I have to say that since the latest update 1.8.7, I have been having a much better experience in BATC.  I used to have the program crash every third flight or so.  Not now.  I also had issures with handoffs to approach and again to tower being sometimes rushed.  Now approach is better with still some late handoffs to the tower.  I have discovered however that I can contact the tower on my own and they will respond even though I didnt transition by signing off with approach.  This is something not available in other ATC products.  Using this program has realy helped me with communications skills with ATC.

Anyone know what was included in the update this morning in Version 1.8.8  ??

 

3 minutes ago, bmarcoux2 said:

Anyone know what was included in the update this morning in Version 1.8.8  ??

 

I take it you are not on discord?

 

So here goes:

 

**Minor Version 1.8.8 EA**

**General / IFR**
```⚙️ Improvements
Traffic Map V2 - updated traffic icon sizing + variation and a timetable function. Accessible via icon from main UI and included in build. **Old map version will no longer work!**
Route Amendment - compare the planned STAR from Simbrief not BATC initial STAR for changes, amendments will make sense now
Descent - Give descent clearances with more lead time to prevent VNAV stalls or late descents 
Local Voice - reworked the engine to help with some strange pronunciations 
Local Voice Accents - accent model rebuilt from scratch
Wake Hold Timing - now uses more accurate values based on leader follow pairing
Departure vector - constrain max distance of departure vector path to avoid massive vector legs if no SID and distant first waypoint
Data updates - AIRAC 2604 pronunciations, latest airline callsigns, AIG reg mapping data

🐞 Bug Fixes
Traffic Deadlocks - Fix remaining stuck departing aircraft issues [#43126691, #08532477]
Traffic Deadlocks - Fix pushback paths overlapping during simultaneous pushback causing deadlock
Approach - Fix for another traffic aircraft on approach to be given landing clearance when player is on short final
Approach - Further fix for lack of "runway in sight" controller call on visual approach which lead to no tower handover [#LOTS]
Approach - Fix departing traffic potentially being cleared to takeoff when the player is on final causing go around
Taxi - Fix departure runway change not generating an updated taxi path [#99445606]
Taxi - Taxi way mentioned twice when given an ICAO cross inactive runway instruction [#86257656]
Taxi - In certain ICAO taxi instruction scripts, the holding point numeric ID was not given [#11233006]
Procedures - Correct transition call outs for STAR and SIDs
Procedure approach - fix change of always vectoring to approach even when it's a direct connection from STAR to Approach start
Vectors - for GA aircraft sometimes the runway selected for arrival would be sub-optimal and could lead to being vectored to the wrong runway
Info box - Fix empty altimeter info box showing up in UK/AUS if no METAR available for the airport
Waypoint cache - fix a caching issue that could lead to being told the wrong next waypoint or vector direction
Mag Var - use mag var from our reference airports table rather than sim scenery due to too many errors in sim data
Mag Var - wasn't being applied to METARs for runway ops comparison on the first load of the airports could lead to incorrect initial runway allocation
CPDLC - When using CPDLC in FAA chance for approach handoff script to not be said verbally
CPDLC - Potential server crash when bad URL paths were called
Descents - if you start in cruise but have previously moved to a new flight level different from your initial planned cruise, fix the descent flow being broken
Runway Lengths - fix runway lengths occasionally being rendered incorrectly in taxi map
Traffic Departure - fix certain runways at specific airports not having departing traffic due to the node layout of those runways (LBHP / EGKK for example)
Traffic Arrivals - fix turnoff pathing at MKStudios LPPR v2 and maybe others to prevent traffic being removed

🛬 Ops Updates
EDDF, EDDK, KJFK, LICJ, LCLK```
This release brings in changes that have been tested in the Exp branch over the last few days. 

**Please note the old traffic map tool that you may have downloaded from our website will no longer work and you must use the new icon in the UI to access the map now.**

 

Edited April 25Apr 25 by Farlis

That new map is really cool

Only 1 test flight so far, but noticeable improvement.  The descent is still a bit tight and late for GA, but much improved.  I think it is still looking for a 1200-1500 fpm descent which is a bit high, but workable in the sim (would still like more time to get down more gently).  Other than the altitude, vectors to a visual final were pretty good (call to turn came a bit late and required a correction, but again, nothing crazy).  Calling for descent still does nothing other than to have them tell you the active runway.  I'm guessing I can just descent a little early and be fine.  

