1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

no thanks after 1.5 years of a broken program.

1.5 Years of a working program for me.

6 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

1.5 Years of a working program for me.

It sometimes works if you only fly airliners from large airport to large airport on predictable routes with sids/stars.  

Any other sort of IFR flight with point to point and especially getting the aircraft set up for an approach has been an abysmal failure.

Don't know what your aviation background is but I've got my PPL ASEL and have been an Air Traffic Controller for almost 20 years with tower, tracon and en route experience.

If you don't know what to expect, or how real world ATC works, it will probably meet your expectations.

Edited February 27Feb 27 by ryanbatc

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

Nope.  Still sucks.

A little harsh, but I know what part of the industry you come from, so I understand your frustration.

Testing it from to airports I have never even heard of is a little unfair in my opinion.

Although yesterday they were still vectoring me to KONT and I was already at the gate.

Not perfect, but considering what we've had to play with in the past, I think things are progressing in the right direction.

I have over 200 flights with BATC and most turn out ok for the most part.

I think my expectations are a little lower then your however. 

 

I generally ignore the arrival vectors as it’s the worst part of the program, so looking forward to seeing how this works once it gets out of experimental (I have the more basic license).

Just now, Ron Lefebvre said:

 

Testing it from to airports I have never even heard of is a little unfair in my opinion.

 

 

Is this a real comment?  There are over 500 airports with air traffic control towers in the USA.  These are not small airports.  That's beside the point though.  ATC software should be able to get your aircraft from ANY airport to another airport in a reasonable way.  I'm not expecting perfection...  but it tells me to turn 180 degrees in the middle of my flight for zero reason.

It sucks.

41 minutes ago, Farlis said:

 

 

So you jumped the gun with your previous post and complained about the absence of improvement, even though the thread title clearly says "Experimental", which is not a public release.

 

 

MY experience with this app has been pretty poor.  I tend to update it once a month and try (and hope) for improvements.

The OP made it seem like they had a huge update... which they did, but only if you own the supporter version or whatever.  

 

So IF I get the supporter's version for another 30 $ US will I immediately have access to experimental?

Or will I still have to wait since I did not get  the early adopter's fee which I don't see as available anymore

 

 

OK so I got this tru Googling:

BeyondATC's (BATC) Supporter Pack is designed for users who want to fund development and test new features early, costing $59.99 compared to the $29.99 basic pack. The primary difference is that supporters gain access to an experimental branch where features—such as the advanced traffic injection system—are introduced, tested, and often buggy before being released to the general public

 

Edited February 27Feb 27 by John-Allen

21 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

It sucks

Ryan, I hope you are still fine and sassy as always!   As a former ATC and pilot with similar experience and TIS as you I would go as far as to say that assessment is a bit hyperbolic.  I agree the current release version vectors are pretty much useless, the term I would use is “still broke”.  That said, I AM on the experimental branch.  Later today I will take BATC “1.8.0 EXPERIMENTAL” for a shakedown flight and report back with my assessment.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

Edited February 27Feb 27 by btacon

Holy heck!! This is amazing. 

The BATC dev should give Ryan free access to the experimental phase, or Ryan should help out the dev. Either of those 2 ideas would help BATC continue to improve.

They don't have to do it for me, but I'm not overly critical of their dev process. I'm actually grateful that they are still in dev mode.

How can I see my version ? 

I think BATC is pretty good, but I have zero experience in the industry, so ignorance is bliss?

14 minutes ago, John-Allen said:

How can I see my version ? 

The version is down on the left side of the window.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, btacon said:

Ryan, I hope you are still fine and sassy as always!   As a former ATC and pilot with similar experience and TIS as you I would go as far as to say that assessment is a bit hyperbolic.  I agree the current release version vectors are pretty much useless, the term I would use is “still broke”.  That said, I AM on the experimental branch.  Later today I will take BATC “1.8.0 EXPERIMENTAL” for a shakedown flight and report back with my assessment.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

Sounds good hope to hear from you

I am not in the beta, I think you have to pay to get into that?  Anyway I have similar problems with GA IFR flights.  I wouldn't say broken, but it works infrequently.  I just flew from two mid sized regional airports (with airliner traffic, we're not talking bush strips here).  BATC had me hold at a runway indefinitely, twice.  Then had me hold for traffic which didn't exist.  I finally takeoff, and it wants me to turn west for vectors to my destination, still hundreds of miles away to the east.  I just ignore it and fly my flight.  As I get closer, I tell ATC I'm ready to descent, and it tells me to go to 2200.  That's good!  Hold on though, then it tells me to descent to 2206, and then proceeds to loop between 2200 and 2206 (yes, 6 feet difference for no reason).  It is still bouncing me between centers as I fly the pattern and land.  I tried closing the program once and restarting, nothing seemed to work.  Basically useless the whole flight.  

Granted, this is one of my worst experiences so far.  I did a flight this morning and it actually worked well, even vectoring me for a reasonable visual final.  

Edited February 27Feb 27 by kerosene31