Hi all,

 

Today I bit the bullet and bought a month(ly) subscription for SI, was looking forward to it and after many months I reckoned SI would have matured a bit.
Disclaimer: I know it is early access so my expectations were not that high, but still... I had some.

To be honest, my first flight was rather terrible, to say the least. I know... only a first flight... but still.
Flight plan was: LGSK/19 N0299F200 SIGF1F SIGFO B1 SKP L617 LEKPO LEKP1K LGTS/28 in a TBM 850
I wonder if other users have (sometimes) the same experience.
Here are a few issues:

• After departure tower handed me of to approach and they told me to stick to the SID altitude (4000ft).
  After 10/15 min I asked for higher, a was cleared 8500ft. Still on Approach freq.
• Then it seemed that Approach had changed suddenly in Departure (same freq) however I never was handed off.
  (Or is it that IRL for smaller airports DEP/ARR are done by same controller/freq?)
  After 30 min still  at 8500ft so I requested higher. Was cleared to my 'filed' altitude. Which was FL200 at filed on my flight plan.
• Still remained on departure, so I requested handoff to CTR myself
• CTR cleared me for the LEKP1K STAR (RWY28) together with the RNAV approach for RWY 34. The flight plan said also LEKP1K LGTS/28
  Runway configurations can change, so no problem. But the combination of LEKP1K with RNAV 34 puzzles met a bit. Also because winds were 280/5.
  Nevertheless I guess this might happen in real life as well?
• CTR advised that local QNH was 30.52 (or something).
  I was flying in Europe, so why not millibar?
• 50nm from the airport I was vectored all over the place: East/West/North. It didn't make any sense, and also I still was at FL200.
• Then the following instruction: "6nm from CEFEB, descend altitude 4000, cleared for the RNAV RWY 34 approach."
  CEFEB is the start/IAF of the 13.5nm long approach to RWY34. 
  Descending to 4000ft from FL200 in 6nm is kinda challenging, even in a TMB 850 😉

So concluding... The first flight was some kind of a mess, at least to my experience.
(However some errors can also be RTFM issues)
I guess it takes a while longer before these kind of errors (?) are ironed out.
What are your experiences?

Egbert

Edited May 31, 20251 yr by Egbert Drenth
Edit: typos

For me hit or miss.  Today - frustrating.  Flying tubeliners lately in Asia, and some good, some bad experiences.  This flight ZBTJ to ZHHH my cruising FL was FL300.  Before I even hit the last leg of the SID and still 450+NM from destination it told me to descend PD to 6,000 and gave me a STAR that was opposite direction from my approach angle.

And that seems to me the weak point, I appreciate it MAY now try to change your arrival rwy for winds, but I get odd vectors, STARS that do not fit my arrival direction, or even worse STARS that don't fit the approach.  It may tell you the STAR, but if you don't ask it will usually not tell you what rwy to expect, and 90% of the time if you do not request a descent it will leave you way too high.  That is esp bad when the rwy if not appropriate for the STAR.  

More minor gripes will be often the controller and an AI pilot will be sharing the same voices, and you may get handed off to a controller with the same voice.

I am using traffic injection and it seems ok, though sparse in China.  I have only had one case of taxing behind another AC and hearing/ seeing him go first.  Almost no approach or takeoff advisories.

It still the choice for me though because flying in Asia and being in the US I most often use historical weather via ActiveSky and it integrates ok.

Ahh, if only we could use Radar Contact in MSFS...

Know what?

This may sound totally ridiculous, specially because I own BATC and FSHUD, but since I entered SU3 beta and it's flightings I decided to go only with default ATC and AI Traffic, and, well... I'm living with it 🙂

Edited May 31, 20251 yr by jcomm

49 minutes ago, jcomm said:

This may sound totally ridiculous, specially because I own BATC and FSHUD, but since I entered SU3 beta and it flightings I decided to go only with default ATC and AI Traffic

I have both of those and, to be honest, neither of them is that great. I can rarely complete a flight successfully. Radar Contact, while primitive by comparison, can always be counted on to work!

I'm in the Sayintentions partner program and have been using SI for some time now and absolutely love it.  Obviously others have their own opinions and that's ok but in my opinion it is the best and most immersive ATC program. To each their own.

It works fine for me on most flights.  Sure, it still needs more refinement but it continues to improves each week.

This forum is not a good place to look for support for SI.  I would suggest you go to the Sayintentions discord and provide them your flight ID # and they will look into what may not have worked properly and let you know.   They will incorporate fixes to the program from your feedback.  From my experience the SI team is very helpful and supportive and explains things well.

Best regards.

I subscribed for a month and I'm not impressed. 

Everything IFR BeyondATC does better at this point. The only things that SI has going for it in that field are the directs that ATC will give you on its own and the CPDLC.

These are missing in BeyondATC. But the rest it does way better.

I am also in the Partner program and try to report my experiences each flight good or bad.  I have Discord, but abhor using it so I have only reported a few issues that way.  They say EVERY post flight report is reviewed, so that should be sufficient to them to see issues, esp since they can review each flight in detail.  (EDIT - should add I am reporting via the option in the app at the end of each flight, which allows a rating and detailed comments for various flight periods.)  I am not unhappy with what they have done, but for IFR, longer distances it has a way to go in some areas.  Mainly in descent and approach phases, and that can ruin immersion like it did for me today.

