1 hour ago, CFIJose said:

Why would new customers buy an add-on that is still in early development? It's not even available for current customers. I have to pay to test how the vfrs is coming along. No, thank you.

Some people like to support a development team that is working to improve their simulation experience and in return they get to try it out before the people who choose not to.

9 hours ago, vbazillio said:

In case you haven't seen it, BATC replied to this assumption (that I did as well) on the other AVSIM multi-pages discussion: 

 

Read your response. Well said.

My thought was, from the little I've read on BATC, that there are those that have been waiting for VFR implementation and this was the devs bringing that forward. Hence, "possible" new customers. 

I certainly don't mind early access but I do mind EA that's been EA for over a year.  A2A's Aerostar came out as EA in July of 25 and went full v1 in like October?  That's really short.  I get BATC is perhaps more complex but they should solidify their current features before adding another complex feature like VFR.  To me this shows they don't actually know how to overcome the bugs with vectoring (and other issues) for IFR flight.  

We’ve been very transparent that EA will last for years. 

Regarding your other assumptions, I’m afraid they’re simply incorrect. I understand the idea of developing ATC in modules but that oversimplifies the interconnected nature of everything. You’re also overlooking the fact that the changes in vectoring primarily affect the framework. The current system incorporates far more variables and will address problems that were more challenging to solve with the previous version.

And as I’ve already pointed out in the other thread, we also need to go forward with the roadmap. If we started to work on VFR, it’s because it was the right time to do so.

So, If we disregard that BATC is in early access and we disregard that Say Intentions has subscription pricing, which one would be preferred? If creating a perfect ATC program for flight sim was easy someone would have done it a long time ago and made a ton of money.

10 minutes ago, Dialex said:

If we started to work on VFR, it’s because it was the right time to do so.

It is this attitude that kinda turns me off to BATC.  Their Discord is pure mean at times.

16 hours ago, BWBriscoe said:

I was doing an approach into EGLL. It vectored me to 09L via the OCK transition, then nothing.

I know what you mean.  What I really find amazingly lame is when BATC directs me to descend and MAINTAIN, then stops instructing, leaving me wondering if I'm supposed to wait, of course since it said MAINTAIN, or descend so as not to end up way high on approach which is what happens.  It's better than it was but still has a ways to go.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by Noel

32 minutes ago, Blueline308 said:

It is this attitude that kinda turns me off to BATC.  Their Discord is pure mean at times.

That’s not true. We have over 45,000 members and everything is going well. I don’t understand what about my attitude is off-putting when I’m sharing information people might not have here.

I certainly don’t blame anyone and I’m sure Ryan won’t take it personally.

Edited April 11Apr 11 by Dialex

BATC is definitely not perfect, but I never fly without it and I don't expect to have problems. They happen sometimes, but I think it has gotten better over the past 6 months. 

3 hours ago, Dialex said:

Then wait? Given your feedback, you should have even waited for the official release, without purchasing an early access software.

It really doesn't matter what your answer is because I go by actions.

I have the option to buy an early access and I did and I do not regret it. Why? I'd like to help out the developer. I'm glad I did, but I'm also entitled to express my feelings about what needs to be addressed and fixed.

Is any MSFS ATC perfect? Hardly. But for the $30 I spent so far on BATC, it’s provided me with many hours of enjoyment even if some flights go awry. In-game (default) IFR was so bad, I gave up on it years ago. I was about to go back to FSX for commercial piloting. Yes, that bad. 

I guess we all have expectations of what traffic control should be and not everyone has the same experience. Hopefully that number of satisfying flights are increasing. 

7 minutes ago, Danno said:

Is any MSFS ATC perfect? Hardly. But for the $30 I spent so far on BATC, it’s provided me with many hours of enjoyment even if some flights go awry. In-game (default) IFR was so bad, I gave up on it years ago. I was about to go back to FSX for commercial piloting. Yes, that bad. 

I guess we all have expectations of what traffic control should be and not everyone has the same experience. Hopefully that number of satisfying flights are increasing. 

I loved Radar Contact in FSX. Really surprised they didn't move up to msfs 2020 and 2024

Yeah, something is up with this new release.  I flew TUS to PHX and I got Approach to give me all instructions fine but then once I turned onto final for 26 it told me turn right 115.  What? I ignored it and landed.  That's one of the hand full of times it has messed up so badly I couldn't get anything to work after an instruction.

2 hours ago, Dialex said:

That’s not true. We have over 45,000 members and everything is going well. I don’t understand what about my attitude is off-putting when I’m sharing information people might not have here.

I certainly don’t blame anyone and I’m sure Ryan won’t take it personally.

Everything is going well?  Sure.  If you "moderate" bugs and negative comments about BATC then yes I can see why "everything is going well."  FWIW I tried logging bugs early on (I've got almost 20 years as ATC with tower, Tracon and enroute experience).  But I was met with mostly excuses about why it can't do this or that.  Generally, while flying an airliner or jet long distances, the application does pretty well up to the approach portion.  If I'm assigned a visual approach it typically does just fine.  But for instrument approaches it still struggles.  And if I fly a small aircraft, short range ifr, it really struggles.

It will leave me on headings for eons before giving me on course.  It will vector me back and forth in small increments for seemingly no reason.  If I knew BATC was trying to separate me from other traffic that would make sense (somewhat), but there's never anything around.  BATC is missing common sense vectors and reasonable approach clearances.  I don't even care about a perfect intercept like 5 from the FAF.  But BATC will give me a 90 degree intercept like inside the FAF.  Or I'll get a clearance to intercept but never a full approach clearance.  It'll tell me to expect an RNAV approach but then never clear me to an IAF.  On the rare chance it does it'll assign a very low altitude that has me skimming houses on the way to the IAF.

I suppose for the majority of simmers, who have zero real world experience, it's "good enough and going well."

4 hours ago, tttocs said:

Looking at the relevant STAR and the ILS approach to 9L, sure looks to me as though you NEED vectors at or before OCK.  The STARs I see into London are typical of those in busy terminal areas everywhere, where arrivals take you to a certain point at which (or really in most cases before which) you WILL get vectored to the final approach course of whatever procedure is being used.  They're RADAR required.

If that's the case, the OP is entirely correct in expecting to get vectored at or before OCK.  He may have been cleared to fly the STAR, which he obviously should follow, absent other instructions from the controller, but if no vector was received at or prior to OCK, the STAR he was cleared for is done, and vectors are absolutely expected and required to get him to the final approach course.

Did you happen to see the other page continuing from the STAR? Initial Apch from BIG (Rwy09L/R). Vectors are NOT required.