2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I’m tempted to repeat the flight with BATC and SI

If you don’t have a sub yet, just wait it out a bit. Traffic is releasing to partners in a couple of weeks, so then we’ll have a real comparison. The thing with SI is, it’s constantly getting updates (sometimes in real time) and it’s all done on the back end so you may not even know an update has taken place.

 

46 minutes ago, Mike T said:

except the go around part since BATC handles traffic much better.

I’ve not seen many go around with BATC, but they do happen. I’ve also seen planes land on top of each other, do a complete 180 after landing, or simply disappear after rollout. The planes landing on top of each other (and the player) seem to happen at airports with more than 1 tower frequency. YSSY is the first airport that comes to mind.

The planes landing and doing a 180 after touchdown happened at EGPF and OTHH. I’ve also seen it happen at KLAX when they were landing east.

9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Remember aircraft shouldn’t be flying the STAR all the way in. It’s the job of ATC to separate inbounds. You’re not the only aircraft in the sky. 😉

Glasgow to Gatwick. I realise I may be taken off the STAR at any point. Initially the descent is to FL150, as you say staying high to the west of London.  But at FL220 in the descent, I was given descend to 4,000ft and report established 26.  No headings at all.  I was in the CPT (Compton) area.

To me that makes BATC currently not worth using.

I would assume that AI planes "doing a 180" after landing is more a case of how the AFD file is constructed than the ATC software controlling them. I made extensive modifications to lots of airports in P3D to try and sort out issues like that (basically, you need to force them to use the next available taxiway exit, rather than give them the opportunity to turn back on themselves and use the one that they have just passed). Not an easy task sometimes, because it all depends where the AI plane completes its rollout.

I would say that the most unrealistic aspect of the airport AI environment in P3D was multiple AI planes very close together on final approach (and the plethora of go arounds as a result of this), so it sounds like BATC does a very good job in this respect in MSFS.

8 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Well, if I understand you correctly, I don’t think there’s an in-built function in either of these addons that will automatically remove an AI if there’s a conflict. I’ve had some «standoff» situations with both, where I’ve had to re-route myself on the taxiway to avoid a collision. 

AiCompanion has a feature that allows you to delete any aircraft using the same runway as you. It’s not automatic. It’s something you have to do yourself. I action it around 5 miles out if necessary.

On the ground sometimes I just taxi through other Ai. Collision detection is off of course. The alternative is to use Traffic Zapper in FSUIPC.

21 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

But at FL220 in the descent, I was given descend to 4,000ft and report established 26.  No headings at all.  I was in the CPT (Compton) area.

To me that makes BATC currently not worth using.

That’s not right. But with any beta program there should be a reporting process. Give this feedback to the author. That’s the only way things get fixed.

It’s always a good idea to repeat the flight to confirm the problem is reproducible.

11 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

With all the recent discussions on BATC vs SI (what the word not allowed is going on?), I’m tempted to repeat the flight with BATC and SI. I don’t have a subscription for SI, but I might try the demo.

That would be really interesting!

11 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Well, if I understand you correctly, I don’t think there’s an in-built function in either of these addons that will automatically remove an AI if there’s a conflict. I’ve had some «standoff» situations with both, where I’ve had to re-route myself on the taxiway to avoid a collision. 

BATC has a traffic map where you can remove any AI aircraft...

Edited March 25, 20251 yr by Bond

13 minutes ago, Bond said:

BATC has a traffic map where you can remove any AI aircraft...

Yes, but 1. it's not automatic and 2. it's a seperate program.

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

On the ground sometimes I just taxi through other Ai. 

Love that. "I'm bigger than you, so scoot." (Confession, that's what I do, too).

14 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

With all the recent discussions on BATC vs SI (what the word not allowed is going on?), I’m tempted to repeat the flight with BATC and SI. I don’t have a subscription for SI, but I might try the demo.

I'm tempted to do my test out of PHL with FSHUD to compare against SI OpenSky at least. I may for the sake of completeness do the same thing with BATC.

Good thing I like leaving PHL.

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

AiCompanion has a feature that allows you to delete any aircraft using the same runway as you. It’s not automatic. It’s something you have to do yourself. I action it around 5 miles out if necessary.

On the ground sometimes I just taxi through other Ai. Collision detection is off of course. The alternative is to use Traffic Zapper in FSUIPC.

FSHUD seems to have a built in AI Zapper when AI get to close...  Doesn't clear the runway but you don't have to worry about taxiing through AI as they get zapped and disappear automatically.  

I honestly think that until Say Intentions controls AI traffic it is difficult, at least for me, to compare it to either FSHUD or BATC, and this is why I didn't yet take the plunge...

There's a lot of potential for sure in Say Intentions, but I want to be able to use injected AI Traffic, and I want it controlled by the same agents that ingame control my flight...

Edited March 25, 20251 yr by jcomm

With FSHUD I was able to eliminate AIGTC altogether.  I actually find performance has improved as well and I attribute it to FSHUD focusing on traffic around your aircraft and at you departure/arrival airports so when I load 150 AI at KEWR it is 75 parked at KEWR and another 75 in the air but unlike AIGTC it's not also populating a ton of AI at KJFK and KLGA so you get the feeling of AI around you without populating AI at surrounding airports that you wouldn't typically see anyway and I think that plus not having AIGTC running separately actually improve performance. 

2 hours ago, BrammyH said:

I'm tempted to do my test out of PHL with FSHUD to compare against SI OpenSky at least. I may for the sake of completeness do the same thing with BATC.

Good thing I like leaving PHL.

That'll be great. I was just about do compare BATC and FSHud into Gatwick. But haven't decided if I should arrive from the southeast or northwest. 

53 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I honestly think that until Say Intentions controls AI traffic it is difficult, at least for me, to compare it to either FSHUD or BATC, and this is why I haven't yet took the plunge...

There's a lot of potential for sure in Say Intentions, but I want to be able to use injected AI Traffic, and I want it controlled by the same agents that ingame control my flight...

I agree. I'd still like to test it's capabilities in terms of air traffic control on a few flights. If I'm not happy with that - I won't be interested in additional AI traffic either.