I think that is great that BATC offers the ability to use keyboard and or mouse commands to communicate with for fellow simmers. Years ago I owned the Go Flight Inc ATC module which had a dial that displayed the number 0-9 with the knob having a push button to select the dialed number. So instead of using a mouse or keyboard to select the correct menu reply or command, you would just dial it in on the display and push the knob.

It also allowed you to have your headset pass through the module and connect to your speakers. I want to be as far away from ever using a keyboard or mouse as possible but thats me.

On 3/18/2025 at 1:58 PM, mattloveday1987 said:

Hi All,

I currently use Beyond ATC with traffic injection which is fine. I am keen to give Say Intentions a go after seeing them in Holland last week. The bit that is bugging me is the lack of ground traffic injection at the moment. Has anyone got suggestions of how to use Say Intentions in MSFS2024 while having active ground traffic? Potentially through FSLTL? Does this work well or is it just better to use BATC?

Thanks

Matt

I have both, BATC, SI and use also FSLTL and FSTraffic models.

I started with BATC and it injected traffic, I didn´t have SI at that time. I was already quite happy, only thing bothering me was that vectoring was sometimes off.

I tried SI then.....and I was completely sold directly.

SI Premium. 

SI has so much more natural way of speaking, I really don´t feel any difference to real world. All of your crew is simulated by SI, you speak to your FO, Cabin and Ground crew and get so natural replys. Order food, drinks or inform your Cabin crew about turbulences and after that you hear the cabin crew informing the passengers....

What really cool is, SI uses "spoken voices" with allownes of the users, to train their programm and use their voice for ATC, Crew or FO ovoices. You also hear other SI users requesting clearences or other stuff....exactly like at VATSIM. SI is so good, that for me it is much more covered with real ATC compared to vatsim, that I really feel 100% immersed.

Your crew has different accents, different "types" of people (funny ones, serious soudning ones, in all kind of regional variants. Just amazing! 

For me the best addon I have ever bought! 

Now I use SI with FSLTL injected traffic with FSLTL Base models and FSTraffic base models fallbacl solution. I don´t care about SI not handling FSLTL injected planes....

The SI chatter, The SI instructions, handovers, decent announcements etc. is so good....I don´t need them covering FSLTL. 

11 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

SI recognizes PSXT planes? That's impossible.

Sorry you feel that way! I’m enjoying it immensely. 

21 hours ago, Ident said:

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?

No, you currently require simbrief. Like I said before, with the introduction of VFR I imagine this constraint will most likely be removed.

 

21 hours ago, Ident said:

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.

You're a 100% on the money, BATC is initially geared towards airliners which make sense considering the market. So yeah there's no just saying `I want to go to X FBO` at the moment as proper support for GA habits and specifically VFR are just not implemented yet. These are entirely fair complaints but they are coming according to their roadmap.

 

21 hours ago, Ident said:

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. 

I'm always told what approach to expect but I'm always given an option to change this approach. I can even change the approach while on final. I don't think flying low has anything to do with it but I am guessing you're trying to fly VFR (I could be wrong). However,I'm just telling you my experience.

 

21 hours ago, Ident said:

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.

Yeah this looks like a repeat of point 2 you made so my answer is the same.

 

21 hours ago, Ident said:

Having used both, I feel like the logic and coding of SI is less scripted and more open sandbox.

I feel like more of the sandbox behaviour is tied to VFR support. IFR is in it's very nature quite "scripted", yes there's room for leniency but it doesn't have nearly the same freedoms as VFR. I'd like to have a relook at how BATC handles this compared to SI once it supports VFR. Also, until SI can manage traffic I don't see the point of it personally. It's the same reason I held off on buying BATC until traffic support was released. I don't really see the point of a controlled airspace with no one to control but myself. When SI does release support for traffic then I may give it further though but there's still that $20 p/m price point to contend with.

Say Intentions. Despite everything it offers, the monthly investment is too high to even tell and admit it to a close friend. It's true that it's a niche product and is likely designed for people who dedicate themselves almost exclusively to this hobby, but even so, it's too much for me. 16$ every month soon adds up to an ever-growing trend of monthly subscriptions, everywhere these days.

18 hours ago, Noel said:

I find BATC is often TOO LATE with instructions to descend, to change headings, etc

In the approach phase, BATC is notoriously 50/50 when it comes to vectoring. Especially when it decides to vector 99% of my approaches but the vectors pretty much follow the STAR anyway so seems kind of silly. The times it does vector when it makes sense, you're right, it's late at times and puts me at very wide angles to localiser captures where I end up just busting the localiser capture. Look forward to seeing them improve this.

