1 minute ago, Noel said:

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

 

Noel it’s not a copout, it just is. I’m not saying it’s right I’m just telling you this is the risks that come with this development process.
 

Is it always right? No. However, there’s a lot of example stories of it done right. Personally I voted no to BATC’s EA because developing an ATC is such a monumental task that letting the public privy to all its bugs at an early stage is only going to stir a contentious reputation around the product. Oh well.

3 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

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.

If we're going to litigate the most offensive use of "Early Access," BeyondATC doesn't rate to me. Especially considering we're not talking about misleading the community about a feature someone else has done before (i.e. VNAV or flight dynamics feel etc.), this is a brand new iteration of a technology that hasn't been done before. The traffic injection vs. AIGTC is honestly not much of a competition.

Complaining about the EA period on this one is tantamount to saying you can't read (many such cases these days).

I guess, buyer beware, but I'm much less pleased about other investments I've made in this so far, one of those was a few months of the other platform, and obviously at least the two aircraft projects referenced above...

5 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Noel it’s not a copout, it just is. I’m not saying it’s right I’m just telling you this is the risks that come with this development process.
 

Is it always right? No. However, there’s a lot of example stories of it done right. Personally I voted no to BATC’s EA because developing an ATC is such a monumental task that letting the public privy to all its bugs at an early stage is only going to stir a contentious reputation around the product. Oh well.

The other issue that many forget, is the public demand that this ATC program also provide AI Traffic Control.  My feeling is they probably should have stuck to focusing on the ATC portion, instead of trying to juggle too many issues all at once. Then when they added AI traffic, there were posts on their Discord every day with complaints that the AI aircraft did this when they should have done that, etc. etc. etc.  So they had to spend a great deal of their attention on fixing AI issues rather than the ATC hiccups. 

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Bobsk8

Absolutely think it's people acting like sheeple.  One person says something and others chime in and support that person's comment.  Does BATC have some issues?  Of course it does.  It's EARLY ACCESS!!  However even with those issues, it's by far the best ATC I've seen in a sim (I'll admit I have not used SayIntentions, so I cannot speak for how it behaves).  

Oh and when someone says they've been banned from a forum or Discord group, I pretty much ignore anything they have to say.  

I'll just keep laughing at the people who scream 'BAD PROGRAM THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND BUT IT'S NOT MY FAULT'. 🤣

Hi,

It's not always a conspiracy when you have multiple posts complaining about an issue, sometimes the problem exists in the product!  Just because you don't have the problem doesn't mean it isn't something that needs looking into. Your post sounds more like a commercial for BATC! You have no links to complaints by multiple people, just praise for BATC, informing people that it is a work in progress, you even advertise the price of the product. 

Show us all the links of the complainers posting bogus info, that I would like to see.

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

I don't own this product or follow it.  

As early access becomes more common, people seem to forget what that means.  

Early access means you're investing in a company's promise.  There's no guarantee that they will or won't deliver.  You're getting early access, usually at a discount.  

I have an early access game that's been in alpha for 2+ years.  I hoped for faster development, but I knew exactly what I was buying when I did.  I've had other early access games progress faster, and I ended up saving a lot. 

Some turn out, some don't.  

Don't buy early access without researching exactly what you are getting now.  There's all sorts of youtube channels and other discussion about products.  Back in the old days, you read the back of the box and hoped for the best.  Now, there's endless amounts of information out there.  

People who pay can voice their opinions, but there's a bit of personal responsibility as well.  Just because early access is a lot more common, it doesn't change the risks and factors one bit.  

 

My main complaint is that VFR support has been pushed too far down the road. There are lots of us that don't fly large airliners. Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that you can still have a great time flying VFR without needing that portion of the ATC, but it's not really realistic. There, I've said my piece and I am done LOL.

2 minutes ago, Rob G said:

My main complaint is that VFR support has been pushed too far down the road. There are lots of us that don't fly large airliners. Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that you can still have a great time flying VFR without needing that portion of the ATC, but it's not really realistic. There, I've said my piece and I am done LOL.

I'm impatiently waiting for VFR support as well (since I fly GA pretty much all the time right now).  It will come, I know.  

53 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

No complicated software is bug free and never will be.

 

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

You bring up the same questions I’ve pondered myself. 🧐 I completely agree with both your statements. 

I often ponder about the “precision” of an advertised system or feature. As in, at what point can one definitively say a feature that is advertised was given to a consumer? A working VNAV that doesn’t get the calculations perfectly every time but it does do it right 90% of the time in 95% of the cases. This compared to a VNAV that can barely manage a basic descent. 
 

thinking out loud for the sake of conversation.

48 minutes ago, Noel said:

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

 

I agree. I guess that’s my worry about the direction of Flightsim developers. They use EA to exonerate themselves from doing a good and complete job.

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

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.

If you're underwhelmed, that's also on you. They're very clear about what the software can and can't do right now in its early access state. They explicitly say it doesn't do everything they plan yet, and they also explicitly say there will be bugs and strange behavior. 

If you don't want to spend money on something that does and doesn't do exactly what they say it will, then don't spend money on it.

 

Early access is meant to be a way to get in on the ground floor for less money in exchange for not immediately having a completely satisfying experience. In other words, early access is intended to underwhelm. You agree to be underwhelmed for awhile in exchange for not having to pay full price when the software is polished and working fully. It's pretty foolish to enter into an agreement in which you know you will be underwhelmed and then complain about being underwhelmed.

 

5 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I agree. I guess that’s my worry about the direction of Flightsim developers. They use EA to exonerate themselves from doing a good and complete job.

You also have the freedom to not take part in an EA model as way to show to devs that this is a practice you don’t want.

However I want to add full releases also don’t mean devs do a good and complete job, case in point SkySimulations and Aerosoft, just to name a few. EA doesn’t really make this habit less or more prevalent. 

16 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

They use EA to exonerate themselves from doing a good and complete job

Possibly true, however there are enough warnings given to prospective buyers of the pitfalls of entering an EA, yet they do, and some come in with the same old vitriol simmers are well known for.

It is a case of "buyer beware" and as someone posted, if you don't like the idea then don't participate.

1 minute ago, DavidP said:

Possibly true, however there are enough warnings given to prospective buyers of the pitfalls of entering an EA, yet they do, and some come in with the same old vitriol simmers are well known for.

It is a case of "buyer beware" and as someone posted, if you don't like the idea then don't participate.

Golden rule of EA products right there.. 

I know i'm way to picky and strongly prefer both functionality and reliability to consider most EA products and while i appreciate their existence i know its just not for me and wait for the release to properly evaluate the product. Its disingenuous to be complaining (unless the product is totally non functional and no work is being performed) to be complaining when you sign up to participate in these early access endeavors as i'm sure the devs were up front with the risks involved as they develop towards full release..

Gotta be reasonable here .. the product is not complete.

39 minutes ago, Rob G said:

My main complaint is that VFR support has been pushed too far down the road. There are lots of us that don't fly large airliners. Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that you can still have a great time flying VFR without needing that portion of the ATC, but it's not really realistic. There, I've said my piece and I am done LOL.

I fly the SWS PC12 and the Kodiak,lately. I use BATC on every flight. Works fine.