Had a couple flights with BATC now.  For the most part it was fun, better than I was expecting.  But then, going into Monterey, it pulled me off route onto a heading and then gave me a "descend and maintain 2,000"... While I was over terrain that topped out at 5,000ft.  Does this program really have no understanding of minimum vectoring altitudes / terrain?  That surprised me quite a bit.  It appears the program just descended me based on distance from destination with no understanding of where I actually was.

This is the number one reason that I don't use any of the ATC packages.  I do the bulk of my flying in the US intermountain west, where I've lived and flown IRL for my entire adult life until a recent post-retirement move to warmer climes, and this is just not an area where these things shine.

So no.  In short, nothing in MSFS that I'm aware of understands MVAs. 

 

Scott

That's amazing to me.  I mean, this data all exists in digital form.  Vatsim has it, for goodness sakes.  I would think this would be one of the first things you'd consider necessary if making software that tried to vector sim pilots. I just assumed, with all the unnecessary fluff like traffic injection etc that's been added, that the basics were solidly nailed down.  

49 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Had a couple flights with BATC now.  For the most part it was fun, better than I was expecting.  But then, going into Monterey, it pulled me off route onto a heading and then gave me a "descend and maintain 2,000"... While I was over terrain that topped out at 5,000ft.  Does this program really have no understanding of minimum vectoring altitudes / terrain?  That surprised me quite a bit.  It appears the program just descended me based on distance from destination with no understanding of where I actually was.

It does not. At all. Which makes it pretty much useless to me. At least with Say Intentions you can say "unable, terrain" and it will let you do what you want. BATC will bark back at you if you attempt anything other than what it tells you. 

49 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

It appears the program just descended me based on distance from destination with no understanding of where I actually was.

I think, 3rd party addons don't have access to the sims elevation data.

Btw. would not sending you off route be quite unrealistic in the first place? 

Thats pretty wild if the AI ATC programs cannot access either the sim's elevation or real world since they're basically the same.

In the USA, MVA/MIA/MOCA maps are easily found in digital form.  Globally, you'd think simple standard lat/long grids with highest elevation noted.  Add 1000/2000 feet above for terrain clearance and you're good.

Vectoring vs Non-Radar is tricky I assume because that data probably difficult to find....and predicting if an airport has radar vectoring available probably is a hands on one-by-one method.

21 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

I think, 3rd party addons don't have access to the sims elevation data.

They wouldn't need to, though -- they could simply use the real-world MVAs (which is what a real controller would do).

43 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I would think this would be one of the first things you'd consider necessary if making software that tried to vector sim pilots.

I think it bears a worthy mention that BATC is still very much an early access program that as of recent has been focusing on correct airport ops, rewriting vectoring logic and traffic behaviour, among various other things

While I agree MVAs are fairly important, BATC has to juggle priorities as everyone has an opinion on what they think is simple to do or most important. 
 

48 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

unnecessary fluff like traffic injection etc that's been added,

Personally I don’t see the point of ATC if you’re the only aircraft to be controlled, but that’s just me.

51 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

that the basics were solidly nailed down.

I feel like there’s a lot of “basics” and BATC is still making their way through them.

It's a WiP.

Have you guys posted this observation in their Discord.? That would be a good place to start.

Data is a challenge for ATC addons.
Because yeah, you can totally say 'hey but there's charts for this stuff!' – and there are. However the issue is around how do you actually feed that to a computer. 

There are handy databases you can use to look up FIR boundaries and therefore have accurate handoffs between controllers. Or look up airways, waypoints, airfield data etc.

To my knowledge, there isn't a ready-made database of MVAs one can simply look up in the same way. Even SID/STARS - I believe that comes from raw waypoint data and not charts. Which is why you may have these cool extra procedures as part of a departure on a chart, but it just won't be accessible to actually use as data unless you do lots of custom coding – and you want to avoid doing that as much as you can.

One solution, which is what I thought BATC was doing already, is use a low-poly DEM terrain to check for path collisions. I'm pretty sure BATC uses a 3D engine behind the scenes, so you'd have a really optimised model of terrain that you check vectoring against and adjust altitude based on that. Something like that won't be 'true to charts' but it would make sure not to put you into actual terrain. But I guess that's not the case for them.

 

MVA shape files definitely exist.  My understanding is that this is what Vatsim uses, and they're a non-profit so obviously their ability and willingness to pay for data would be less than a commercial product.  

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

Btw. would not sending you off route be quite unrealistic in the first place? 

