2 hours ago, CFIJose said:

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.

I honestly doubt BATC doesn't know what they're doing. The constraint here isn't skill it's time. an ATC program is extremely complex as I'm sure Ryan can expect and over time we've seen BATC progressively improve. However, this is a process over years. I mean just look at VoxATC, I have been waiting since FS2020 release (more or less) and still isn't in our hands. 

The other option is BATC had ignored what the community wanted and not release into early access but then I personally wouldn't prefer that. for all the faults BATC has, I don't fly without it (when there's no vatsim coverage) and I'm happy to see the continuous improvements.

Would it be worth the extra 30 US to get the supporter's option?

 

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Sounds good hope to hear from you

Howdy again Ryan. Short hop, KHIO to KSEA. My grade for the new release (1.8.0) is a B minus up from D plus for the previous version (1.7.0).

FP: KHIO/31L SCAPO7 SCAPO DCT KRIEG HAWKZ8 KSEA ILS/16R CRZ@17000

ATC instructions were as expected. Taxi To RWY was improved as it took me to 31L (requested) vs 31R which had been my previous experience at KHIO when requesting 31L.  Tower instructed initial alt of 4000. After handoff to Departure a climb to 10,000 followed by another handoff (Center?) with instructions to climb to 17000.  So far so good.

Flight progressed as expected with Controller instructions to descend via HAWKZ8 SID approximately 15 miles south of KRIEG.  Flying the Fenix a320 I acknowledged descent instructions but made no descent until arriving at TOD, some 5 or so miles northeast of HAWKZ.  More as expected flight then Arrival told me to expect RNAV 16R VASHN Transition.  I acknowledged instructions then requested new approach, ILS RWY 16R.  Controller asked me to verify my request for ILS RWY 16R and when I did controller told me to expect RADAR Vectors ILS RWY 16R.  Descent and flight continued and controller then instructed me to depart COFAY HDG 340 which set me up for a right downwind RWY 16R.  About five miles South of GRIFY controller began a series of right turns, the first being to HDG 100 (BASE).  This was quickly followed by a series of vectors; TR HDG 110, TR HDG 130, TR HDG 135 followed by a final turn to HDG 150 along with a position from BUGNE, Cleared ILS 16R Approach.  FAC was intercepted just outside of the Approach Gate and ended in a successful approach and landing ILS RWY 16R   Myself I would have used at most two turns for this approach, HDG 100 (Base) and 150 (FAC Intercept) but the multiple turns reminded me of my students when I taught TRACON (RAPCON) at Kessler AFB.  We would encourage more smaller turns with needed corrections as opposed one or two big turns at least until they had mastered basic vectoring.  The EXPERIMENTAL (1.8.0) controller behaved much like a student that needs more time for mastery but clearly a student who understands the basics, hence my grading of B minus as opposed to D plus which I would have given for previous (1.7.0) version controllers that in my experience FREQUENTLY began vectors with turns in the wrong direction or completely inappropriate HDGS all of which made BATC vectoring a roll of the dice.  Not a good method for Air Traffic Control LoL (no laughing matter).

Thats my write up of my 30 min shakedown flight of the BATC upgrade.  I found it to be a good improvement over previous BATC.  Only more flights and vectors will reveal how much so.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

I hope they can fix the issue of airports not being busy. Most big airport are almost dead of movement. Plenty of parked aircraft, but bearly anything moving. 

 

It's like an aircraft graveyard 

44 minutes ago, John-Allen said:

Would it be worth the extra 30 US to get the supporter's option?

 

Only you can answer that. Personally I never saw the need as experimental builds usually are released to public within a span of 3-6 weeks.

 

The idea is basically that by buying twice as much for the program you are giving them a sort of kickstarter funding for their work and as a thank you for that you get access to the experimental builds.

So if you think they deserve some more financially support, go for it.

 

9 minutes ago, simsuper80 said:

I hope they can fix the issue of airports not being busy.

I don't see that. If flight is scheduled and you have its liveries installed, it will be in the sim.

 

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Farlis

Anyone using BATC and Paulo Ricardo's Santos Dumont airport together?

Don't think I've have had any of these 3rd party traffic apps make that airfield function correctly.

 

9 hours ago, Speedbird 217 said:

Completely new sequencing logic kicking in 100nm out

How would that work on a flight from London Heathrow to Manchester? The straight line distance is around 130nm.

