1 hour ago, JYW said:

Nope.

Simbrief not required for the new VFR feature. It can can use Simbrief but can also load a FLT file or pick up directly from the in-game flight planner.

I believe you can also not load any FP and simply tell ATC your intentions on first ground contact.

I'd recommend watching the VFR demo vid on YouTube, as your knowledge about the new features is clearly patchy.   It's set in the UK but still showcases a number of the new VFR features.

I did watch parts of the video but I've got no idea about non USA vfr and I don't fly outside of the USA much.

1 hour ago, JYW said:

At a time like this - a major update release - on communities like this one, you'll hear far more noise about problems, than from those just quietly enjoying and appreciating the new VFR offering, and the fact that BATC is moving into a whole new feature provision, with VFR.

I bought BATC purely expecting only IFR.  It was more than worth $30 one-off for that.  So the new VFR content is just a fantastic bonus.

Overall, I find BATC absolutely amazing, especially given the price.  I was chucking $20+ away every month for the other competitor and - at the time at least - it was an absolute s*** show of bugs... on every flight.

I find BATC a little more scripted in how I perform my IFR flights but it does what I need and is fantastically immersive.  The voices have come on brilliantly.  I literally never fly without it, whereas with SI, I'd pretty much given up bothering to load it.

So THANK YOU for your continued work and skill.  It's a brilliant product, that offers extremely good value.

agree SI is a mess

1 hour ago, JYW said:

At a time like this - a major update release - on communities like this one, you'll hear far more noise about problems, than from those just quietly enjoying and appreciating the new VFR offering, and the fact that BATC is moving into a whole new feature provision, with VFR.

I bought BATC purely expecting only IFR.  It was more than worth $30 one-off for that.  So the new VFR content is just a fantastic bonus.

Overall, I find BATC absolutely amazing, especially given the price.  I was chucking $20+ away every month for the other competitor and - at the time at least - it was an absolute s*** show of bugs... on every flight.

I find BATC a little more scripted in how I perform my IFR flights but it does what I need and is fantastically immersive.  The voices have come on brilliantly.  I literally never fly without it, whereas with SI, I'd pretty much given up bothering to load it.

So THANK YOU for your continued work and skill.  It's a brilliant product, that offers extremely good value.

I agree 100%. It's a fantastic atc addon and value. Even though it's not perfect yet, I recommend this atc add-on, every chance I get.

2 hours ago, Dialex said:

welcome to disagree with that approach, anyone is free to have their opinion even on the "early access" topic. But “paying to test a buggy version” sounded, at least from my perspective, a bit unfair since we tried to make it very straightforward even with how we name our packages and versions 🙂 

I purchased the BATC Supporter version after reviewing both offerings on the BATC website. I am well pleased by the extra functions and features available through the Supporter’s version. I am also well pleased with BATC, warts and all.  I have been flying real airplanes and flight simulators for 45+ years now.  I am also a fifteen year Air Traffic Controller and Instructor (retired).  In my memory this is the simplest and most engaging ATC product I’ve ever used and I’ve used many over the years.  In my mind an investment in BATC, EA or Supporters will not disappoint.  YMMV  TANSTAAFL.  Blue skies,

-B

,

I hate to be the "complainer" in the thread, but I'm genuinely wondering what I'm doing wrong with this program.  Maybe because I fly GA instead of airliners?  Even though I fly GA, I fly into mid sized airports that have airliner traffic (and even KSAN).  2 flights, and 2 super close calls with traffic.  Both times the program ignores or "loses" me.  I understand that a program like this is never, ever going to be flawless, that's just not possible, however it just doesn't seem to work very often for me.  (mind you I'm not on the VFR build, trying to fly IFR).  

One thing I notice is that the program doesn't do well without SIDs/STARs.  I try to use them where possible, but most have speed/alt restrictions that just aren't realistic.  

I'll have to break out a business jet or maybe the P180 and see if that works better.  Maybe my low and slow approaches are the issue.  

I've made 3 or 4 flights (VFR) only with the last 1.9.0 Experimental version. So, it's a very early feedback. And it only applies to my usage and experience of MSFS in VFR.

Slightly out of topic of this post, as I'm a long term users of Say Intentions (SI), here's a very preliminary feedback with v1.9.0 Experimental (7th April'26). Not at all a test. Not at all a study. Some things that pop up in my mind when flying my first flights with BATC. Everything is 0% conclusive as the two solutions are evolving day after day. 