 

17 hours ago, Ident said:

AI ATC for flight simming most thought of BATC at the time.

Except BATC isn't AI driven, it's still entirely scripted with the only part being AI was the voice generation. Then up until recently the introduction of the LLM for better voice recognition and chatter but it's still ultimately scripted.

 

18 hours ago, Ident said:

BATC won as best new tool yet as an ATC tool it only offers IFR.

Out of sheer popularity, a product that costs a one-time $30 fee is going to be more popular than something that costs $20 a month. SI may be better in some ways for sure but you can't beat the ease of entry that BATC offers in terms of cost. Not to mention, IFR airliners represent the majority of simmers.

 

18 hours ago, Ident said:

in the state they were at during the time as it only takes a few mistakes to leaving long term negative impressions. 

It is an interesting point, compared to like VoxATC which is pretty adamant they want an entirely feature-filled and nearly bug-less product on launch. I imagine their adoption upon release can prove to be difficult.

 

15 hours ago, Ident said:

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.

Honestly never seen BATC clear me for takeoff with another aircraft on the runway. Though this is interesting to see.

14 hours ago, mpo910 said:

Now I use SI with FSLTL injected traffic with FSLTL Base models and FSTraffic base models fallbacl solution. I don´t care about SI not handling FSLTL injected planes....

The SI chatter, The SI instructions, handovers, decent announcements etc. is so good....I don´t need them covering FSLTL. 

Can I just confirm, when you're using SI, and running the FSLTL injector to handle the traffic, is SI aware of the traffic and does it vector you away from it, give you go arounds or hold you short etc etc to accommodate the traffic. I.e., is it aware that the traffic is there and adjust you accordingly (because it obviously can't adjust the traffic being controlled by FSLTL?)

I purchased BATC because it takes care of the traffic injection and avoidance, but would try SI if it could at least recognise and respond to traffic injected externally. 

Cheers,

 

Edited March 21, 20251 yr by KL Oo

2 hours ago, Aristoteles said:

Say Intentions. Despite everything it offers, the monthly investment is too high to even tell and admit it to a close friend. It's true that it's a niche product and is likely designed for people who dedicate themselves almost exclusively to this hobby, but even so, it's too much for me. 16$ every month soon adds up to an ever-growing trend of monthly subscriptions, everywhere these days.

Money is local to the individual. The amount of invested interest into a hobby is also local to the individual. Meaning, if you flight sim on an Xbox with a gamepad you might not be all that invested in interest in flight simming.

This is a 25 year hobby for me and since I earned my PPL, its now a tool I use to keep the rust off in between real flights. I also want to support companies that I believe in. As an example, I am a member of PilotEdge for both of their coverage areas. I went through a year where I wasnt going to use the sim but instead of postponing my subscription, I kept it live because I support what PE offers and I know they count on memberships to pay their employees. I'm lucky enough to have those funds to do so, which goes back to my point of money is local to the individual.

And yes, I pay monthly for both PilotEdge and Say Intentions and for their membership price, I feel I get my moneys worth.  Much more so than I feel with my phone bill or TV plan.

1 hour ago, KL Oo said:

Can I just confirm, when you're using SI, and running the FSLTL injector to handle the traffic, is SI aware of the traffic and does it vector you away from it, give you go arounds or hold you short etc etc to accommodate the traffic. I.e., is it aware that the traffic is there and adjust you accordingly (because it obviously can't adjust the traffic being controlled by FSLTL?)

I purchased BATC because it takes care of the traffic injection and avoidance, but would try SI if it could at least recognise and respond to traffic injected externally. 

Cheers,

 

Not the OP of the post you are replying to but I to use SI with BATC as its traffic injector and was surprised to learn that SI is aware of other addons traffic. I havent encountered a traffic conflict in the air to see how SI will handle that but did get a traffic conflict on the ground where it saw not only a plane holding the runway but what type of plane and wouldnt clear me to take off until that plane was gone. 

3 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Like I said before, with the introduction of VFR I imagine this constraint will most likely be removed.

You're a 100% on the money, BATC is initially geared towards airliners which make sense considering the market. 

I'm always told what approach to expect but I'm always given an option to change this approach. I can even change the approach while on final. I don't think flying low has anything to do with it but I am guessing you're trying to fly VFR (I could be wrong). 