Which centres control the flight? In the real world Manchester gives inbounds vectors around 40nm out. If it was 100nm that would be 30nm from Heathrow. Not very realistic.

Try a flight and see how it goes.

5 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

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

Respectfully, if the software is only usable between major hubs it's pretty much useless to many of us.  I fly exclusively GA, mostly IFR and the biggest airports I typically fly to/from are regionals.  As Ryan notes, if it can't be at least mostly correct between two towered US airports it's of pretty limited use to any but scheduled airline folks.  And that's a good thing to know.

When I read the intro to this topic I just about convinced myself that it was time for me to break down and try BATC.  So I went and took a look at what it would take.  $30?  Reasonable.  But wait...  There's no trial to see if it even performs reasonably on my older system.  And then, oh the version the OP references is only available to the more expensive pricing tier.

Coming back here, I see more responses, and by the time I reached the end, I'm back to a hard nope.  I appreciate the topic and all of the folks who respond to stuff like this, allowing us to see a good cross-section of opinions from different types of simmers.  This is clearly not for me - at least not yet.

I'll continue to watch.

 

Scott

At this stage of development I would suggest anyone to wait anyway until it finally comes out of early access. I expect by that time it will have VFR traffic as well, and with that probably improved IFR logic to the exactly the type of GA flying that it currently still struggles with. After all seperation is a planned feature and for that the system needs to become more flexible to gett raffic away from each other.

54 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How would that work on a flight from London Heathrow to Manchester? The straight line distance is around 130nm.

Which centres control the flight? In the real world Manchester gives inbounds vectors around 40nm out. If it was 100nm that would be 30nm from Heathrow. Not very realistic.

Try a flight and see how it goes.

The way I read it,  it simply means that the engine will start sequencing AI controlled traffic 100nm out, so they don’t all arrive on top of each other. It then uses speed instructions as required to keep traffic separated as everyone gets closer to the airport.

Nothing changes from a user flight perspective other than potentially getting speed instructions as one gets closer to the airport. 

Update: Done 2 flights now, both a notable improvement in terms of vectoring and sequencing. I flew into CYVR after cranking up arrivals to 10 (which previously caused mayhem) and ATC was keeping everyone apart. I got a few speed restrictions, so did the AI. Was even told to "maintain minimum approach speed" as I was turning final in my B77L. Very nice so far!

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Speedbird 217

BATC only worked smoothly once I upgraded to DDR5 and a i9-14900k

1 hour ago, btacon said:

 

Thats my write up of my 30 min shakedown flight of the BATC upgrade.  I found it to be a good improvement over previous BATC.  Only more flights and vectors will reveal how much so.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. Blue skies,

-B

Thanks.. maybe it has improved then.

Still curious about smaller GA IFR flights.  I feel like the app becomes confused if you don't fly airliner speeds or are flying IFR semi short distances (less than 100nm for example).

For any flights the taxi and departure have always been someone fine.  Even en route is generally ok.  It's the arrival and approach that tends to be awful.

 

1 hour ago, Speedbird 217 said:

The way I read it,  it simply means that the engine will start sequencing AI controlled traffic 100nm out, so they don’t all arrive on top of each other.

Ah so you’re referring to Ai, not ATC instructions. Big difference, thanks. 👍

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

I don't see that. If flight is scheduled and you have its liveries installed, it will be in the sim.

 

Can't say I agree fully.  I think it is hit or miss.  I have all 3 models installed and max aircraft and  I still feel like traffic is slow at times when it shouldn't be at big airports.  Sometimes there aren't even a lot of parked airplanes.  Love the addon but I do hope they can make that more realistic.

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

Only you can answer that. Personally I never saw the need as experimental builds usually are released to public within a span of 3-6 weeks.

 

The idea is basically that by buying twice as much for the program you are giving them a sort of kickstarter funding for their work and as a thank you for that you get access to the experimental builds.

So if you think they deserve some more financially support, go for it.

 

I don't see that. If flight is scheduled and you have its liveries installed, it will be in the sim.

 

Well I'll give you an example. I have every livery/flight plan installed on AIG. At RPLL there is plenty of parked aircraft, but bearly any movement, at least compared to how the airport should look at that hour. And everything is up to 10 on the sliders.

 

Edited February 28Feb 28 by simsuper80