• Voices: as everything is included with SayIntentions, comparison is bias because I used the basic free voices in BATC. I should activate the BATC Premium voices (credit) to compare with SayIntentions but voices in SI are better than Basic of BATC. No kidding 😉 No surprise.
• Flight Plan requirement: don't know how things will evolved but I think it's painfull to have to select departure/arrival on the MSFS map to make BATC recognized and load proper traffic/weather. I prefer launching and forgeting in background SI, launching MSFS without thinking for sure at my departure/arrival, then talking with (SI) ATC as in real. No flight plan, no simbrief-thing, no whatever.
• AI VFR Traffic: none in BATC (for now). Let's wait for the other stages. Plenty in SI... with the associated bug as the two software are 100% early access 😉 We live a wonderfull moment. Beside this, AI VFR Traffic are really a must-have for my sim experience, now that I have them in MSFS+SI. For now, hard to switch to BATC.
• Delayed AI response: my very first test showed more delay/processing during ATC exchange with BATC compared to SI. To be verified.
• Interface design: nicer with BATC 😉 Obviously, Say Intentions interface is full of features (live map, remove AI, automatic switch...)
• Others:
  • For whatever reason, the overlayed display of my nvidia app doesn't show the FG result. But fluidity and fps are more than ok comparing the two solutions (SI vs BATC)
  • Pushback of liners are done with tug pushback with BATC. Nice to see them at gates.
  • ATIS are generated by BATC where ATIS are robotically played by the Windows (local) text-2-speech engine. As I'm flying small GA field, in real life ATIS when existing are more human-recorded than automatically generated on big airports. So, I obviously prefer listing ATIS from BATC 😉

Here's also a very first of my flights with BATC. VFR, pattern work at Ramona (KRNM). No video edit. No attention to piloting-by-the-book. Just to test BATC.

 

 

Edited April 7Apr 7 by vbazillio

26 minutes ago, vbazillio said:

Voices: as everything is included with SayIntentions, comparison is bias because I used the basic free voices in BATC. I should activate the BATC Premium voices (credit) to compare with SayIntentions but voices in SI are better than Basic of BATC. No kidding 😉 No surprise.

 

Just a suggestion. Try to use the (free!) Local voices (not to confuse with premium or basic voices). You can switch to local voices in the settings. They sound much better than the basic ones and nearly as good as the premium. And also: the response time is much faster than with basic voices. They will get rid of the basic voices, cause they do nothing else than making problems. 

Edited April 7Apr 7 by Watsi

Wilco! Thanks for the tips @Watsi

57 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

I hate to be the "complainer" in the thread, but I'm genuinely wondering what I'm doing wrong with this program.  Maybe because I fly GA instead of airliners?  Even though I fly GA, I fly into mid sized airports that have airliner traffic (and even KSAN).  2 flights, and 2 super close calls with traffic.  Both times the program ignores or "loses" me.  I understand that a program like this is never, ever going to be flawless, that's just not possible, however it just doesn't seem to work very often for me.  (mind you I'm not on the VFR build, trying to fly IFR).  

One thing I notice is that the program doesn't do well without SIDs/STARs.  I try to use them where possible, but most have speed/alt restrictions that just aren't realistic.  

I'll have to break out a business jet or maybe the P180 and see if that works better.  Maybe my low and slow approaches are the issue.  

I don't think batc separates traffic at all...but there are aircraft that seem to fly realistic routes.  As for batc providing reasonable service to IFR GA - imo it fails miserably especially when bringing you into your arrival airport.  It does indeed have a difficult time with smaller (slower) aircraft not using SIDS/STARS.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

it fails miserably especially when bringing you into your arrival airport

Especially when you have no STAR in the Simbrief flightplan (to force BATC to vectoring) and you come straight from crz with about the same HDG, the landing runway is. This is big fail. Instead of getting you straight in, too late descent, too high approach, strange vectoring....

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

I don't think batc separates traffic at all...

It just started to rudimentarily do so with the latest update. That's why it gives speed restrictions now. But the main goal for that is currently a better arrival queue and not collision avoidance. That will come later down the line.

Edited April 7Apr 7 by Farlis

3 hours ago, btacon said:

I purchased the BATC Supporter version after reviewing both offerings on the BATC website. I am well pleased by the extra functions and features available through the Supporter’s version. I am also well pleased with BATC, warts and all.  I have been flying real airplanes and flight simulators for 45+ years now.  I am also a fifteen year Air Traffic Controller and Instructor (retired).  In my memory this is the simplest and most engaging ATC product I’ve ever used and I’ve used many over the years.  In my mind an investment in BATC, EA or Supporters will not disappoint.  YMMV  TANSTAAFL.  Blue skies,

-B

,

Agreed. Much better immersion than the basic Msfs2024 ATC... 

3 hours ago, Watsi said:

They sound much better than the basic ones and nearly as good as the premium.

Hyperbole. They may be based on the same voices but they are a far cry away in quality at the moment. It all sounds like they went through a chinese voice training. Everybody seems to have  potato in their mouths, the annunciation is often unclear, letters are dropped, words mispronounced.

Premium is still clearly the best solution, followed by basic (if you switch off the local accents, since some of them lead to very silly pronounciation) and then local.

 

But local will improve as they train the voice model further.

Is it me, or did they speed up their speech? 😀

I find the local voices very pleasant to listen to. They sound better to me than FSHUD's voices.

The premium voices sound great, but I'm testing with local voices until the add-on matures.

2 hours ago, CFIJose said:

Is it me, or did they speed up their speech? 😀

I noticed this today!    I heard some ATCs in BATC that sounded like they were being played at 2.0x normal speed! 😄