As a stakeholder since BATC's inception and a designated supporter, I have consistently valued the organization's commitment to transparency and technical expertise, which initially fostered strong confidence in its offerings.  

However, recent developments suggest a discernible shift in operational efficacy, in my assessment.  

Historically, BATC operated with a core team of four developers (including three software engineers and one sound engineer), as communicated via official Discord channels during its formative phase. Leadership was spearheaded by an individual known as "Captain," while the traffic injection system—acknowledged as a foundational innovation—was engineered by "Whakamolenz," also credited as the architect of FSLTL.  

Currently, Captain's presence on Discord has markedly diminished, with no substantive community interaction recorded for several months. This decline in engagement correlates with observable delays, and potentially a cessation of progress, in core engine development—a domain primarily overseen by Captain. This hiatus has been attributed by representatives to shifting personal circumstances. While another developer has resumed community engagement following an absence, operational challenges persist.  

A significant backlog of unresolved issues has accumulated, including but not limited to: erroneous vector assignments, procedural incompatibilities at specific airports, and malfunctioning parking systems.  

Compounding this concern is the developer team's recent need requesting new issue submissions following each patch release. This policy lacks effectiveness and consistency, as stakeholders receive no indication of whether patches actually address previously reported defects. Consequently, reports frequently remain unacknowledged despite assurances that all submissions are reviewed. The community commendably attempts to mitigate non-critical issues (e.g., user errors or feature misunderstandings), yet core technical deficiencies persist unaddressed.  

This operational posture contrasts unfavorably with BATC's primary competitor, which demonstrates prompt issue acknowledgment, systematic resolution tracking, and explicit patch documentation linked to specific reports. The disparity in responsiveness is substantial. While differing monetization models may contribute, it is notable that BATC itself previously maintained higher levels of engagement than observed presently.  

Collectively, these circumstances give cause for concern regarding BATC's current strategic direction and prioritization of stakeholder experience.  

Perhaps you should consider changing your username to ChatGPT....

3 hours ago, WillyTheGoat said:

As a stakeholder since BATC's inception and a designated supporter, I have consistently valued the organization's commitment to transparency and technical expertise, which initially fostered strong confidence in its offerings.  

However, recent developments suggest a discernible shift in operational efficacy, in my assessment.  

Historically, BATC operated with a core team of four developers (including three software engineers and one sound engineer), as communicated via official Discord channels during its formative phase. Leadership was spearheaded by an individual known as "Captain," while the traffic injection system—acknowledged as a foundational innovation—was engineered by "Whakamolenz," also credited as the architect of FSLTL.  

Currently, Captain's presence on Discord has markedly diminished, with no substantive community interaction recorded for several months. This decline in engagement correlates with observable delays, and potentially a cessation of progress, in core engine development—a domain primarily overseen by Captain. This hiatus has been attributed by representatives to shifting personal circumstances. While another developer has resumed community engagement following an absence, operational challenges persist.  

A significant backlog of unresolved issues has accumulated, including but not limited to: erroneous vector assignments, procedural incompatibilities at specific airports, and malfunctioning parking systems.  

Compounding this concern is the developer team's recent need requesting new issue submissions following each patch release. This policy lacks effectiveness and consistency, as stakeholders receive no indication of whether patches actually address previously reported defects. Consequently, reports frequently remain unacknowledged despite assurances that all submissions are reviewed. The community commendably attempts to mitigate non-critical issues (e.g., user errors or feature misunderstandings), yet core technical deficiencies persist unaddressed.  

This operational posture contrasts unfavorably with BATC's primary competitor, which demonstrates prompt issue acknowledgment, systematic resolution tracking, and explicit patch documentation linked to specific reports. The disparity in responsiveness is substantial. While differing monetization models may contribute, it is notable that BATC itself previously maintained higher levels of engagement than observed presently.  

Collectively, these circumstances give cause for concern regarding BATC's current strategic direction and prioritization of stakeholder experience.  

are you trying to impress us with your word wizardry

Perhaps its time for another BATC bashing round?
We have this recently once every month ...

Always posters with not many posts. No one can tell me, thats coincidence.

 

I'm no BATC word not allowed, it has enough problems.
But that periodic bashing is fishy

25 minutes ago, Jetman67 said:

are you trying to impress us with your word wizardry

As I believe MaDog was intimating more their abilty to use ChatGP or similar.

I'm a big fan of BATC, the user interface is very intuitive and easy to navigate and setting it up is very simple. The implementation of traffic along with impressive premium voices to match controllers/pilots around the globe is also really immersive. I do find however that the actual controlling  - which really is the important bit - can often go awry, with nonsense vectors and being cleared to unsafe altitudes, or even worse cleared to an altitude and then recleared to a higher one once you've already descended through the previous clearance. Quite regularly I will ignore BATC and just find the way to the runway by myself. 

I tried SI last week and although their new traffic implementation is definitely not as good (AI parked over each other) and you don't always have well matched accents, the actual controlling seems to be significantly better. On all of my flights in the last week I have had decent vectoring and sensible altitude clearances. I find the AI cabin crew and copilot a bit gimmicky but they do the job.  

On balance, SI is for me edging ahead. 

I tend to agree with the opinions expressed in the OP. My feel is that BATC is loosing its initial momentum and entering a slow-down phase, which is not good for a software still in development.

I use BATC for every flight.  It’s not perfect, but so far is the best of what’s available IMHO.

The last update seems to have improved  my most annoying issue: when you are on a STAR with a very straightforward vector transition to the ILS approach, realistically only requiring one simple vector or even better a direct to the IAF.  However, BATC used to vector my off the STAR early and in bizarre directions rather than letter my fly most of the STAR.  That seems much improved now.

I love BATC, and I don't fly without it. If it gives me a nonsensical instruction I just ignore it, but this gets less and less.

I'm very excited for VFR implementation so I can use it for my GA flights as well.

If they (BATC) will close tomorrow are there any legal issues for them?

7 hours ago, WillyTheGoat said:

This operational posture contrasts unfavorably with BATC's primary competitor,

That may be your view, but considering how much the competitor lacks in procedural accuracy, this is nothing I worry about.

 

And I wasn't aware BeyondATC was public and there were any stakes to hold. 😉

Edited July 3, 2025Jul 3 by Farlis

5 minutes ago, Farlis said:

And I wasn't aware BeyondATC was public and there were any stakes to hold. 😉

Maybe you're confusing stakeholders and shareholders? A customer is certainly a type of stakeholder.

I've used FSHUD, first with p3d then with FS 2024. Then tried BATC.

Presently I use default FS 2024 ATC and AI traffic, and I really like it... 

Is it perfect? No way... But good enough for me...

17 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Presently I use default FS 2024 ATC and AI traffic, and I really like it... 

Does FS 2024 ATC still pronounce company name based on plane registration number? I.e. calls all Japanese planes "Air Bosna"

48 minutes ago, Vitold69 said:

If they (BATC) will close tomorrow are there any legal issues for them?

Considering the past wrongs of various other companies in the space with no legal ramifications, I don't think anything would come of it anyway.

Edited July 3, 2025Jul 3 by Lucky38i