Nah, it was vectoring to set me up for a visual.  I'll note that the field was only marginal VMC and I requested an instrument approach which it refused, which is also kind of a problem.  I would not commit to a visual in those conditions in reality.  But I guess this is more of an "adjustments could be made" issue.  The MVAs however...

46 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Personally I don’t see the point of ATC if you’re the only aircraft to be controlled, but that’s just me.

I mean, there are plenty of times in reality you're the only aircraft currently in the airspace at a smaller controlled field.  Center or TRACON can and will still vector you for an approach.  In fact at non-towered airports in IMC, only one aircraft at a time owns the entire bubble of terminal airspace.  Extraneous traffic might be a "fun to have", but from a realistic environment standpoint I wouldn't consider it necessary.  Sure would be nice not to get descended into a mountain though.  When you're in radar contact and being vectored, ATC assumes responsibility for terrain clearance.  That's why I say that the program's knowledge of MVAs isn't a "nice to have" or a competing priority... Without it, you don't have a functional ATC vectoring system at all.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

MVA shape files definitely exist.  My understanding is that this is what Vatsim uses, and they're a non-profit so obviously their ability and willingness to pay for data would be less than a commercial product.  

Nah, it was vectoring to set me up for a visual.  I'll note that the field was only marginal VMC and I requested an instrument approach which it refused, which is also kind of a problem.  I would not commit to a visual in those conditions in reality.  But I guess this is more of an "adjustments could be made" issue.  The MVAs however...

I mean, there are plenty of times in reality you're the only aircraft currently in the airspace at a smaller controlled field.  Center or TRACON can and will still vector you for an approach.  In fact at non-towered airports in IMC, only one aircraft at a time owns the entire bubble of terminal airspace.  Extraneous traffic might be a "fun to have", but from a realistic environment standpoint I wouldn't consider it necessary.  Sure would be nice not to get descended into a mountain though.  When you're in radar contact and being vectored, ATC assumes responsibility for terrain clearance.  That's why I say that the program's knowledge of MVAs isn't a "nice to have" or a competing priority... Without it, you don't have a functional ATC vectoring system at all.

From a professional ATC to a professional pilot...  The things you list are the big reasons why BATC totally fails for me.  I keep trying a flight usually once a month to see if things improve via an update.

BATC does okay when it comes to structured airliner ops (but not really in terrain areas as you can see haha).  But taking any aircraft into a smaller towered airport or uncontrolled airport, it has a really hard time.  Especially if it's trying to vector you for a visual or an IAP.

I think I try not to be super picky from a realism standpoint, because I know what to expect, but it still fails more often than not.

I'd say for their target audience (flight simming airliner users with limited or no real world experience), it does pretty well.

2 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

I think it bears a worthy mention that BATC is still very much an early access program that as of recent has been focusing on correct airport ops, rewriting vectoring logic and traffic behaviour, among various other things

As time progresses, I'm finding it harder and harder to accept program failings because the product has "Early Access" written on it. BeyondATC has been out for almost two years if my memory is correct and the developers have shown no sign of removing the "Early Access" tag from it. To me, continuing to flag something as "Early Access" when the public have been purchasing it for the past two years is a way of excusing bugs. Maybe thats just me.

That said, I use the program because to me, its the best of the three. SayIntentions is just as bad, charging $23 USD per month for a product thats riddled with issues under the protection of the words "is still in beta". 

Edited October 27, 2025Oct 27 by KL Oo

30 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

From a professional ATC to a professional pilot...  The things you list are the big reasons why BATC totally fails for me.  I keep trying a flight usually once a month to see if things improve via an update.

BATC does okay when it comes to structured airliner ops (but not really in terrain areas as you can see haha).  But taking any aircraft into a smaller towered airport or uncontrolled airport, it has a really hard time.  Especially if it's trying to vector you for a visual or an IAP.

I think I try not to be super picky from a realism standpoint, because I know what to expect, but it still fails more often than not.

I'd say for their target audience (flight simming airliner users with limited or no real world experience), it does pretty well.

 

Thanks for chiming in, I was curious on your take. 

Yeah, in terms of voice recognition and being able to interact with it naturally, I actually found it fun.  I was enjoying seeing how concise I could make my read backs, how much "plain language" I could use, and I was impressed.  (It apparently requires you to read back the word "squawk" instead of just the digits, but otherwise, pretty good!). I really tried it as kind of a novelty, and like I say it was fun so I guess I got my money's worth haha.  I was just really amazed that it's missing something as fundamental as the ability to keep you out of the rocks.

I'll probably do the same as others have said, and dip back in from time to time to see how it's doing.  

I mean, how long is this program going to be in "early access"? Early access - an excuse for sub par work. The vectoring is garbage, most of the time.