Please allow me to clarify a few points. I want to stress that this isn’t meant to dismiss anyone’s feedback or come across as defensive. Rather, it’s an attempt to provide broader context that may help explain some of the differences in perception around the product and recent updates. So do not take this personally.

59 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

The patch notes for this update specifically mention "Vectoring version 3.0", yet vectoring still doesn't seem to work well at all without a STAR.  Just being honest, it doesn't seem to have improved much at all, other than a few specific bugs.  I've done a couple flights, and none have really worked properly.  

It’s important to recognize that user experiences can vary significantly. The fact that something isn’t working as expected in one case doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t working at all. When an update is released in early access, it indicates that the system performs better than the previous version, but it does not imply that it is free of issues.

Additionally, “Vectoring 3.0” represents more than just immediate visible improvements, it introduces a more robust underlying framework. This new structure enables the team to address scenarios that may have been difficult or even impossible to fix previously, as we take a lot of new parameters into account. As new reports come in where vectoring behaves suboptimally, this framework gives the team the ability to analyze and improve those cases more effectively if there’s any need.

 

59 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

Your discord is filled with similar reports and many others.  Too many to read through in just the past few days.  This isn't just a few of us with complaints.  

That’s the other side of the coin with transparency 🙂

The Discord server is the official support platform, so it will naturally contain a high volume of reports, especially during an early access phase. That’s expected and, in fact, necessary to improve the software.

It’s also worth noting that not all reports reflect the same issue. Some may stem from different edge cases (from a development perspective), misunderstandings, or even user error. While your experience may indeed be shared by others, a support-focused space will inherently concentrate reports of problems, which can sometimes amplify the perception of widespread issues. What you won’t see is how many users do not complain and have benefitted from those enhancements. We monitor reports and it’s still globally positive even if there are areas of improvement.

 

59 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

I am absolutely not looking to discourage you or dump on the product (as is typical on the internet), as the product is still impressive and very reasonably priced.  I don't know what the answer is, maybe backing off some claims in the patch notes would help? 

For context, I’m not part of the development team. However, even when feedback is well-intentioned, certain phrasing can come across as discouraging, especially considering the scale of work involved in recent updates.

The latest update represents a significant effort from the team to rebuild core systems, improve overall stability, and lay the groundwork for features such as VFR. These foundational changes are not always immediately visible, but they are essential for long-term progress and flexibility.

When statements suggest that such a big update has “changed literally nothing”, it can be difficult to interpret that constructively, particularly when internal testing and supporters’ users have reported improvements in parts of their experience.

That said, it’s completely fair to point out what isn’t working on your end. Experiences can vary quite a bit, though, so what hasn’t improved in one case may have improved in others. Which is why we need updated reports to monitor our changes.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by Dialex

44 minutes ago, Dialex said:

That said, it’s completely fair to point out what isn’t working on your end. Experiences can vary quite a bit, though, so what hasn’t improved in one case may have improved in others. Which is why we need updated reports to monitor our changes.

I can submit a bug report once I get back to my home PC with the logs, although you can easily duplicate the issues many of us are having in this thread.

Pretty much any IFR GA flight to mid-sized or regional airports (ones big enough to have both GA and airline traffic which is common around the world).  If the flightplan doesn't use a STAR, there's a very high chance BATC will not behave well.  KEYW is a perfect example, but many similar sized airports will produce the same.  I typically fly the Black Square Baron or Bonanza, but any GA will do.  

Some of the common issues:

-Late or no call to descent, even when requesting ready to descend.  Any call to descend that does come would need 2000-2500+ fpm which isn't very realistic.  

-Vectoring (assuming I descend myself) is still spotty.  Sometimes I'm vectored to the approach fix (which is obviously good).  Other times the ATC just loses me.  Maybe it picks me back up, maybe not.  

If "IFR GA flights without a STAR" aren't on your list of issues (I haven't seen it), it should be.  This isn't a random thing, it is quite easily reproduced, you've got multiple people telling you the same thing.  I'm guessing the slow speeds throw it off too, but I can't confirm.  We're talking Baron or Bonanza cruise speeds, so nothing crazy slow.  It isn't like I'm making a long approach at 70 knots.  I try and keep my speeds up until on final, and the problems start well before that.  

2 hours ago, kerosene31 said:

This is the 2nd thing mentioned behind traffic sequencing (that also doesn't seem to really work at all either). I'm only flying with traffic on 5/10, and yet I've already had multiple close calls.

I already pointed out earlier that seperation is not done yet. Sequencing is, but not seperation.

Hey Dialex,

I do appreciate your efford, to explain things openly and transparent. Thank you for that.
And I'm a user from the first day of EA. 
And BATC getting better, is one of my most important topics and a matter of heart regarding my hobby (with all love for the product in this words).
And I appreciate what BATC has done so far (including the latest EA update!!). 
And I do understand the high level complexity, bringing a virtual ATC to life, as well as the coding challenge behind it.
And I do understand that this project takes time, even more, since BATC is not Microsoft with the according ressources in personal and infrastructure.
And I do appreciate the early decision, to bring AI traffic into the project. 
And I know about the complexity that followed this decision alone.