I feel like more of the sandbox behaviour is tied to VFR support. IFR is in it's very nature quite "scripted", yes there's room for leniency but it doesn't have nearly the same freedoms as VFR. I'd like to have a relook at how BATC handles this compared to SI once it supports VFR. Also, until SI can manage traffic I don't see the point of it personally. It's the same reason I held off on buying BATC until traffic support was released. I don't really see the point of a controlled airspace with no one to control but myself. When SI does release support for traffic then I may give it further though but there's still that $20 p/m price point to contend with.

Thanks for your comments and perspective as I find it insightful and useful. Until you replied, I was under the impression that BATC wasn't scripted and used AI but that as you point out "IFR is in it's very nature quite "scripted". I guess I really didnt think about it until I started using BATC and looked at it differently. That being the case, it will be interested to see what BATC VFR will become and which will come sooner. BATC VFR or SI Traffic with both working well as I suspect their will be hiccups for both until it all gets smoothed out.

I'm not fully sold on the idea that the market and user base is heavily weighed towards airliners. I'm not doubting the statement by any means and have not seen any statics of it. All I am going by are a few factors. Addons and users online. With addons, there are a lot of mix use airports (those that have terminals with airstairs and also a GA ramp. However, there is also a vast amount of bush strips and Class D airports that have no terminal for airliners. Then on the a/c side, you've got lots and lots of small GA singles and twins.

For the online users, when I'm flying on both PilotEdge and Say Intentions (where they use previous recordings of fellow users to create "chatter") its like 90% non-airlines (if not higher) that I hear in radio calls. I dont fly on VATSIM but could easily see that as being a completely different user base.

However, your statement about me trying to fly IFR like VFR is completely wrong. I also would like to know how in BATC you can get different approaches even on final. I would put money on it that you can't file/fly a short low hop in any a/c in BATC and get the ability to pick an approach or change your approach given to you.

You make a great point about not seeing the point of ATC if there is no traffic.  I recently realized that I do miss/enjoy traffic but I use ATC services mostly for the fact that its boring and quiet with no ATC and miss an interaction. However, to go back to your point, I find flying VFR on PilotEdge just for tower services almost not worth the effort since on departure its just a simple "taxi to the active on Alpha" and "Cleared for Take Off" with on arrival its "Cleared to land" and "taxi to parking via Alpha on this freq" as most small airports just use Alpha as their main taxiway.

At least with SI, you get a "Welcome to XXXX" when you land and more detailed taxi instructions. So I just use PE for times when I want to hear a human or IFR within their coverage area.

Lately I have been facing a few weirdinesses with BATC.

Most AI aircraft are told to backtrack on runways that have a taxiway to the takeoff rw...

Yesterday the sound kept mutting and I could only check through the text messages the ATC directives as well as my co-pilot answers...

I'm about t give Say Intentions a 1 month test and see how it goes, but I will lose the AI Traffic being controlled by the same agents tha control my flight 😕

Since I also own FSHUD, I think it's time to divert into FSHUD again for a while...

13 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Lately I have been facing a few weirdinesses with BATC.

Most AI aircraft are told to backtrack on runways that have a taxiway to the takeoff rw...

Yesterday the sound kept mutting and I could only check through the text messages the ATC directives as well as my co-pilot answers...

I'm about t give Say Intentions a 1 month test and see how it goes, but I will lose the AI Traffic being controlled by the same agents tha control my flight 😕

Since I also own FSHUD, I think it's time to divert into FSHUD again for a while...

Are you on the experimental version of BATC, if so that is a work in progress, and things change sometimes daily.

18 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Are you on the experimental version of BATC, if so that is a work in progress, and things change sometimes daily.

I checked but I didn't find out how to determine which version I am in 😕

On 3/20/2025 at 2:56 PM, mpo910 said:

I don´t care about SI not handling FSLTL injected planes....

I should take a closer look at SI.  I use BATC but with FSLTL's traffic injector and that offers the best experience and Self Loading Cargo provides a whole lot of other ambience, crew management and so forth and important to me scores all your flights which helps me stay focused.  I was planning to use AutoHotKey to create keypress triggered text strings to copy into BATC's LLM input field for common requests.  I guess SI really shines if you use a mic.

On 3/21/2025 at 11:03 AM, jcomm said:

I checked but I didn't find out how to determine which version I am in 😕

Open BATC, go to Account, on the bottom right, see if you have a selection for experimental. If you didn't upgrade to the $59 version, you most likely don't have it.