I have used CDPLC where it can be used and it can be pretty slick.  VFR going to and from towered airports can be very neat as well.  I like the copilot and cabin, but will probably never use SkyOps, mentors or tour guides.

Edited May 31, 20251 yr by Joe L

I've tried SI many times and sometimes go back to check the new features. While it is certainly super complete, for me the biggest downside are the r voices. They sounded great when the program was initially launched but today i've found that they sound super robotic IMHO in comparison to BATC premium.
Once BATC launches its VFR I think ill stick to that unless SI changes their voice provider.

6 hours ago, Egbert Drenth said:

Hi all,

 

Today I bit the bullet and bought a month(ly) subscription for SI, was looking forward to it and after many months I reckoned SI would have matured a bit.
Disclaimer: I know it is early access so my expectations were not that high, but still... I had some.

To be honest, my first flight was rather terrible, to say the least. I know... only a first flight... but still.
Flight plan was: LGSK/19 N0299F200 SIGF1F SIGFO B1 SKP L617 LEKPO LEKP1K LGTS/28 in a TBM 850
I wonder if other users have (sometimes) the same experience.
Here are a few issues:

• After departure tower handed me of to approach and they told me to stick to the SID altitude (4000ft).
  After 10/15 min I asked for higher, a was cleared 8500ft. Still on Approach freq.
• Then it seemed that Approach had changed suddenly in Departure (same freq) however I never was handed off.
  (Or is it that IRL for smaller airports DEP/ARR are done by same controller/freq?)
  After 30 min still  at 8500ft so I requested higher. Was cleared to my 'filed' altitude. Which was FL200 at filed on my flight plan.
• Still remained on departure, so I requested handoff to CTR myself
• CTR cleared me for the LEKP1K STAR (RWY28) together with the RNAV approach for RWY 34. The flight plan said also LEKP1K LGTS/28
  Runway configurations can change, so no problem. But the combination of LEKP1K with RNAV 34 puzzles met a bit. Also because winds were 280/5.
  Nevertheless I guess this might happen in real life as well?
• CTR advised that local QNH was 30.52 (or something).
  I was flying in Europe, so why not millibar?
• 50nm from the airport I was vectored all over the place: East/West/North. It didn't make any sense, and also I still was at FL200.
• Then the following instruction: "6nm from CEFEB, descend altitude 4000, cleared for the RNAV RWY 34 approach."
  CEFEB is the start/IAF of the 13.5nm long approach to RWY34. 
  Descending to 4000ft from FL200 in 6nm is kinda challenging, even in a TMB 850 😉

So concluding... The first flight was some kind of a mess, at least to my experience.
(However some errors can also be RTFM issues)
I guess it takes a while longer before these kind of errors (?) are ironed out.
What are your experiences?

Egbert

 

 

Let them know in the discord, while the flight is happening preferably. They were wildly receptive when I was a subscriber and would often fix things in near real time. 

 

I stopped because I'm just kinda waiting for the PMDG 737 to come to 2024 and I'll likely get back with them. I've had the head dev take the same flight as me a couple times and fix things immediately. 

Say Intention has great elements, but frustrating execution for my usage (VFR, GA, US). I keep finding issues after 90% of my flight, landing in Discord to file tickets. Unnecessary features aside, core flaws—like poor joining airfield in VFR and ATC ground management—break my VFR sim experience. After dozens of SI flights, the feeling of flying alone with a frustrating AI could be improve with the upcoming AI Traffic SI injection. Will see. 

Thanks for all the replies.
I guess the conclusion is that it is a mixed bag. 
I am not a big fan of Discord, but I might post my experience there

Tiny update... Made a 2nd flight and I have given up.

LFPO to EDDL, 2 large airports.
- Initially cleared to 4000ft, which is pretty low. SID indicates initial climb to FL80
- Stuck for a while at 4000ft
- Then instructed to "climb via the SID". I never heard this kind of phraseology
- When I was at FL80 (according to the SID), again I had to ask for higher myself.
  Then I was cleared to altitude 'Foxtrot Lima 200'.... That was the moment I gave up.

I appreciate that this is an application in early access, no problem.
Apparently it needs a lot of work, which is fine. I'll try again (much) later.
(BTW: I'm not asking for help/support here, just ventilating my experiences)

Edited June 1, 20251 yr by Egbert Drenth
Typos

The biggest flaw is the unfocused development. The guy adds all kinds of features before making sure that the core program, the ATC is rock solid. 

No one needs an entourage before ATC is not at least 90% reliable, and following correct procedures.

7 minutes ago, Farlis said:

The biggest flaw is the unfocused development. The guy adds all kinds of features before making sure that the core program, the ATC is rock solid. 

No one needs an entourage before ATC is not at least 90% reliable, and following correct procedures.

Although I agree that I wish they would focus on getting ATC right before  anything else, business is business and I'm sure tons of simmers love the goofy tour guides and grumpy copilots that bring in much needed income. I can't really blame them for that.