3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I agree, the user interface is very good.

The day I stopped using it was descending to FL150 inbound to EGKK, Gatwick.  I was on a STAR that ended at Willo, but BATC gave me an instruction to descend to 4000ft, cleared for the ILS 26 - when I was 20 miles WEST of the airfield at FL220!

This stuff happens way too often w/ BATC and it really surprises me.  I would have thought they would nail down this very basic stuff and TBH I've had default ATC make more sense at times than BATC does.  That being said I do like the basic voices, international voices, the UI is second to none for quick and user-friendly and most often ATC is fair.  I reported on their Discord the fact the BATC only seems to look at its ATIS' wind and runways.  Because of this at KTEX BATC had no problem telling you to take off on Rwy 9 and would not let you choose the correct runway there, which without an F-35 Lighting is a guaranteed smash into the mountains!  They were receptive on this andsaid they would create a 'custom operations' for it on their next update.  Apparently they have some 600 other airports with this way to address the fact they will not let users deviate from whatever ATIS says.  I went to their suggestion site and asked to please consider an override option for those airports that they haven't gotten to yet, and that is what FSHud will allow.  They will suggest the same runway as BATC but give users a choice of a different runway anyway.  I much prefer this because after all, THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD!  

4 hours ago, Farlis said:

Thanks for the laugh. You are really a piece of work, aren't you?

He sure is, but don't worry he will get banned here too, rather sooner than later. You can use the ignore list until that happens.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

This stuff happens way too often w/ BATC and it really surprises me.  I would have thought they would nail down this very basic stuff and TBH I've had default ATC make more sense at times than BATC does.  That being said I do like the basic voices, international voices, the UI is second to none for quick and user-friendly and most often ATC is fair.  I reported on their Discord the fact the BATC only seems to look at its ATIS' wind and runways.  Because of this at KTEX BATC had no problem telling you to take off on Rwy 9 and would not let you choose the correct runway there, which without an F-35 Lighting is a guaranteed smash into the mountains!  They were receptive on this andsaid they would create a 'custom operations' for it on their next update.  Apparently they have some 600 other airports with this way to address the fact they will not let users deviate from whatever ATIS says.  I went to their suggestion site and asked to please consider an override option for those airports that they haven't gotten to yet, and that is what FSHud will allow.  They will suggest the same runway as BATC but give users a choice of a different runway anyway.  I much prefer this because after all, THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD!  

So my question to you, is why don't you use FShud rather than BATC. 

4 hours ago, ypaul123 said:

the inibuilds A350 is also very good looking.

Yes, very nice indeed.

 

4 hours ago, ypaul123 said:

Is it effective ? No really.

Ha - it is very effective!

17 minutes ago, Alvega said:

He sure is, but don't worry he will get banned here too, rather sooner than later. You can use the ignore list until that happens.

The curious thing is though that the mods have shown no interest whatsoever in this or the 2/3 other threads that are completely out of control here. One could almost get the impression that they are more than happy to let the MSFS forum descend into complete chaos. ...

Descend into chaos? I thought we had taken control of the asylum years ago

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

So my question to you, is why don't you use FShud rather than BATC. 

Cuz bein's it's mainly ambience (would not dare rely on BATC to descend me into SPZO in low vis weather and other places as well), and that I essentially follow my own route, I much prefer BATC's voices, that's the only reason.  Voices do matter quite obviously, just like graphics do in MSFS 😉

14 hours ago, AGuther said:

One of the core decisions that I doubt are the right ones on BATC side is the usage of the Unity engine.

The reason is the following: while I understand that the usage of this engine might help/ease the developers implementing features, this means that everyone starting this application is running another game engine on top of the flight simulator.

That will be the reason I expect SI to perform much better with the traffic injection as those are rendered "in the cloud" and not on your own PC.

Yep which is why I use FSLTL's injection/management in BATC--makes a big diff in performance and ultimately it's a better experience. 
 

I use default ATC and like it.  Seems to improve daily.

dd