31 minutes ago, mmcmah said:

I just decided to get BATC last night and had a hell of a time getting it working. Not exactly my fault or BATC's, since it was a network security issue.

Once resolved, I got it to connect. So, I've used ASFS since it first came out and had been wondering this morning about how to use the two together and what limitations there were.

Near as I can tell, BATC doesn't draw from ASFS, so they don't really work together? I sometime fly live and sometimes with historical weather for time shifting, and sometimes beyond the 24 hours the MSFS gives as an option. So, since I can upload weather to Simbrief from ASFS, that's what I do.

Any pointers on how to use ASFS and BATF together, or what the pitfalls are?

I do the same thing. I load AS into simbrief.  That’s what I meant. BATC follows simbrief as best I can tell (not an expert on this), but it draws ATIS from Asobo. I would like it to draw ATIS from AS.

Edited March 1Mar 1 by knich

1 minute ago, knich said:

I load AS into simbrief.  That’s what I meant. BATC follows simbrief as best I can tell, but it draws ATIS from Asobo. I would like it to draw ATIS from AS.

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Guess I'll do the same and hope that they integrate it at some point, like SayIntentions (which I used to use).

1 minute ago, mmcmah said:

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. Guess I'll do the same and hope that they integrate it at some point, like SayIntentions (which I used to use).

There are workarounds out there but they are not simple.

2 minutes ago, knich said:

There are workarounds out there but they are not simple.

Simple isn't a requirement... 😉
 

Do they work?

1 hour ago, simsuper80 said:

Ah ok. Never used it. It's strictly ATC, not a traffic injector right?

It reads the BGLs loaded in the scenery. Injects nothing.

9 minutes ago, mmcmah said:

Simple isn't a requirement... 😉
 

Do they work?

They say it works but I never could get thru the steps.  If you go to BATC discord and search for it, I think you will find it there. 

I use BATC for almost all flight unless it's one that it just can't manage, like SPJC>SPZO.  What really surprises me is just how bad BATC is in managing ground traffic.  Too frequently it will tell me to 'Hold for X traffic', then never release me, and worse still taxiing traffic will head straight towards me.  It's actually worse in this regard than unintegrated FSLTL's injector is, strangely enough.

24 minutes ago, Noel said:

I use BATC for almost all flight unless it's one that it just can't manage, like SPJC>SPZO.  What really surprises me is just how bad BATC is in managing ground traffic.  Too frequently it will tell me to 'Hold for X traffic', then never release me, and worse still taxiing traffic will head straight towards me.  It's actually worse in this regard than unintegrated FSLTL's injector is, strangely enough.

I noticed this too. The thought that somehow having ATC manage the traffic will increase immersion just isn’t there. That is why I am trying FSLTL and P2ATC. 

BATC is just not good enough at doing either. 

Wanted to share my experiences with three flights I've done so far with the most recent experimental update now.

I understand that "experimental" means issues are expected. I'm sharing this simply to give people an idea of where this version stands.

In summary, it's been a mixed bag.

First of all, a welcome improvement is that BeyondATC is now less picky about readbacks. Previously, it would sometimes ask you for confirmation three or four times when it didn't understand the readback. Another bug that appears fixed is where a controller and an AI aircraft would sometimes get into an endless loop of dialogue, making it impossible to get a word in.

My first flight was from EDDB to EDDK. This flight went without a hitch. ATC asked me to report ready for descent just as I was about to ask for a descent myself. It then let me fly essentially all of the KOPAG 13 transition, except for a vector onto final at the very end that wasn't strictly necessary. Still, this flight went smoothly from beginning to end. Full marks.

The second flight was from EDDK to EDDN. I filed and received the DODAS 1T STAR. This STAR contains an S-shaped transition (sometimes called a "linear holding") of the kind that is common in Germany. These transitions are almost never flown in their entirety; instead, ATC gives a turn onto base once separation from preceding traffic has been achieved. Unfortunately, BeyondATC still doesn't understand how to deal with these transitions. It let me fly the entire transition, even though there was no other traffic on the arrival. This added probably ten minutes to the flight, plodding around at low level for no good reason. It would help if BeyondATC at least allowed you to request a shortcut, but when I tried this, it told me it was unable to approve a direct. I find that BeyondATC invariably denies shortcuts when you're on the arrival.

