9 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Just keeping it real.   But I get it, you love your BATC. 

You are not keeping anything real. EA can and will take years. What you are expecting is an extended Beta. But EA can start as early as Pre-Alpha, depending on how soon developers want customer input (and money).

 

So no, EA is not too long at this point, and no it is not a scam to continue calling at that.

22 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Just keeping it real.   But I get it, you love your BATC. 

There isn't a week that goes by on Avsim, where someone doesn't bash BATC.  Nothing new here. 

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Given how long BATC has been in "early access" it's nothing but a scam at this point, to get customers to pay extra for the "experimental" version.

I swear some people don’t even know what a scam is anymore. I’ve never felt compelled to pay for experimental, how have you?

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

What a great marketing idea, just label all new software as "early access" and the pressure is off the developers.

Then… don’t buy it. You can’t buy an early access product then setup some internal timeframe that the developers didn’t keep when they don’t publish one themselves. You’re upset your FOMO got the better of you and you willingly paid for a buggy product when you didn’t have to. 

It’s why I didn’t buy the A2A Aerostar  EA because I didn’t want that risk. I can happily wait for a release.

Just used BATC today.  Using AI voices, not a mike.   Can't hear my own transmissions.   It takes BATC 3-4 minutes to respond to requests for clearance, permission to cross runways.  Finally gave up on waiting for T/O permission and just took off.  Flying out of KMDW at peak traffic time.   BATC AI traffic settings are mid/high.   6 aircraft left during the 40 minutes I was on the ground, zero landed.   I'm currently cruising for the last 40 minutes, have yet to see a single aircraft in flight.   The BATC I purchased 4 months ago performed better than what I've currently got, but hey, it's Early Access so it's expected to regress, right? 

Well if you don't have enough liveries installed for it to fall back to, then you won't see traffic.

 

And none of the other issues, like long response times, I have ever witnessed.

It does struggle with queing, though. Instead of responding to the user when you call in, if at the same time AI calls in, it will respond to AI first. And that can sometimes lead to you having to wait until it finally answers you.

 

They should either reprogram, so that user requests always move to the top of the queue, or that they at least answer with "Standby" instead of giving you the feeling you are being ignored.

Edited August 17, 2025Aug 17 by Farlis

I'm using FSHud and I'm very happy with it.
It provides reliable instructions and vectors, along with a large amount of AI traffic.
The voices are also fine — about the same quality as BATC’s free voices.

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

The BATC I purchased 4 months ago performed better than what I've currently got, but hey, it's Early Access so it's expected to regress, right?

Unfortunately regression can happen with Early Access.  I get where you are coming from, I've been involved in many Early Access products that never came out of Early Access and eventually the developers just stopped developing.  I hope this doesn't happen to BATC, but they have taken on a challenge that is one of the biggest challenges to Flight Simulation.

Extremely complex to do it as well as live controller(s) (more than one) ... so complex it's hard for me to visualize the process working well on a single PC and would need to run on a separate server with very low latency ... which for BATC they are server side which is why I think they have a very good shot and making it work.   

If, or as soon as, BATC implement VFR (fingers crossed), I'll give it another go ... but I do hope the keep developing and server-side is definitely the correct approach.  

16 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Extremely complex to do it as well as live controller(s) (more than one) ... so complex it's hard for me to visualize the process working well on a single PC and would need to run on a separate server with very low latency ... which for BATC they are server side which is why I think they have a very good shot and making it work.   

Somehow, other ATC add-ons managed to do this — on the user’s PC and without a server.

At EGLL?  was just around there a day or so ago, did not experience this but this is bound to happen with a lot of ATC programs. 

Still, its an excellent atc and traffic program 

7 hours ago, Cloud Surfing said:

other ATC add-ons managed to do this — on the user’s PC and without a server.

And they all have issues, no exceptions, tried them all … none of them can route VFR correctly.  Correct routing requires processing power and more importantly SDK support (a mechanism to support project requirements).  If ATC could be correctly ran on a PC, then I would have expected real world ATC to have already adapt it so we can avoid using “Say Again” 😉 

I’m not looking for 100% accurate, heck i’d accept 70% … but with the ATC products I’ve used, it’s more like 10% (1 out of 10 flights will actually seem correct).  It’s nice when it happens, but that seems to be the exception not the norm.

56 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

And they all have issues, no exceptions, tried them all … none of them can route VFR correctly.  Correct routing requires processing power and more importantly SDK support (a mechanism to support project requirements).  If ATC could be correctly ran on a PC, then I would have expected real world ATC to have already adapt it so we can avoid using “Say Again” 😉 

I’m not looking for 100% accurate, heck i’d accept 70% … but with the ATC products I’ve used, it’s more like 10% (1 out of 10 flights will actually seem correct).  It’s nice when it happens, but that seems to be the exception not the norm.

I'm not flying VFR, but I guess VFR doesn't really need ATC at all. It's more about enjoying the scenery and just flying however you want. Why would ATC even be needed?
Perhaps I'm wrong...🙃

7 minutes ago, Cloud Surfing said:

but I guess VFR doesn't really need ATC at all

I guess if you don't fly into controlled airspace and don't want to know about traffic advisories and weather updates and low visibility (SVFR), and separation services, and don't do flight following, and ...

10 minutes ago, Cloud Surfing said:

Why would ATC even be needed?
Perhaps I'm wrong...🙃

Quite often (at least for me) you traverse the very same controlled airspace IFR/airliner fly into.

For that you need a clearance.

Same goes if you are trying to depart/land at a controlled aerodrome. 

I'd say VFR can be somewhat "trickier" even, due to the fact that procedures are more local and ad hoc.

29 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

I guess if you don't fly into controlled airspace and don't want to know about traffic advisories and weather updates and low visibility (SVFR), and separation services, and don't do flight following, and ...

But how is that related to accuracy?
It sounds really frustrating when you say only 10% of flights were accurate...😥
Are you talking about VFR flights?

I'm using it all the time. ATC is great and the traffic injection is the best I have seen. (IFR Jet only flyer)