I uninstalled SI. Just too many crazy instructions telling me to go in opposite directions. BATC was better but on approach it just seemed to get lost. In the end P2ATC has been the most dependable for me. YMMV

13 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

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. 

 

BATC doesn’t really support shortcuts in STARs/SIDs. So for now they’ll make you fly the whole thing. Though I’m sure in due time that’ll improve.

On 1/30/2026 at 12:23 PM, Lucky38i said:

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

I disagree, anyway maybe in your country, FR24 tells us the story, so no need to discuss this futher, happy landings!!

10 minutes ago, kurtb said:

I disagree, anyway maybe in your country, FR24 tells us the story, so no need to discuss this futher, happy landings!!

If there was an API to FR24 which would give the current runways to all airports, and if it didn‘t cost a fortune (like the other API items for FR24 cost), BATC and probably anyone else down to Vatsim would likely use this. But there isn‘t, and an algorithm can‘t just open FR24 and guess with its eyes the current active runway.

So an approximation is all there is.

Also I don‘t really understand your argument - FR24 does *not* tell the story, it only tells the result. The decision which runways are active are very complex for most airports, with winds, noise abatement, forecasts, thunderstorms in the vicinity, regulations, terrain and who knows what else I forgot playing a major role.
For example at my home airport EDDF the 07s are prevalently active for a small part of the year simply because their approaches go over a different „Bundesland“ (state) and therefore do not count towards the noise abatement quota for the state the airport is actually located in. When that period is over, the 25s are active prevalently for the rest of the year.

Edited February 2Feb 2 by Fiorentoni

There is something I genuinely want to know, or wish to know. 

 

How is it possible that ai traffic in FS9/FSX moved better than anything we have now.

 

Landings and takeoffs look horrible from both of these options. BATC at least has the flare going, but it doesn't slow the decent.

 

Even just taxiing on the ground was so much better in FS9/FSX than what I'm seeing today. Not that it was perfect 

Edited February 2Feb 2 by simsuper80

33 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Also I don‘t really understand your argument - FR24 does *not* tell the story, it only tells the result. The decision which runways are active are very complex for most airports, with winds, noise abatement, forecasts, thunderstorms in the vicinity, regulations, terrain and who knows what else I forgot playing a major role.

Thank you for adding some common sense. I'm not sure why OP think it would be something specific to my country. 

23 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

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. 

 

Don't want to be picky, but the chart actually says after PAPPI...NOT ERNNY

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

If there was an API to FR24 which would give the current runways to all airports, and if it didn‘t cost a fortune (like the other API items for FR24 cost), BATC and probably anyone else down to Vatsim would likely use this. But there isn‘t, and an algorithm can‘t just open FR24 and guess with its eyes the current active runway.

It would actually not be difficult at all to scrape advertised landing runways from digital ATISs, which are published online for free for all major airline airports, in the US anyway. 

That said, another thing that was entirely unrealistic about BATC was that when I told it I wanted a different runway than it assigned, it would not accommodate me.  In reality, this is a pilot decision, not an ATC one.  Sure, if you want the longer runway you may have to wait until they can squeeze you into the flow, but you're never forced to use a runway you don't want.  The pilot owns the airplane, not ATC.

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

That said, another thing that was entirely unrealistic about BATC was that when I told it I wanted a different runway than it assigned, it would not accommodate me.  In reality, this is a pilot decision, not an ATC one.

That's only partially true.  Assuming the request is reasonable and/or there is an operational need to use a different runway, ATC will do its best to accommodate the request; but it is not the pilot's decision.  ATC calls the runways/approaches in use and if a request for a different runway conflicts with the current operation (especially if it's opposite direction), it can and will be denied.  With that said, the pilot could declare an emergency if they absolutely need to use a specific conflicting runway; but they'll have some explaining to do when they get on the ground.

1 hour ago, MadDog said:

That's only partially true.  Assuming the request is reasonable and/or there is an operational need to use a different runway, ATC will do its best to accommodate the request; but it is not the pilot's decision.  ATC calls the runways/approaches in use and if a request for a different runway conflicts with the current operation (especially if it's opposite direction), it can and will be denied.  With that said, the pilot could declare an emergency if they absolutely need to use a specific conflicting runway; but they'll have some explaining to do when they get on the ground.

To counteract what you say If I remember correctly at least one airport in Europe and specifically one operator always request the opporsite runway for departure for performance reasons even if it is opposite flow will never get denied. ATC don't have the final say even if after watching vasaviation videos some of them think they know better than the pilot...

Edited February 3Feb 3 by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, MadDog said:

That's only partially true.  Assuming the request is reasonable and/or there is an operational need to use a different runway, ATC will do its best to accommodate the request; but it is not the pilot's decision.  ATC calls the runways/approaches in use and if a request for a different runway conflicts with the current operation (especially if it's opposite direction), it can and will be denied.  With that said, the pilot could declare an emergency if they absolutely need to use a specific conflicting runway; but they'll have some explaining to do when they get on the ground.

No, it cannot be "denied".  Yes, as I said, you might need to wait a long time, but ATC does not decide where the aircraft goes or what it does - the PIC is always the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.

There have been plenty of times in reality I've needed a different runway, to include opposite direction, for performance reasons.  Trying to get a heavy -900 or Max9 out of SAN for a transcon or flight to the islands while they're on east flow is a good example.  

BATC being unable / unwilling to switch runways at my request was another thing about it that totally shattered the illusion, especially since traffic flow isn't a factor in a sim.

I'm curious if I don't opt for STAR in Simbrief, will BATC assign proper STAR based on runway usage or not?

Yes, BATC will choose the SID/STAR itself independent from what was planned by Simbrief, but of course they might match.

EGCC/EGPF are a very nice testing ground for BATC or SI vectoring 🙂   

On 1/29/2026 at 8:26 PM, G-YMML1 said:

Why modern software is struggling with vectors is beyond my comprehension

Maybe down to the programmer and getting the trigonometry correct. We had a genius on the RC4 beta team. Forget his name and given how long ago it was - 21 years - he's perhaps no longer with us. But his trig is faultless.

I'm currently flying around the world in P3Dv5 in the PMDG777-200 using RC4. Call me a dinosaur if you wish but all the vectors have been spot on including interesting airports like MMMX. Currently inbound to Bogota.