4 minutes ago, Noel said:

'early access', over a year later?  Will it remain in 'early access' status for another year?

Yeah and? EA doesn't have a set timeline, it's not a BETA. Some of the most noteworthy early access games have remained in early access for nearing a decade. It's just up to what to developer what they consider done. Bear in mind the community overwhelmingly voted for this.

I wholly agree that your complaints are valid but people really need to stop formulating some idea for when they think a product should be finished if the developers never gave them an idea of when they plan to finish. Easy example, VoxATC has been in development(Kevin correct me if I'm wrong) for FS20 since FS20 came out, had they done early access they'd be bordering near 5 years.

13 minutes ago, Noel said:

'early access', over a year later?  Will it remain in 'early access' status for another year?

every flight simulation fan should get into Star Citizen.
you will get very relaxed about development times or server issues 😄

11 minutes ago, Noel said:

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.  

I have three flights today, I am on my third now, and each flight out of smaller airports,  BATC gave me an initial climb. If it is a large airport, and I am assigned a Sid, then I look at the chart and see what the altitudes in the SId are. Just like the real world. 

Topics about attacks on BATC being warranted or not...are they warranted?

Posts about topics about attacks on BATC being warranted or not...are they warranted?

Reactions to posts about topics about attacks on BATC being warranted or not...are they warranted?

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Everyone is just more entitled these days and expects fully working software

I do relate to this statement in general - it relates to just about every sim product these days.

5 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have three flights today, I am on my third now, and each flight out of smaller airports,  BATC gave me an initial climb. If it is a large airport, and I am assigned a Sid, then I look at the chart and see what the altitudes in the SId are. Just like the real world. 

As mentioned I'm not a RW ATC user and just guess about how things should be with the odd read on some point or other.  I have not used charts yet and rely on what's in planes' FMCs, which I assume will match what the charts say?  Or is Simbrief using some other source for where to set the altitudes in procedures?  Yes I of course get initial climbs but didn't realize it's exclusively in smaller airports if that is what you are saying that's good to know.  Overall I like BATC and use it all the time but it wouldn't bother me if an INTIAL climb was always given--just saves the single pilot of a 787X managing crew (SLC) and the entire plane etc, from having to look at the chart, is all.  FSHud does this I think always, an initial climb to. 

There are a couple of schools of thought on this stuff:

1.  Design the product so that it mimics the real world as completely as possible.  Reasons are obvious why this would be desirable in a desktop sim 

2.  Start w/ #1 above as a priority, but add OPTIONS for those folks who want to take advantage of the freedom one has in the virtual world.  We might for example given the option to choose a runway not currently mentioned in the ATIS at that moment in sim time.  It's just less rigid, whereas of course the RW is rigid.  Next, we might have a checkbox option in Settings to 'Provide an initial Climb-to Altitude'.  If you don't wish to have that, simple don't check the checkbox. 

 

1 hour ago, eslader said:

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

It is possible to be underwhelmed with early access software, especially with the length of time BATC has been in early access.   Nobody should be expecting bug free, but at least a certain level of performance at thirty dollars.  My experience with BATC definitely meets the definition of underwhelming.

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I do relate to this statement in general - it relates to just about every sim product these days.

I don’t have any ATC products and haven’t used ATC in flights for over a decade. Nevertheless, your take on what you quoted intrigues me. I have to ask, are we not entitled to receive something that is advertised as fully working to actually be fully working? Especially when we paid for it? Genuine question. I seem to notice that the community is becoming increasingly ok with developers releasing products that are clearly not what they advertised. 
 

As far as BATC is concerned, it sounds like they were up front with the EA. Anyone who buys and then complains…well…that one is a head scratcher.

3 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I have to ask, are we not entitled to receive something that is advertised as fully working to actually be fully working?

No complicated software is bug free and never will be.

 

3 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I seem to notice that the community is becoming increasingly ok with developers releasing products that are clearly not what they advertised. 

I can't think of any modern and complicated system ever being 100% fully working as advertised, all of the time.

37 minutes ago, Noel said:

I have just have been surprised on a few issues with BATC

FWIW, I belive your comments have merit. I've had to take BATC as more of a sense of guidelines than actual rules. If I want a more accurate ATC I'll hunt down a fully-staffed Vatsim sector after I take some Valium.

In terms of SI there are two marketing "campaigns" I know of beyond a shadow of doubt.

1: A few months ago they had the "get the word out" campaign where folks would post on their favorite social media or forum about SI. They'd enter the post into a raffle on the Discord to win stuff. Brian, lead dev of SI, swore up and down not to "spam" forums but the only way to win was to post. FWIW, I spot checked it a few time to see if AVSIM posts were in there and didn't find any. I do not support this marketing at all.

2: They started, at the least, gifting SI premium to streamers like CptCanada. I don't have a problem with this at all. It's a tried and true marketing campaign. That said, I think a good approach would be to seek out the streamers who just don't do Vatsim at all and have them try it. Canada is still going to do Vatsim for 90% of this flights.

On the one hand, a lot of "BATC stinks" posts by a few low-post count folks is suspicious. Especially for a product out for a while. And a product that won the popularity contest at FS Weekend. That said, after the a350 came out we had a ton of "INI stinks" posts and it's rare a day that ends in Y doesn't have some form of PMDG bashing. Maybe it's a slow day and it's BATC's turn in the hopper.

That said, a lot of folks wear their biases for, and against, products on their sleeve. As others mentioned it's not that different than the frequent "MSFS24 stinks" posts. I'm not sure AV is where I'd go to orchestate a campaign either. 

I'm also not sure why someone would come here demanding a refund for a product none of us have any agency to do anyway.

9 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

As far as BATC is concerned, it sounds like they were up front with the EA. Anyone who buys and then complains…well…that one is a head scratcher.

Even early access software should reach a certain level of completeness.  I purchased BATC six months after it went into early access - being told to descend to 4000ft and report establish on runway 26, when I was at FL220 20 miles west of the airport just after joining the SID, is nowhere near early access quality.

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

3 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

As far as BATC is concerned, it sounds like they were up front with the EA. Anyone who buys and then complains…well…that one is a head scratcher.

It can also be a form of copout just look at comments above re software that was EA for a decade or more.  

 

2 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Even early access software should reach a certain level of completeness.  I purchased BATC six months after it went into early access - being told to descend to 4000ft and report establish on runway 26, when I was at FL220 20 miles west of the airport just after joining the SID, is nowhere near early access quality.

I have had that happen, even with Vatsim, many times. I once was flying in real life passing over KFLL in a C 152 at 1500 feet, north bound, and the controller told me " When you are south of the airport, turn to a heading of 350"   Stuff happens. 

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

nowhere near early access quality.

There is no basis to what defines early access quality. It’s a random point in development that developers feel the public is privy to.

3 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

There is no basis to what defines early access quality. It’s a random point in development that developers feel the public is privy to.

BATC did not want to release it until they felt it was ready, dozens of posts every week, with people asking for it to be released, even if it wasn't finished. Against their better judgment, they released it Early Access.  Now that it is EA, people complain that it has some issues .. How crazy is that?

 

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Bobsk8