36 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

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

Maybe I'm missing something; I never did see it specified which STAR we were talking about.  But from what I looked at, I only see one STAR that drops you at OCK (the fix referenced by the OP).

Where are you seeing a charted transition from OCK to 09L?  From BIG, yes, but how is that helpful if your STAR ends OCK?  Looks to me like vectors are absolutely required.  Not getting them would 100% match my experiences with BATC.  It simply doesn't really understand vectors, when they're required, which parameters must be honored etc.

20 hours 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 have all the sliders at 10 and it's still not as busy at it should be. VHHH only had about a few takeoffs (maybe 3-6) within the hour

Hmmmm. An opinion piece? Yes sometimes the vectoring will be wonky but its rare for me. As far as traffic... it depends on which traffic system your prioritize. I use FStraffic as priority 1, then AIG then FSLTL. 

I see a lot of traffic en route. Obviously a ton at airports

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

If I knew BATC was trying to separate me from other traffic that would make sense (somewhat), but there's never anything around. 

I can say it's less about separation because I get the same behavior when I use FSLTL's injector instead of BATC's which I've been doing a fair amount of lately.  TBH I find it strange BATC devs did not get these very basic functions nailed own as highest priority actions.  Plus, when I turn BATC traffic off then I can use Premium voices for Controller only, and characters only get spent when the controller communicates with me only since it is not interacting with its traffic.   And odd as heck traffic management on the ground during taxi is NO WORSE using FSLTL's injection than it is when using BATC traffic.  BATC shines in the ambience department which is why I use it--convincing Premium controller voices, and often BATC ATC will be pretty decent most of the time.

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Maybe I'm missing something; I never did see it specified which STAR we were talking about.  But from what I looked at, I only see one STAR that drops you at OCK (the fix referenced by the OP).

Where are you seeing a charted transition from OCK to 09L?  From BIG, yes, but how is that helpful if your STAR ends OCK?  Looks to me like vectors are absolutely required.  Not getting them would 100% match my experiences with BATC.  It simply doesn't really understand vectors, when they're required, which parameters must be honored etc.

EGLL "INITIAL APCH FROM OCK", Jepps page 10-2T

It's the last procedure at bottom of STARS tab if you're using Navigraph Charts.  You may need to scroll down to reach bottom of the list if your display height is smaller than my 16:10 screen.

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

EGLL "INITIAL APCH FROM OCK", Jepps page 10-2T

OK, that's the piece I was missing, thanks.  That explains "OCK Transition" which didn't make sense to me given that I only saw STARs terminating at OCK.

Indeed, if cleared for the "initial apch from OCK" (would UK terminology call this the "OCK Transition"?), no vectors would be expected.

 

Scott

I just loaded BATC and it looks like another update has been issued. I'm hoping for better results.

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Everything is going well?  Sure.  If you "moderate" bugs and negative comments about BATC then yes I can see why "everything is going well."

I’m not here to be put on trial or to defend myself, to be completely honest. My goal is simply to explain how we work and to share information with those who are open to it, especially during this early access stage.

As for moderation, we handle it the same way any well-run community does. Our Discord isn’t a place for unrestricted free speech, there are guidelines and we certainly expect people to follow them. That said, people are absolutely free to share negative experiences (and yes, there have been some), as long as it’s done respectfully and within the rules. We don’t mute people for criticism.

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

But I was met with mostly excuses about why it can't do this or that. 

You can call them excuses if you want, but there are limitations. Some things simply aren’t possible to address right now, and others might be, but later. This is a process and we have to make choices along the way. Not everyone will be pleased and we’re very aware of that.

If you’re not willing to accept that, then yes, you’ll probably end up disappointed. We’re not trying to please everyone or fulfill every individual request. What we are trying to do is build something genuinely immersive and convincing, within what’s realistically achievable at this time. Knowing that we are certainly not finished working on it.

But again, if you expect all of this to happen overnight, you’re likely just setting yourself up for frustration.

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

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

Our goal is to provide a good ATC experience even for people with zero real-world experience and I don’t see anything wrong with that, especially if they can be happy in the current state. A lot of people still find the enjoyment with it. But you’re assuming that we’re only trying to cater to that group, which isn’t the case.

If you’re still unsure, feel free to revisit later. Development is ongoing, and we’re far from finished as I keep saying. We already have a number of real-world controllers and pilots providing feedback, across both IFR and VFR, and from different parts of the world. That input is being taken into account when we work on the appropriate part of the software.

Just some food for thought.

2 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

EGLL "INITIAL APCH FROM OCK", Jepps page 10-2T

It's the last procedure at bottom of STARS tab if you're using Navigraph Charts.  You may need to scroll down to reach bottom of the list if your display height is smaller than my 16:10 screen.

Ah hah, there it is, sure enough.  I was looking at the navigraph app on my phone, and weirdly I could not scroll down far enough to see that last chart in the list until I turned my phone from portrait to landscape.  So I could see the charts for the BIG transitions but not OCK.  Weird but good to know now that can happen.

12 hours ago, emsss78 said:

I just hate it when it forces me to start descent when I'm around 20 to 30NM from the TOD point...I can't fly without it though, way better than default ATC.

Another example of someone not understanding how ATC operates.

They don't care what your personal aircraft's descend calculation is like. They have their own restrictions and altitudes they want you at. They will give you speed restrictions, minimum descend rates, crossing restrictions. So stop expecting BATC matching your FMC's descend calculation. The two will almost never coincide in real life as well.

9 hours ago, tttocs said:

Couple of caveats here before I go further.  I'm a US pilot IRL and in the sim, so I'm not familiar with procedures in the UK.  And, the way the OP describes this there's some ambiguity so perhaps I don't understand what he's describing.  That 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.

 

Scott

BATC almost always picks a transition if there is one, even if that is unrealistic in real life (an example is Stansted, where the charts clearly indicate that the transitions are only flown when there is no ATC available). When it clears you for a transition, and I have flown to EGLL a couple of times with BATC, including the OCK transition, then it will exactly do as I described in the post you responded to. It clears you the transition and then you just fly that without further instructions.

4 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Where are you seeing a charted transition from OCK to 09L? 

Depends. If you are looking at the LIDO Charts that come with the Sim then the transition is on the ILS Approach Chart itself. If you are using the Jeppesen Charts it's amont the STAR Charts on Chart 10-2T called "Initial Approach from OCK".

2 hours ago, Dialex said:

 

If you’re still unsure, feel free to revisit later. Development is ongoing, and we’re far from finished as I keep saying. We already have a number of real-world controllers and pilots providing feedback, across both IFR and VFR, and from different parts of the world. That input is being taken into account when we work on the appropriate part of the software.

Just some food for thought.

Ryan is real world controller I would dismiss his passion for improving your product. 

14 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Ryan is real world controller I would dismiss his passion for improving your product. 

They aren't? They're stating the obvious that the product isn't finished yet and is in active development to improve it further...

2 hours ago, Farlis said:

When it clears you for a transition, and I have flown to EGLL a couple of times with BATC, including the OCK transition, then it will exactly do as I described in the post you responded to. It clears you the transition and then you just fly that without further instructions.

Yes, I understand that.  Pls see my last post.  As I mentioned, not familiar with UK procedures and hadn't found this "transition" until @Bob Scott pointed it out.  I suspected that I might be missing something which was why I qualified my statement, and I was.  I've already stated, having seen this, that vectors would not be expected. 

 

Scott