18 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

BATC works well when last fix for STAR is the IAF for ILS approach. Magic 🙂 

Haven't tried it with non ILS approaches yet, how does it do?

7 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Haven't tried it with non ILS approaches yet, how does it do?

I wasn't my point. The point was that where vectoring is required between final STAR fix and IAF fix (two different fixes)...you are on you own, get ready for surprises 🙂 

For non-ILS, SI, for example gave me vectors for KDCA RNP 19 IAF and it was nice and smooth. But again, YMMV.  

1 hour ago, G-YMML1 said:

BATC works well when last fix for STAR is the IAF for ILS approach. Magic 🙂 

Because it doesn't have to do anything?  😂

11 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Because it doesn't have to do anything?  😂

Correct 🙂

Back in the old days Radar Contact didn’t have a clue about Sids, Stars, etc. It had a database with airports locations, runways and its headings, and that’s all. The goal of Radar Contact was to bring you at FL 100-120 within 40 nm from the airport, and then start vectoring you. It was seamless experience. Why modern software is struggling with vectors is beyond my comprehension 

Edited January 29Jan 29 by G-YMML1

3 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

BATC works well when last fix for STAR is the IAF for ILS approach. Magic 🙂 

It also works quite well when it isn't.

A couple of weeks ago I flew into Innsbruck on a STAR from the east that ended just on a hold fix and from which the program hat to vector me to the LOC 26 Approach. Not only did it correctly put me on an extended downwind while descending me gradually above the MSA, it also then vectored me onto final in a similar perfect fashion at the exact altitude the approach started.

 

So they have been working on this in the background and it has improved.

8 minutes ago, Farlis said:

It also works quite well when it isn't.

A couple of weeks ago I flew into Innsbruck on a STAR from the east that ended just on a hold fix and from which the program hat to vector me to the LOC 26 Approach. Not only did it correctly put me on an extended downwind while descending me gradually above the MSA, it also then vectored me onto final in a similar perfect fashion at the exact altitude the approach started.

 

So they have been working on this in the background and it has improved.

I don't have any problems in Munich or London, but KSFO is really bad, for example. I usually end up at 5,000 feet with an ILS intercept at AXMUL, which, of course, doesn't work at all. KEWR is also poor because you have to fly the entire STAR for 22R, and then they vector you back 30 miles before you can start the approach. As mentioned in this thread, the only way it works properly for me is if you go directly to the FAF via any available transition.

Edit: Today I flew to VTBS, where he always wants the RNAV on the two outer runways instead of the ILS on the inner runways, which is also complete nonsense. I really wonder whether the developers have any expertise in this area, or whether he just takes whatever procedure fits into the flight plan loaded from Simbrief, regardless of how logical it is.

Edited January 29Jan 29 by marlon445

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

This. THE number one dealbreaker for FSHud imho. Totally ruins immersion.

like what the heck? something that happened in FS9 20 something years ago can't be done in a 2026 atc addon?????

6 hours ago, simsuper80 said:

like what the heck? something that happened in FS9 20 something years ago can't be done in a 2026 atc addon?????

Especially because BATC is capable of and all the planes do a simple pushback. Even the miserable default AI engine of MSFS is capable of. It is really a bummer and prevents me from using FSHud. Because for other aspects, it is better than BATC imho, and the airport editor is a huge thing. Seriously, I have no idea why this pushback thing is on such a low priority for the FSHud dev...

A big immersive killer, BATC does not get rynway's correct with live weather ore active sky. Hud the same, don't know abour SI.

I don't think this will ever be sorted, hopefully one day

12 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Back in the old days Radar Contact didn’t have a clue about Sids, Stars, etc.

You could add them manually. RC took any waypoints within 30nm of the airport as a departure procedure and gave you options on how you wanted to fly it. The "good old days" using FSBuild.

10 hours ago, Farlis said:

It also works quite well when it isn't.

A couple of weeks ago I flew into Innsbruck on a STAR from the east that ended just on a hold fix and from which the program hat to vector me to the LOC 26 Approach. Not only did it correctly put me on an extended downwind while descending me gradually above the MSA, it also then vectored me onto final in a similar perfect fashion at the exact altitude the approach started.

 

So they have been working on this in the background and it has improved.

I messed up the approach to 08 at Innsbruck and BATC handled the go around perfectly. I wonder if some airports get more attention than others? It would be great to have airport profiles like GSX the community could build.

56 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Especially because BATC is capable of and all the planes do a simple pushback. Even the miserable default AI engine of MSFS is capable of. It is really a bummer and prevents me from using FSHud. Because for other aspects, it is better than BATC imho, and the airport editor is a huge thing. Seriously, I have no idea why this pushback thing is on such a low priority for the FSHud dev...

BATC also has GSX integration so pushback is initiated by the ATC clearance.

1 hour ago, kurtb said:

A big immersive killer, BATC does not get rynway's correct with live weather ore active sky. Hud the same, don't know abour SI.

I don't think this will ever be sorted, hopefully one day

There's a lot that goes into deciding the current active runway at an airport, not simply just winds. 

If you notice in the changelog, something along the lines of "ops updates" is where they've gathered the ruling that specific airport uses to deciding on an active runway. 

Quite the opposite of an immersive killer

Edited January 30Jan 30 by Lucky38i

I gave BATC a go earlier in the week and, after 20 flights, I must say I’m impressed. Ground movements and handoffs are great, vectoring has been good, and traffic density has been satisfying. Being told to line up and wait was a nice touch after not having that in FSHud.
The main weakness seems to be vectoring onto the final approach course. I had two instances where there was so much AI ahead of me that it took a long time to announce myself on frequency, as ATC was busy giving vectors for visual approaches to others. With lower traffic settings, this likely would’ve been avoided.

Overall, I’ll continue using BATC for now, as it provides a great level of immersion. I’ll also check in on FSHud from time to time, as it still shows a lot of potential.

I've noticed the same thing with BATC.  Everything works great other than the final vectoring.  I keep getting sent in too high for a very short visual approach.  Everything else seems to work quite well.  I've just learned to do my own approach.  I'm usually in the Black Square Baron or Bonanza, so I don't need much to get in, but being too high doesn't work.  

Still for the price it is impressive, and the voices sound really good to me.  I purchased the addon voices and there's lots of variety.  

If you fly in and out of KORD from East Cost, you must know famous WYNDE 3 STAR that serves both 27/28 and 10/09. If you intend to land on 9/10, real life ATC start to vector after ERNNY. BATC, in contrast, will let you fly full STAR to the west then start vectoring you back to the east and only after that start issuing vectors to final.