My third flight was a short hop from KCHO to KIAD. I believe that BeyondATC has been tuned more for US procedures, so I wanted to see if I would get a better result here. I got my descent clearance relatively late despite asking - it didn't help that BeyondATC switched me between four or five different facilities, which I'm not sure is realistic for this short flight. ATC told me to expect a visual to 1R, gave me a descent to 6,600 feet, put me on a base leg, and told me to intercept the localizer. I was very high, but I figured with spoilers out and gear down I would still be able to make this "slam dunk" approach. Unfortunately, I didn't get a further descent, so I had to level at 6,600. ATC didn't approve my requests for further descent, didn't call out the airport, and didn't clear me for the visual. Maybe I should have reported the field in sight myself, but that doesn't seem like something that ATC should expect from over 20 miles out (where I would be at 6,600 feet on a normal descent profile). I overflew the threshold, then told ATC I was going around. BeyondATC responded that it didn't support emergencies yet (though of course a go around isn't an emergency), so I self-vectored for another approach. On the base leg, BeyondATC finally cleared me for the visual approach and transferred me to the tower.

But we weren't done yet. I had just checked in with tower on final to 1R when tower cleared an aircraft for takeoff on 19L - yes, the reciprocal runway. Apparently, BeyondATC had in the meantime turned the airport around, which did make sense given that I had a tailwind on final. The departing traffic overflew me and gave me a TCAS TA. I continued my approach to 1R and had just touched down when tower instructed another aircraft to line up and wait on 19L. A runway incursion, in other words. Tower did wait until I had vacated the runway before clearing the aircraft for takeoff, so BeyondATC obviously had some awareness that I was on the same piece of pavement. What I assume happened here is that it has logic to clear an aircraft to line up once the preceding aircraft has touched down - which works if both aircraft are using the same runway, but not if they're using opposite runway ends.

I had expected this last flight to be closest to BeyondATC's comfort zone - a normal vector to a normal visual approach in US airspace - but instead it gave me the worst experience of the three. I understand the new vectoring engine is still being polished, so I've submitted a report on the section that BeyondATC have created for this on their Discord.

1 hour ago, weaklink said:

Wanted to share my experiences with three flights I've done so far with the most recent experimental update now.

I understand that "experimental" means issues are expected. I'm sharing this simply to give people an idea of where this version stands.

In summary, it's been a mixed bag.

First of all, a welcome improvement is that BeyondATC is now less picky about readbacks. Previously, it would sometimes ask you for confirmation three or four times when it didn't understand the readback. Another bug that appears fixed is where a controller and an AI aircraft would sometimes get into an endless loop of dialogue, making it impossible to get a word in.

My first flight was from EDDB to EDDK. This flight went without a hitch. ATC asked me to report ready for descent just as I was about to ask for a descent myself. It then let me fly essentially all of the KOPAG 13 transition, except for a vector onto final at the very end that wasn't strictly necessary. Still, this flight went smoothly from beginning to end. Full marks.

The second flight was from EDDK to EDDN. I filed and received the DODAS 1T STAR. This STAR contains an S-shaped transition (sometimes called a "linear holding") of the kind that is common in Germany. These transitions are almost never flown in their entirety; instead, ATC gives a turn onto base once separation from preceding traffic has been achieved. Unfortunately, BeyondATC still doesn't understand how to deal with these transitions. It let me fly the entire transition, even though there was no other traffic on the arrival. This added probably ten minutes to the flight, plodding around at low level for no good reason. It would help if BeyondATC at least allowed you to request a shortcut, but when I tried this, it told me it was unable to approve a direct. I find that BeyondATC invariably denies shortcuts when you're on the arrival.

My third flight was a short hop from KCHO to KIAD. I believe that BeyondATC has been tuned more for US procedures, so I wanted to see if I would get a better result here. I got my descent clearance relatively late despite asking - it didn't help that BeyondATC switched me between four or five different facilities, which I'm not sure is realistic for this short flight. ATC told me to expect a visual to 1R, gave me a descent to 6,600 feet, put me on a base leg, and told me to intercept the localizer. I was very high, but I figured with spoilers out and gear down I would still be able to make this "slam dunk" approach. Unfortunately, I didn't get a further descent, so I had to level at 6,600. ATC didn't approve my requests for further descent, didn't call out the airport, and didn't clear me for the visual. Maybe I should have reported the field in sight myself, but that doesn't seem like something that ATC should expect from over 20 miles out (where I would be at 6,600 feet on a normal descent profile). I overflew the threshold, then told ATC I was going around. BeyondATC responded that it didn't support emergencies yet (though of course a go around isn't an emergency), so I self-vectored for another approach. On the base leg, BeyondATC finally cleared me for the visual approach and transferred me to the tower.

