8 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Maybe he's an aviation professional like me and knows BATC it's really not ok.

But rest assured, BATC devs also agree with you that everything is going well.

Okay, so as an "aviation professional," which ATC addon is okay then? 

Because - Let me remind you. IT'S. A. GAME. A game! For sale in the game section in stores and on gaming sites. You're the equivalent of a SEAL Team 6 operator complaining that Call of Duty is not realistic enough.

So by your standards, MSFS 2024 and MSFS 2020 are not okay. PMDG is not okay. BATC is not okay. SI is not okay. FENIX is not okay. Nothing is okay because they're all flawed. 

Jeeze, I'm admittedly a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy - but you people make me look like a grinning optimist by comparison. 

 

 

I jumped and purchased entire BATC package . I have conducted 3 long hauls flights with BATC. I’d say it adds to atmosphere of flying. Hearing different accents is really cool . For tho most part vectoring was ok. I didn’t follow everything blindly and adjusted some headings while ATC didn’t complain of any pilot deviation . I personally think it’s not bad; however, I think vectoring part need to take in calculation  current airspeed profile because it ever changing. Or ask to readable extend to reduce speed to what ATC wants and make vectoring radiuses based on those speed restrictions.

In any case flying with BATC is better then without for sure 

24 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

In any case flying with BATC is better then without for sure 

THIS.  Agreed.  YMMV. TANSTAAFL. BLUE SKIES,

-B

1 hour ago, Mike T said:

Okay, so as an "aviation professional," which ATC addon is okay then? 

Because - Let me remind you. IT'S. A. GAME. A game! For sale in the game section in stores and on gaming sites. You're the equivalent of a SEAL Team 6 operator complaining that Call of Duty is not realistic enough.

So by your standards, MSFS 2024 and MSFS 2020 are not okay. PMDG is not okay. BATC is not okay. SI is not okay. FENIX is not okay. Nothing is okay because they're all flawed. 

Jeeze, I'm admittedly a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy - but you people make me look like a grinning optimist by comparison. 

 

 

Lol

Then why does it say on Beyond ATC's website: 

Transform your virtual skies with a realistic Air Traffic Control!

Take your flight simulation to the next level with BeyondATC, an addon that introduces a realistic ATC environment. Featuring over 300 ultra-realistic AI voices with accents and real-world phraseology, BeyondATC delivers authentic ATC communications.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

But rest assured, BATC devs also agree with you that everything is going well.

Sorry but it gets tiring to see my words twisted. I don’t know what your goal is, but I would expect some fairness in the discussion. 

12 minutes ago, Dialex said:

Sorry but it gets tiring to see my words twisted. I don’t know what your goal is, but I would expect some fairness in the discussion. 

I just don't agree that the program is in a stable state especially when it comes to instrument approaches.  

That’s exactly why it’s still in early access, so I’m not sure I follow your point..?

I’m also struggling to understand the overall negativity. It’s fair to say the current version doesn’t meet your expectations and to explain why, but I don’t think it makes sense to judge how others enjoy BATC based on their aviation background or experience level. People can still find value in it as it is and believe it or not, even those with a similar level of knowledge to yours can enjoy it as well. That doesn’t mean there are no issues at all. That’s your conclusion, not mine.

Anyway, I feel like we’re starting to go in circles here.

 

Just to try balance the equation a bit ... I'm not a pilot (or controller) in RL, but enjoy BATC hugely. Of course there are still issues and frustrations - but I'm pleased to see work continuing on the product. MSFS itself is far from perfect and anything that tries building on that foundation is bound to have problems. The nature of forums is that (usually) you hear more from people reporting issues than from those simply using it and enjoying it. Take comfort!

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Adamski_NZ

1 hour ago, Dialex said:

 

Anyway, I feel like we’re starting to go in circles here.

 

I agree.  I wish you well with the continued improvement in the application.

Second flight from EWR to YYZ.

Excellent Clearance and ground ops. For whatever reason that was a backlog of planes trying to take off from DD's KEWR 22R. I was 7 for takeoff. Planes were landing as they were supposed to on 22L. Not sure what happened there, but I waited awhile like I would if this was a real situation and then I just taxied through and took off. Got chastised a bit and got the "Bad Pilot" info block in BATC but it was worth the chuckle.

