I came back to Beyond ATC after not using it for a long time and thought I should give the latest update a go. My thoughts:
- vectors to approach are non existent. I was doing an approach into EGLL. It vectored me to 09L via the OCK transition, then nothing.
- 10 miles from TOD I requested descent (the frequency was busy). I was 20 miles past the TOD before it acknowledged and issued me descent clearance (I had to use speedbrakes all the way down).
- there's still not much visual traffic, despite me having airports approach and departing on 6 and en route on 8.

Back to PXPT until this improves.

I have not had issues with vectoring lately, but that might be where I fly mostly (US). The comms can get busy, but I have never had to wait 30 nm to get a response from ATC. I agree that traffic is sparse enroute, but otherwise it seems reasonably busy at the departure airport, and okay on arrival. 

I agree.  I enjoy BeyondATC bI agree. I enjoy BeyondATC, but it needs significant improvement. I often use it, and it works fine until the approach begins, at which point I receive erratic vectors, even when requesting an ILS or RNAV approach. I usually disconnect and fly the approach without ATC. I will be patient and hope things improve in the future.

 

I'm a real fan of BATC - and often fly the same route (NZAA-NZWN) to check/test updates or improvements. I have to admit that my flights with the latest updates have been very patchy. Sometimes, BATC simply "forgets" me - typically just before approach. Nothing else on my system has changed, but BATC behaviour does sometimes seem to be slightly erratic.

That said - each flight is in real time, real weather etc. so many parameters will vary from flight to flight. 

I'm happy to keep plugging away as BATC matures.

22 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

It vectored me to 09L via the OCK transition, then nothing

I doubt that. If it gives you the OCK transition then it does not vector you. It expects you to fly the transition as published and will then tell you to contact tower on final.

17 minutes ago, BWBriscoe said:

I came back to Beyond ATC after not using it for a long time and thought I should give the latest update a go. My thoughts:
- vectors to approach are non existent. I was doing an approach into EGLL. It vectored me to 09L via the OCK transition, then nothing.
- 10 miles from TOD I requested descent (the frequency was busy). I was 20 miles past the TOD before it acknowledged and issued me descent clearance (I had to use speedbrakes all the way down).
- there's still not much visual traffic, despite me having airports approach and departing on 6 and en route on 8.

Back to PXPT until this improves.

I personally think your thread title should reflect that this is in your opinion.   It reads like an objective statement, which it isn't.

Quite literally, none of the 3 issues you've listed above, happen for me.   I get good (if predictable) vectors to approach on every flight I use it with.  It's never, ever given me late descent clearance (sometimes it can be too early!), and there is plenty of traffic - this last one will depend on where you are flying, the time of day, and the airline season.

For the TOD 'issue', some variation of this is true in the real world.  Frequencies are often busy. I've been unable to get my message through before.   In these cases, it's the pilot's responsibility to maintain a safe flight. There are some things that would never be ok.  For example, if I'm flying VFR and the frequency is too busy for me to get clearance to enter a zone, I will need to circle outside the zone, til I get that permission.   However in the scenario of your flight, if you couldn't get through for TOD, I'd personally just start down any way.  You have a flight plan that will require you to descend, to achieve a safe approach.     That is potentially what BATC is expecting you would do.

 

19 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I doubt that. If it gives you the OCK transition then it does not vector you. It expects you to fly the transition as published and will then tell you to contact tower on final.

That's exactly what I thought too.

The OP often posts criticisms of addons, that end up being a misunderstanding of operation.

I agree that it's not ready for release yet, but it's still in early access. They are trying to fix an issue that they have not been able to fix for over a year. The ear and eye test tell me that they have done incremental improvements despite all the time they put into the program.

I wish them luck, but I'm now very skeptical that BATC will ever reach the goal of being a perfect ATC add-on. It will probably be a work in progress, just like MSFS.

I haven't found a perfect ATC add-on yet, outside of talking to a real person.

I think the weak point with these ATC tools is usually not the voice side, it is what happens once the flight stops being straightforward.

 

Descent timing, transition handling, approach sequencing, spacing, traffic flow, that is the part where it either starts to feel believable or it falls apart quite quickly.

 

So I do get the criticism, especially if the approach phase went sideways. At the same time, I also think some of these situations are easy to misread. If it gave you a published transition, that is not really the same thing as vectors, and traffic can feel very different depending on route, region and time of day.

 

For me that is why I would not call it useless, but I also would not call it mature yet. It still feels like one of those tools that can be quite convincing on one flight and then expose its weak spots on the next one.

7 minutes ago, Andreas79 said:

So I do get the criticism, especially if the approach phase went sideways. 

It works well until you get to an arrival or approach phase. But, why move on to introduce VFR when IFR still needs to be improved and fixed?

It makes zero sense to me.

I don't own the product but seems like it was trying to vector you to OCK then fly the transition without vectors. 

"10 miles from TOD I requested descent (the frequency was busy). I was 20 miles past the TOD before it acknowledged and issued me descent clearance (I had to use speedbrakes all the way down)" Very much London airspace for you. 20 miles not unheard of can sometimes be later in the descent, you need to try and get a word in to request further descent. Was on a flight couple years ago landing 09L, captain over PA informed that they are planning a delay into London with a hold at BNN after he had finished his PA he came back on saying 10 minutes to landing and they were hurrying to get down with speedbrakes.

Edited April 10Apr 10 by carlanthony24

4 hours ago, CFIJose said:

It works well until you get to an arrival or approach phase. But, why move on to introduce VFR when IFR still needs to be improved and fixed?

It makes zero sense to me.

Potential new customers...

5 hours ago, JYW said:

However in the scenario of your flight, if you couldn't get through for TOD, I'd personally just start down any way.  You have a flight plan that will require you to descend, to achieve a safe approach.     That is potentially what BATC is expecting you would do.

It's a game so sure, you can do whatever you want.  But if you're suggesting this is what would happen in reality, that's definitely not true.  Can you get hung high because ATC forgets to clear you lower and you can't get a word in? Sure.  Can you get hung high because of conflicting traffic?  Sure.  But you'll never just "decide" to descend on your own.  ATC doesn't care what your flight plan says, they've got traffic to deconflict and can't just have you doing as you like.  In reality, you'll deal with the high as necessary - add drag, get relief on speed restrictions, get vectored for the descent, even enter a hold if necessary.  You can't just do what you want unless it's a safety of flight issue, and even then you have to advise ATC asap.

I have also seen BATC just completely break, in which case I just self-vector to final, but if that's really what the program "expects" you to do, then it's simply broken, is all.  I haven't used it in a while for this reason; if it can't vector correctly, I don't even see the point.  That's basically its only job.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by Stearmandriver

11 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

ut if you're suggesting this is what would happen in reality, that's definitely not true.  Can you get hung high because ATC forgets to clear you lower and you can't get a word in? Sure.  Can you get hung high because of conflicting traffic?  Sure.  But you'll never just "decide" to descend on your own.  ATC doesn't care what your flight plan says, they've got traffic to deconflict and can't just have you doing as you like.  In reality, you'll deal with the high as necessary - add drag, get relief on speed restrictions, get vectored for the descent, even enter a hold if necessary.  You can't just do what you want unless it's a safety of flight issue, and even then you have to advise ATC asap.

Absolutely correct. In controlled airspace (unless in an emergency), and you descend without clearance you'll be getting a phone call from your nearest FAA official, or the equivalent. IRL, I have been left high on numerous occasions on one route I fly, because of airspace layout mainly.

It happens, and as @Stearmandriver says, you deal with it.