that you will get progressive taxi instructions to that area?

37 minutes ago, Ident said:

So how does that work in the sim and to mimic real life? Honestly, I want to know. IRL when I land, I know where I want/need to go on the airport and they kinda expect me to say that. 

BATC gives you two choices post landing:  take its suggested gate/park, or choose your own.  Since I can't stand GSX's arrival marshal behavior often I will open MSFS 2020/2024's ATC (audio off so won't hear anything) and request taxi to the gate/parking MSFS' ATC will send me to, at which point I can then select that location in BATC and it will route me there using its overhead taxi map.

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Noel

1 hour ago, Noel said:

BATC gives you two choices post landing:  take its suggested gate/park, or choose your own.  Since I can't stand GSX's arrival marshal behavior often I will open MSFS 2020/2024's ATC (audio off so won't hear anything) and request taxi to the gate/parking MSFS' ATC will send me to, at which point I can then select that location in BATC and it will route me there using its overhead taxi map.

So you use MSFS ATC to get the location by opening up the ATC window, read the location spot and then verbally request with BATC that spot? If thats the case, while not the most realistic, the idea that its common to contact the FBO prior to landing or just after landing as so they know you're arriving and will send a marshaller out to assist, I can see the idea of the default window being the same as contacting the FBO and them stating where they want you to go and then getting Gnd to provide the route.

5 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

SI recognizes PSXT planes? That's impossible.

I was skeptical too. Did a flight from Corpus Christi down to Harlingen with BATC for traffic and SI for ATC services. As I was getting closer to the runway threshold I saw a plane doing what I thought was holding short. I was kinda excited because this was going to be my first time being number two for departure but as I got closer, saw that it was an American Airlines holding the active.

 

I called up Twr for takeoff and got this exchange
 

 

So yes it not only recognized that there was a plane holding the active but also what kind of plane. In a way it kinda makes sense as SI is working to add traffic but currently just has all traffic not operating on the ground. Also all targets show up on my Garmin Pilot including drones on PilotEdge so the info is being broadcasted so SI is just picking that up. Lastly it is AI so I'd hope that it acts intelligent. Which, to be sure that it was BATC traffic and nothing else, I then turned off the BATC app and the plane disappeared and then as you can see by the logs that I was cleared for takeoff once the plane was removed.

 

Which was also interesting because when I opened the BATC app to close it, I could see all the ATC replies that I wasnt hearing from BATC since I have their voices muted as I just want the AI traffic yet they hear my calls as I talk on the same freq to SI ATC. In review, before I closed the BATC app, you can see that BATC cleared me for take off even with the plane on the active signaling to me BATC is more canned than fluid and SI is more fluid than canned.

However, while I didnt hear BATC Ground, they did give me a quicker route to the active from Atlantic with a more precise description  Juliet, Bravo, Bravo 5 where SI gave me Kilo, Golf, Bravo

 

 

2 hours ago, Ident said:

So in SI, I just say the FBO, ramp name or hangar location and Ground gives me the taxiways to get there.

So, in SI you can say "Taxi to the Signature ramp"?

Does it work with all airports?

7 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

So, in SI you can say "Taxi to the Signature ramp"?

Does it work with all airports?

Thats what I would do in real life and many times Brian of SI has stated he wants to build a program that replicates RL and strives to achieve that in coding. SI has a public program called taxi tuner where each airport can be customized much like the portal of Xplane where its publicly sourced. I'm not sure if the AI of SI uses the taxi tuner and in doing so these customized airports also get added info of buildings or if AI uses airports charts and the internet to conclude where I am looking to go.

With that said, my success rate in only providing the FBO, ramp area or hangar location to SI ATC and getting the proper taxi path is probably now in the high 80s low 90s percentage. With time it continues to get better. I use the program for keeping me current with RL flying so I focus more on what I get right and less on what AI does. However, where when I started using SI every flight would of gotten a F in scoring (F being bad as I dont know if that translate across the globe), I'd give most flights a passing grade with now being more a B to an A. (Once again those are good scores)

2 hours ago, Ident said:

So you use MSFS ATC to get the location by opening up the ATC window, read the location spot and then verbally request with BATC that spot?

I'm sorry, I don't use voice commands I should have mentioned that before.  After landing you're presented those two options so if I wish to use MSFS' marshals which I much prefer I will simple open the ATC window, request taxi to arrival location, it immediately says which location, then in BATC I select the option to choose my own gate, it presents me then with the list of gates at which point I scroll down to find the gate default ATC said it would use and select it.

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

I'm sorry, I don't use voice commands I should have mentioned that before.  After landing you're presented those two options so if I wish to use MSFS' marshals which I much prefer I will simple open the ATC window, request taxi to arrival location, it immediately says which location, then in BATC I select the option to choose my own gate, it presents me then with the list of gates at which point I scroll down to find the gate default ATC said it would use and select it.

After vacating the runway with BATC/FSHud, I contact ground, then get the taxi instructions to the gate. I don't think I need to open the interface for this (unless I want to change the gate/stand).