What I (just out of my personal experience) do not understand is, that something fundimental, like a correct descent path (when vectoring) is still not fixed. I remember how I thought on the first day of BATC: oh, that is pretty bugged, but they will sort it out soon.

Every dev of a higher level airliner is able to program an algorithm for a more or less correct descent path in the FMC of his ship. I wonder why your top of descent is 20NM too early for one day and 20NM too late for the other. Please understand, I don't expect a 100% accurate descent path. The FMC ones aren't too.

But (just out of my own experience) this shouldn't be one of the highly complex things. Even if you have to take different aircraft with different performances into account (and I know you have to). Even if you have to take different weather into account. I know you need tables for different aircraft basic types (like a340, b737, b747, b777, etc.) and calculate every descent differently, according to the circumstances. But still I think this is one of the parts, which isn't 'rocket science'. But just a bit of stupid work. Maybe that is the reason (at least for me), why there is some kind of 'misunderstanding' regarding some criticism on that matter. 

Please believe me, when I argue about this topic on discord, there isn't a screaming, angry and ungrateful customer 'on the other side of the desk'. There is someone who really appreciates your product and wants to help making it better. That may be the disadvantage of texting instead of talking.

I know all the devs have their heart in this product. And it can get pretty emotional (would be the same for me). But I also would appreciate (especially on discord), if someone who 'comes to your shop' and talks (texts) about flaws, would be seen the same way. As someone who appreciates the product and wants to contribute to get it better. And... just want to have a chat together. Telling him that he "... just doesn't need to use the product, if he doesn't like it," ... Well, It shows one of the biggest misunderstandings from the developer side. 

But people talking to you, still is much better than the many many customers, who actually don't talk to the BATC devs, because they just don't care about the product. (to turn your phrase arround 😉)

A decent part of my continuing fun for this hobby depends on the fact, that your product is out and the best product (for my personal needs) on the market right now. (No pressure 😄 ) But we all agree, it can get even better.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by Watsi

45 minutes ago, Watsi said:

Please believe me, when I argue about this topic on discord, there isn't a screaming, angry and ungrateful customer 'on the other side of the desk'. There is someone who really appreciates your product and wants to help making it better. That may be the disadvantage of texting instead of talking.

To begin with, I believe you 😉

I think what I’m trying to say is that I would also appreciate it if people could trust that our team genuinely wants the product to work just as much as you all do. We don’t ignore issues, and we have no reason to do so. Everything is transparent, including bug reports, responses, and ongoing discussions.

So please bear with us while we work on fixing things, even if it can be frustrating at times. This is not targeted to anyone in particular, it’s just a general comment to keep in mind.

45 minutes ago, Watsi said:

What I (just out of my personal experience) do not understand is, that something fundimental, like a correct descent path (when vectoring) is still not fixed. I remember how I thought on the first day of BATC: oh, that is pretty bugged, but they will sort it out soon.

Every dev of a higher level airliner is able to program an algorithm for a more or less correct descent path in the FMC of his ship. I wonder why your top of descent is 20NM too early for one day and 20NM too late for the other. Please understand, I don't expect a 100% accurate descent path. The FMC ones aren't too.

Still with the disclaimer that I’m not in the development team:

Just to give some perspective, I’m pretty sure the team would love to have these things working correctly. If something isn’t, it’s not because they don’t want to fix it or incompetence, but because it’s genuinely more complex than it might seem. The challenges are also different when you’re building ATC software rather than an aircraft, and that doesn’t always require the same logic or skill set. An aircraft is a totally different piece of software, that does not use the same technologies. I wouldn’t assume the same problem could be solved in the same way, food for thoughts.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that when we take a closer look at some logs and reports, we sometimes don’t actually see the issue. When we try to replicate the flight in a dev environment, the path, vectoring and descent profile can end up looking perfectly reasonable and normal. That brings us back to the main challenge, which is that we need to be able to see and reproduce an issue before we can start thinking about a solution. All that process is time consuming, and I’m not even talking about implementing a solution yet!

I’m not saying those issues don’t exist, but this is one of the difficulties we run into when handling all these reports. That’s also why it’s always important to keep submitting them, even if it feels like there are already plenty. This isn’t necessarily a sign of their quality and doesn’t necessarily mean that particular example helps us understand the problem.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by Dialex

3 hours ago, Watsi said:

Every dev of a higher level airliner is able to program an algorithm for a more or less correct descent path in the FMC of his ship. I wonder why your top of descent is 20NM too early for one day and 20NM too late for the other. Please understand, I don't expect a 100% accurate descent path. The FMC ones aren't too.