Enroute, BATC was again excellent. Descent, landing changed from 15L to 5. (That was pretty good as it was a nice flurry of activity to get setup properly for the change.). Cleared to descend via the LINGG3 STAR, no issues. Again, there was an aircraft behind me getting some interesting speed demands, but not a major issue. This time the leave fix XXXXX at XXX degrees worked fine.  Good landing on 5, nice taxi instructions to the gate. Overall, very nice.

As the snark is sometimes heavy in AVSIM land, let me explain.  I'm posting these so people can read what an average BATC airline (IFR) user is experiencing to see if it's "not there yet" versus just harping on one or two things. (I'll VFR to the VFR experts)

2 hours ago, Dialex said:

That’s exactly why it’s still in early access, so I’m not sure I follow your point..?

I’m also struggling to understand the overall negativity. It’s fair to say the current version doesn’t meet your expectations and to explain why, but I don’t think it makes sense to judge how others enjoy BATC based on their aviation background or experience level. People can still find value in it as it is and believe it or not, even those with a similar level of knowledge to yours can enjoy it as well. That doesn’t mean there are no issues at all. That’s your conclusion, not mine.

Anyway, I feel like we’re starting to go in circles here.

 

I don't think you understand what Ryan and I are trying to explain.

I really don't care for excuses. I paid for MSFS 2024 the day it was released and had to wait a year for SU4 to finally enjoy it. I've had BATC for over a year and have waited and defended this add-on, but now I have to request that the developer fix the approach phase of the add-on. Can you please relate that message to the dev team?

It doesn't matter if you're a pro controller, a seasoned CFI, or a casual user, anyone that uses this ATC add-on the right way will come to the same conclusion. It ain't ready yet.

So, can we please get at least the IFR part ready so that I can finally enjoy an entire IFR flight with BATC?

Thank you.

34 minutes ago, SKEWR said:

Second flight from EWR to YYZ.

Just want to point out that not everyone flies the same way, and that's where we get different results.  BATC seems to work quite well from large airports with established SIDs and STARs. For people who only hit the main airports, they probably do rarely see issues.  If BATC has exact STARs to follow, it does a lot better.  When it has a script, it follows it well.  

The problem often lies in medium sized airports where there's no STARs (or the STARs aren't available for the types of aircraft some of us fly).  KEYW is a perfect example.  An airport that has airline traffic, but BATC seems to struggle with.  Just one runway, should be an easy vector, but this is where BATC can struggle.  It can just lose you completely, or maybe vector you around Miami.  I'm often flying a GA plane IFR, and the published STARs are for jets.  You would think a single runway without much traffic would be easy, but it can really struggle.  MK Studios released a great Key West scenery, so many of us happen to be hitting this airport a lot, so we run into problems, a lot.  

The big problem is the program advertises (and I quote) "Full IFR for Jetliners and GA".  The latter seems to be lacking, and I'm not talking VFR at all, but IFR flight into airports that serve airliners.  I'm a big Black Square fan and personally I never, ever fly jetliners anymore.  Again I have no doubt that people who stick to the huge airports have a completely different experience.  

There are a few simple aspects that should be fixed and I don't get why they haven't been.

 

The aircraft pushing back for example. It's so quick that the pilots would be thrown onto the windshield.

 

And they also taxi full speed as they are parking at the gate, and then stop instantly.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by simsuper80

8 hours ago, CFIJose said:

It ain't ready yet.

That’s exactly where we are going in circles, and I’m sorry to say this again, but it’s still in early access.

If it was ready yet, there would be no reason to keep it in early access and we would advertise it as a finished product. Guess what, it’s not! And we’re pretty much aware of it and I’ve said this numerous times here. But again, you’re putting expectations that does not align with the development process.

Every patch includes fixes and improvements related to IFR, and these updates are documented in our patch notes. Everything is public, you can even check it on our website now. The fact that your specific issue may not yet be resolved doesn’t mean it’s being ignored or we aren’t working on core systems regarding IFR.

Sometimes I feel like you guys think we do this on purpose. We want to have it perform and be as reliable as you all want. The difference is that we recognize it will take time to get there.

What we are seeing here is posters whom (I believe) wish the product to absolutely succeed and are frustrated that a core function, approach, can/does have major issues. It is appreciated that BATC is still early access and issues are being addressed daily, but 2 years down the line a core function is still unreliable. In my case I wish to see holds implemented sooner rather than later as another core function.

After saying that BATC is a great addon (especially for the price) and I never fly without it. Keep up the great work and hopefully BATC will become the preeminent ATC simulator.
 

Edited April 14Apr 14 by Dusk