11 minutes ago, AbrahamGR said:

Im the one who opened the other thread. Im not happy with batc, and i wanted to say it and ask for a refund. 
 

im not director of orchestra. Its not orchestrated. Im just an un happy customer who spent thirty dollars on something that doesnt work at all as expected.

thank you. 

You spent money on an early access product and are upset that it isn't a bug-free full release.

 

That's on you.

 

I think I am generally in agreement with the description here. I just picked up BATC a month ago after reading a pattern of favorable posts here on AVSIM and so far it has worked basically well and basically as I expected given the multiple clear warnings that it is early access, has limitations and is susceptible to incorrect data from the sim and from airports. I have been happy with it, having a mindset that I can override its instructions if I do not agree, but most times it works out quite well and contributes to the immersion. As others have said it is far better than the default, which I have just ignored through all my decades of simming.

In reality, ATC is likely the hardest part of a flight simulator to code, it is incredibly complex and needs to handle so many scenarios and exceptions. I am impressed we have come this far and also hope that Working Title will eventually turn some attention to this. 

3 minutes ago, Cognita said:

 

In reality, ATC is likely the hardest part of a flight simulator to code, it is incredibly complex and needs to handle so many scenarios and exceptions. I am impressed we have come this far and also hope that Working Title will eventually turn some attention to this. 

This exactly. There's been a lot of talk in the real world about converting the US ATC system to mostly if not completely AI. The people excited about it have clearly not messed with flight simulators or they'd know how badly even the best attempts screw up, and that's in a much more controlled environment than real life. ATC is very, very hard. It's hard for real controllers with real intelligence - it's definitely hard for computers, all of which are still at the "digital moron" stage. We seem to have been tricked by marketing into thinking that somewhere in the bowels of Google and Microsoft, the computer from the USS Enterprise is sitting there just waiting for us to take advantage of its capabilities.

 

We're a long way off from computers like that - the best AI systems today are just advanced versions of the Eliza chatbot which debuted in 1964. Today's systems have access to a lot more information so they're even better at fooling us into thinking they're capable of thinking, but they're not, and things which can't think are never going to be perfect at ATC.

 

 

 

 

Recently, someone started a thread here talking about his background in software development and his plan to create a free Passenger simulation add-on. He layed out his idea and was asking if anyone would be interested in helping out with the project. Not long after, a brand new account and another user with barely any posts jumped in and started completely trashing the idea. It later turned out that both of them were affiliated with a payware Passenger add-on...

Not saying that’s what’s happening here, but with the increasing competition among developers, it’s something to watch for if things start to feel a bit coordinated.

I bet the AI army of SI is behind all of this! 😁

All these conspiracy theories accusing SI of a coordinated attack on BATC all seem quite coordinated themselves...

Sadly in this new age of complete disinformation, both these statements are probably true.

(Also, both BATC and SI are good products)

 

bet the AI army of SI is behind all of this! 😁

Cheers, Bert

chapstick

• 
   

 

All these conspiracy theories accusing SI of a coordinated attack on BATC all seem quite coordinated themselves...

 

4 minutes ago, chapstick said:

All these conspiracy theories accusing SI of a coordinated attack on BATC all seem quite coordinated themselves...

Ha..I was just about to state something along the same lines. First off, no, attacks on BATC is completely unwarranted. Then those who are speculating that another company is orchestrating this without proof seem to have gotten caught up buying the conspiracy and stating such on speculations, in my eyes, brings them down to a lower level. Its great to be skeptical but I wouldnt be posting a companies name directly of doing something without hard proof.  

However, I feel the same way about all the negative post about MSFS2024 being unwarranted. My guess is that theres just a fair amount of new users to flight simming with expectations that us veterans dont share.

21 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

I bet the AI army of SI is behind all of this! 😁

I'm with you. 

54 minutes ago, AbrahamGR said:

Im the one who opened the other thread. Im not happy with batc, and i wanted to say it and ask for a refund. 
 

im not director of orchestra. Its not orchestrated. Im just an un happy customer who spent thirty dollars on something that doesnt work at all as expected.

thank you. 

If you would have taken the time to read what they clearly posted on their web page,  that it was early access, and potential customers should do some research before purchase  because is not refundable, then that is your problem. BTW, why don't you post your complaint on their Discord, instead of on this forum?

 

I had the same thought. The amount of outrage directed at a 30 dollar product doesn‘t seem organic or appropriate. The money is peanuts really. In less than a year, so many bugs have already been fixed and features added. It has become supremely usable. If you are not satisfied at the moment… just wait a little.

19 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I'm with you. 

Well, I was joking, being sarcastic. You're still welcome to join👍

BATC was okay half an hour ago.

I already have Pilot2ATC and I'm going to have a peek at SI either today or tomorrow.

I'm not part of an orchestrated attack, I have just have been surprised on a few issues with BATC and seriously, 'early access', over a year later?  Will it remain in 'early access' status for another year?  Some annoyances I find, and it's probably my lack of experience and understanding of how RW ATC should work is part of some of this:

1.  Rarely is an initial climb to given, it's almost always 'climb via SID'.   Or, in areas where it doesn't seem to make much sense it will say 'climb and maintain 4000' at a location w/o other air traffic, with mountainous terrain nearby, etc.  Routing into KSHR the other day it insisted I land on Rwy 24 which is short and entailed a x-wind that day, when there was no traffic and the usual runways used there for this level of aircraft would not be 24.  But worse than that was BATC told me to descend to 4000' from 100 miles out and the airport is above 4000'.  Plus, the approach into Rwy24 involved much more terrain issues than straight in to Rwy 33 which I'm pretty sure in the RW we would have been routed into 33, not 24.

2.  Using BATC's AI traffic I've had more taxi collisions (of course I stopped to avoid that, but w/o ATC telling me or its AI plane to hold) than I have had using FSLTL's injector.

3.  Performance impact is significant at the arrival end in particular when using its AI traffic.  That might have improved some not sure because I typically don't use BATC's injector now because not only is performance an issue but as mentioned often it's jerky, whereas FSLTL is always super smooth and w/ more AI traffic the perf impact will be maybe 40-60% less than when BATC manages traffic.  I think this maybe has improved some not sure, and one issue I have now is as I finally kissed Frame Generation goodbye I will often now run at 50FPS native, and that will contribute to stuttering when BATC is at 60FPS.  But even using FG at 60 I've had issues with stuttering AI traffic despite having super smooth stutter-free sim.  I'm fanatical about smoothness and I know others either don't have this, or haven't looked or noticed.  Cpt_Piett was not aware of this until I asked him to take a closer look and sure enough he captured this on video. 

4.  Vectoring for visual approaches is often a little too late.  So I'm finally realizing just follow my own navigation and do what I would do w/o ATC, which sadly makes ATC kind of a form of ambience thus using FSLTL's injector is every bit as useful as ambience.  It manages AI traffic just great, is very close to RW actual traffic, whereas BATC I think is using last week's actual traffic for its injection.

 

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Noel

4 minutes ago, Noel said:

1.  Rarely is an initial climb to given, it's almost always 'climb via SID'.
 

Thats the beauty of the SID, is it removes a lot of instructions that you have to repeat back and still gives you alt restrictions on the climb. I would much more prefer a Sid clearance than step climbs.

They also do that for busy airports with Taxi routes.

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/what-you-should-know-about-standard-taxi-routes/