But we weren't done yet. I had just checked in with tower on final to 1R when tower cleared an aircraft for takeoff on 19L - yes, the reciprocal runway. Apparently, BeyondATC had in the meantime turned the airport around, which did make sense given that I had a tailwind on final. The departing traffic overflew me and gave me a TCAS TA. I continued my approach to 1R and had just touched down when tower instructed another aircraft to line up and wait on 19L. A runway incursion, in other words. Tower did wait until I had vacated the runway before clearing the aircraft for takeoff, so BeyondATC obviously had some awareness that I was on the same piece of pavement. What I assume happened here is that it has logic to clear an aircraft to line up once the preceding aircraft has touched down - which works if both aircraft are using the same runway, but not if they're using opposite runway ends.

I had expected this last flight to be closest to BeyondATC's comfort zone - a normal vector to a normal visual approach in US airspace - but instead it gave me the worst experience of the three. I understand the new vectoring engine is still being polished, so I've submitted a report on the section that BeyondATC have created for this on their Discord.

Your last experience is very similar to how batc has been for me since I first installed the EA release.  It's kinda annoying to hear even this new version isn't cooperating as well either.

But I will attest to your question about such a short flight with multiple frequency changes.  Irl USA east coast airspace is crazy...so it is likely you'd talk to many different controllers.

13 hours ago, weaklink said:

let me fly essentially all of the KOPAG 13 transition, except for a vector onto final at the very end that wasn't strictly necessary

You have that in reverse. Depending on the traffic situation it is not strictly necessary to fly the entire transition, I'm looking forward to the day when BATC learns to ignore transitions and do shortcuts on approach, if such a day ever comes.

 

It's like you said, it should be at least accept shortcuts if you ask for them, but the way it is programmed it is not willing to do so, once you are on the arrival. The only thing you can do is fly towards the IAF yourself and it will eventually give you a direct once you are close enough.

Edited March 2Mar 2 by Farlis

31 minutes ago, Farlis said:

.../...

It's like you said, it should be at least accept shortcuts if you ask for them, but the way it is programmed it is not willing to do so, once you are on the arrival. The only thing you can do is fly towards the IAF yourself and it will eventually give you a direct once you are close enough.

Absolutely agree. What made me abandon BATC was the constant inability to request a shortcut and the capricious vectoring.

To clarify: I mainly fly in Europe where, at major airports, transitions and approaches are generally S-shaped and extremely long. In real-world conditions, this allows controllers to sequence the approach, but for simulator flights, it's often interminable.

22 hours ago, guenseli said:

they nowhere say it's a beta test.
"Show your support to the BeyondATC team and get an early taste of our features under active development!"

they simply beg for money and you "get" a little something for it. If you jion this stage of development a little earlier or not, does not make a big difference. It's just supporting. You don't miss anything if you don't do it.

I think it doesn't matter how they call it. The "support" is in fact a beta test, for which you have to pay for.

I would show my "support", by beta testing some new stuff for them (if it is a good development, even for free). But I don't pay for doing a job, payed people should do. Because this work normally gets payed - for a reason. And in general, I welcome people getting payed for their work. Because then, these people have some income. Which is always good. 🙂

Edited March 2Mar 2 by Watsi

I still don't get it ... 

All three ATC tools do the same: selling unfinished products and are in a work in progress state. Everyone has a different naming for it.

But with BATC it is a bad thing?

Ok ....

51 minutes ago, Watsi said:

The "support" is in fact a beta test, for which you have to pay for.

You are not forced to! It is absolutely voluntarily. You can buy the product and use it, anything additional is pure fun for you.
You are also not forced to make bug reports (what is normally mandatory if you are in a beta where you get the product in the end for your testing. If you do not participate in the beta and report bugs, you will normally be removed from the beta team).

But you have for sure the freedom to call it still beta, despite the developers name it differently.

 

And now back to to topic?

1.8.0 is about as bad as previous versions. Traffic getting stuck and getting 60 degree intercepts on vectors. I'll continue ignore about 75% of the commands the ATC is giving me.