You need to fly on VATSIM more to understand how descend instructions really work. ATC has its own crossing restrictions, either by fix or by distance to destination. They don't care what your actual calculated descend profile is. That is YOUR job to manage as the pilot. If they ask you to descend earlier, you do so. If you reach the calculated top of descend and haven't heard from them yet, you ask for descend. This is how this works in real life as well.

So I don't know why you expect BATC to give you a descend instruction that is close to your FMC's calculations. That can happen IRL but more often than not it will not.

 

What I do however think what needs fixing is a reliable continued stepping down until the initial approach fix. These often come too late.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by Farlis

Please Farlis, don't think I'm stupid. Thanks. 🙂

1 minute ago, Watsi said:

Please Farlis, don't think I'm stupid. Thanks. 🙂

Then why are you bringing up descend calculation by BATC? It's perfectly fine.

23 minutes ago, Farlis said:

What I do however think what needs fixing is a reliable continued stepping down until the initial approach fix. These often come too late.

That's exactly what we're asking for.  Also when requesting for descent, sometimes there's no further instructions.  Am I cleared to?  Am I not cleared?  Mostly the response is <destination> landing runway #.  

I did the same IFR flight again, KBKV-KEYW @13,000 ft. Very simple flight. Everything always goes fine for the departure and en-route phases, it's only on the descent phase where things don't always go right for BATC. This time, with my co-pilot handling the radios, I decided to request a descent and the controller said that he did not copy the altitude. (BUG) I asked for 7000 ft. I got clearance to descend to 7000 ft. As I was descending, I was told that my altitude showed 11,000 and instructed me to climb to 13000 ft. I followed the instructions and asked for the lower altitude again. I got the same bug. I then asked for a TOD descent and was told about the landing runway. I was asked to contact Navy approach. Navy Key told me to expect the visual approach to runway 9. BATC loves the visual approach. I was later told where the airport was located and I responded with, looking for the airport. After reporting the airport in sight, I never got a response. I lined up with the runway and dialed the tower frequency. Landed & parked.

This should not be happening with an add-on that has been in development for 2+ years if they used experienced beta testers.

I still love BATC and I'm rooting for it to succeed, but it's getting harder to defend.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by CFIJose

9 hours ago, CFIJose said:

I did the same IFR flight again, KBKV-KEYW @13,000 ft. Very simple flight. Everything always goes fine for the departure and en-route phases, it's only on the descent phase where things don't always go right for BATC. This time, with my co-pilot handling the radios, I decided to request a descent and the controller said that he did not copy the altitude. (BUG) I asked for 7000 ft. I got clearance to descend to 7000 ft. As I was descending, I was told that my altitude showed 11,000 and instructed me to climb to 13000 ft. I followed the instructions and asked for the lower altitude again. I got the same bug. I then asked for a TOD descent and was told about the landing runway. I was asked to contact Navy approach. Navy Key told me to expect the visual approach to runway 9. BATC loves the visual approach. I was later told where the airport was located and I responded with, looking for the airport. After reporting the airport in sight, I never got a response. I lined up with the runway and dialed the tower frequency. Landed & parked.

This should not be happening with an add-on that has been in development for 2+ years if they used experienced beta testers.

I still love BATC and I'm rooting for it to succeed, but it's getting harder to defend.

Yep, but Say Intentions is SO expensive 😞

48 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Yep, but Say Intentions is SO expensive 😞

Default is free. 😀

The flights I'm doing, I was doing with default P3D & MSFS ATC with the same results. With BATC you get much better voice chatter.

Aside from SI being sub, which I will never do, I keep reading that users are still having problems. I got to keep hoping that ASOBO will do something to improve the default ATC. I believe they have a good foundation. They just either can't fix their broken ATC or just don't want to do it. 

11 minutes ago, CFIJose said:

Default is free. 😀

The flights I'm doing, I was doing with default P3D & MSFS ATC with the same results. With BATC you get much better voice chatter.

Aside from SI being sub, which I will never do, I keep reading that users are still having problems. I got to keep hoping that ASOBO will do something to improve the default ATC. I believe they have a good foundation. They just either can't fix their broken ATC or just don't want to do it. 

 tried default for quite a while, but it is too buggy 😕 I used FSHUD with P3D and MSFS 2020, but then stayed with BATC until now, and I do like it, specially the traffic injection component and the interface.

I couldn't care less about the voices 🙂

Using FSLTL with an old version of the reduced textures ( to 1k ) because my GPU is "only" 8 G

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Yep, but Say Intentions is SO expensive 😞

It's not particularly better and from what I've seen the devs are adding a bunch of other unrelated features to masquerade that fact. Though I'm happy to be wrong but ontop of the subscription, I'm not curious to find out. 

How refreshing is it to have a representative from BATC interacting with us here, versus SayIntentions, whose owner follows the policy "We don't deal with AVSIM. It's toxic".