2 minutes ago, Noel said:

As for FSHud's voices I did chat w/ the dev about that and he assured me the depressed sounding UK female controller is going to be replaced in the next update.  I think he also said 'premium voices' would not be a part of FSHud.  I am loving my method of judicious use of Premium voices in BATC by using only controllers, and using only BATC's ATC not its traffic which cuts way down on ATC interactions with other traffic and so with that much lower character use.  Also some of the voices you can choose for the auto respond are just great and you need to be using Premium voices to access them but I don't think they are chewing up characters though have to look again.  Anyway they sound awesome now and don't get used up very fast.

Allright, that sounds promising. There's not been that many FSHud updates lately. I think those UK voices need to be taken off the Xanax. I do occasionally use BATC premium voices, and I still have quite a bit left from buying a package ~2 months or so ago. 

That is the reason I took action to contact FSHud:  I wanted him/them to appreciate the idea it's likely the voices that are keeping people from flocking more to FSHud, so focus energy there if you're after growth:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/667616-which-atc-program-do-you-use-most-often/#findComment-5416139
 

 

11 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Yeah I think that's fair. I could have used some examples of almost impossible to understand Asian voices - but the point is that I'm more happy with BATC regional accents than other ATC addons. I just wanted to counter the argument by @Bobsk8 that BATC has much better voices. IMO - yes - most of the time. 

 

This is real ATIS that was recorded in the last hour. https://www.liveatc.net/hlisten.php?mount=katl_atis_arr&icao=katl

You are complaining that BATC Atis sounds like the real thing   LOL...

Edited March 29, 20251 yr by Bobsk8

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

This is real ATIS that was recorded in the last hour. https://www.liveatc.net/hlisten.php?mount=katl_atis_arr&icao=katl

Good point - I'll rest my case then. 

14 hours ago, Noel said:

IAnd the fact that it's purveyed by the biggest supplier of bombs and destructive weaponry worldwide, ones that indiscriminately destroy massive infrastructure let alone people.   

And what , exactly, has that got to do with anything to do with flight simming? Completely irrelevant.

4 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

And what , exactly, has that got to do with anything to do with flight simming? Completely irrelevant.

Noel was explaining what things influence his Flight sim buying decisions with the fact that one of the sims is sold by an arms dealer being one of them.

It's relevant to him and his hobby

3 hours ago, Rusty Spanner said:

Noel was explaining what things influence his Flight sim buying decisions with the fact that one of the sims is sold by an arms dealer being one of them.

It's relevant to him and his hobby

If you say so.

Edited March 29, 20251 yr by IanHarrison

OK folks help me understand the logic of this.   I'm 140nm from arrival to KRNO.  I tell BATC I'm ready for descent, and it comes back with this.   As you know often when there are mountains involved BATC will warn you at the start to check your OFP since, I forget how it's worded, but in effect it's saying be careful there are unavoidable terrain involved or something like that.  KRNO sits at 4400'.  So is this saying...

1. You won't have issues to consider descending all the way to KRNO (and below it!) as there is no traffic involved?
2. It's an error and that kind of 40000' descent all the way to 4000' was a mistake, a bug?

I of course have no trouble avoiding terrain but it seems strange to give this kind of instruct.  What if my nav sudden failed and I truly need ATC guidance I have to believe BATC could/would not be able to help.

3 minutes ago, Noel said:

OK folks help me understand the logic of this.   I'm 140nm from arrival to KRNO.  I tell BATC I'm ready for descent, and it comes back with this.   As you know often when there are mountains involved BATC will warn you at the start to check your OFP since, I forget how it's worded, but in effect it's saying be careful there are unavoidable terrain involved or something like that.  KRNO sits at 4400'.  So is this saying...

1. You won't have issues to consider descending all the way to KRNO (and below it!) as there is no traffic involved?
2. It's an error and that kind of 40000' descent all the way to 4000' was a mistake, a bug?

I of course have no trouble avoiding terrain but it seems strange to give this kind of instruct.  What if my nav sudden failed and I truly need ATC guidance I have to believe BATC could/would not be able to help.

It probably means looking at your charts and flying the plane. 

29 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

It probably means looking at your charts and flying the plane. 

That's what I said, we all know how to get to the airport using own navigation  Do you believe that was an instruction pilots in that situation would ever get?  Of course not unless the controller was under the influence.   As I descended about 9mi out BATC then instructs to descend, once again, to BELOW the airport to exactly....4009'!    Not quite ready for mountainous routing as said previously but everything else seems to continue to improve.

Here's another question:  in the RW is it typical that Clearance does not tell the pilot which runway they will be cleared to TO from?  Every once in a while BATC gives this, but usually as you know it shows up in the banner, not spoken.  Just checking if that's typical at least in the US, for clearance to not state the departure runway.

BTW, I ask these questions so I can add ideas to their suggestion portal which I've done 4 or so times now.

22 minutes ago, Noel said:

That's what I said, we all know how to get to the airport using own navigation  Do you believe that was an instruction pilots in that situation would ever get?  Of course not unless the controller was under the influence.   As I descended about 9mi out BATC then instructs to descend, once again, to BELOW the airport to exactly....4009'!    Not quite ready for mountainous routing as said previously but everything else seems to continue to improve.

Here's another question:  in the RW is it typical that Clearance does not tell the pilot which runway they will be cleared to TO from?  Every once in a while BATC gives this, but usually as you know it shows up in the banner, not spoken.  Just checking if that's typical at least in the US, for clearance to not state the departure runway.

BTW, I ask these questions so I can add ideas to their suggestion portal which I've done 4 or so times now.

It is an early access. Posting on this forum is useless. Post it on their Discord forum, with a log file. 

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I tell BATC I'm ready for descent,

That’s not how Air Traffic Control should work. They instruct you to descend at the appropriate point. Or they should do. That’s what the C stands for.

What happens if you don’t request a descent?

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That’s not how Air Traffic Control should work. They instruct you to descend at the appropriate point. Or they should do. That’s what the C stands for.

What happens if you don’t request a descent?

It will tell you to descend (normally). You have the option to request early, that's all.

You can use it if you want do descend early, and in earlier versions was very much needed. Now not so much as it's better at giving you clearance to descend.

 

G

29 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

It is an early access. Posting on this forum is useless. Post it on their Discord forum, with a log file. 

Goodness gracious.  Nope, it's useful to learn from RW pilots because I'm not one and only guess how ATC *should* work to match RW ATC, that's all.  I post on their Discord channel many times.  They were thankful I told them about KTEX which they were going to fix 'by the next release' which already happened.  Apparently there are some 600 airports they have had to customize to get around their basic logic that looks primarily at their ATIS' current wind conditions and disregards other factors that come into play.  You can support another way to this by voting here:

https://beyondatc.nolt.io/1329

And another I submitted to give users not using a mic a way to assign responses to numbers or keys or buttons.  FSHud does this:

https://beyondatc.nolt.io/1312

Lots of stuff to vote on there worth a regular visit.

ATC utilities of the past may have been better at vectoring, but they never supported SIDs, STARs, or true multi-aircraft control (and never will). BATC and also SI still have issues, but are improving rapidly across all aspects and introducing features we could only dream of a few years ago.

It’s a bit like the MSFS 2024 situation compared to older sims. Asobo is moving fast, and sometimes breaks a lot of things in the process, but the overall appeal of the product makes the bumpy ride worth it, especially with MSFS 2020 still available as a fallback when needed.

Edited March 30, 20251 yr by GCBraun