I don't want to jinx it, but I haven't been "lost" in some time either.  

I've been flying for 25+ and never have my instrument approach converted to visual arbitrarily by ATC just because weather is VFR! Apparently there is adviser guy who retired US ATC controller  who convinced BATC developers that in USA all instrument approached become visual if weather is VFR. 

There is a big problem with that! While visual approach could be part of instruments approach like circle to land in most case it's usually requested by the pilot . There are no published missed approach procedure that applies to visual approach . Obstacle  clearance also becomes pilot's discretion. Imagine busy KLAX airport where all jumbo jets assigned visual approaches on each parallel runway. It's pure nonsense.

I just don't understand  while BATC can ask another ATC controller in US and have at least some kind of peer review on what one guys said. Other than bizarre vectoring is this is major turn off for me in BATC 😞

 

 

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I've been flying for 25+ and never have my instrument approach converted to visual arbitrarily by ATC just because weather is VFR

Yes.  I never understood why it did that.  You would think that would have been fixed in the first update.  SMH.

I did BOI to SLC last night in the 739 and SLC was 34/35 and the vectoring and descents where just awful, probably the worst Ive ever had in BATC, back to SI for me. 

1 hour ago, Blueline308 said:

Yes.  I never understood why it did that.  You would think that would have been fixed in the first update.  SMH.

This is no documentation or any regs they did because one guy told them so. May be Tony was ATC controller before instrument approaches were invented, I don't know LOL But one thing for sure peer review never hurts. There are plenty ATC controller that can provide feedback.

Vectoring is another thing. All "visual approach" intercept angle close at 90 degrees to final and 15+ miles out. Even when you fly a small airplane where you can square pattern half mile out. When BATC asks if me if I have runway inside 7-10 miles out they probably assume I wear binoculars! LOL Meanwhile VFR start at +3 stature miles,  1000 ft AGL. I can't understand their logic

10 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I've been flying for 25+ and never have my instrument approach converted to visual arbitrarily by ATC just because weather is VFR! Apparently there is adviser guy who retired US ATC controller  who convinced BATC developers that in USA all instrument approached become visual if weather is VFR. 

There is a big problem with that! While visual approach could be part of instruments approach like circle to land in most case it's usually requested by the pilot . There are no published missed approach procedure that applies to visual approach . Obstacle  clearance also becomes pilot's discretion. Imagine busy KLAX airport where all jumbo jets assigned visual approaches on each parallel runway. It's pure nonsense.

I just don't understand  while BATC can ask another ATC controller in US and have at least some kind of peer review on what one guys said. Other than bizarre vectoring is this is major turn off for me in BATC 😞

 

 

I once asked on Discord why Beyond always uses approaches that don't seem to make sense. In Singapore and Bangkok, for example, it always uses RNAV approaches instead of ILS ones.

The response I received was that Beyond prioritises approaches that connect to the final waypoint of the STAR, and that many of these are not ILS approaches.

Of course, it still doesn't make sense for Beyond to rely on a visual approach in the US (the flawed logic you mentioned), but it would probably be a different matter if the STAR led to the final approach.

At KSFO, a visual approach is always used, whereas when approaching from the east at KLAX, I always get the ILS.

17 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

This is no documentation or any regs they did because one guy told them so. May be Tony was ATC controller before instrument approaches were invented, I don't know LOL But one thing for sure peer review never hurts. There are plenty ATC controller that can provide feedback.

Vectoring is another thing. All "visual approach" intercept angle close at 90 degrees to final and 15+ miles out. Even when you fly a small airplane where you can square pattern half mile out. When BATC asks if me if I have runway inside 7-10 miles out they probably assume I wear binoculars! LOL Meanwhile VFR start at +3 stature miles,  1000 ft AGL. I can't understand their logic

For USA ATC, 10 miles is where I start to ask if a pilot has the field in sight.  10 miles isn't too far out at all.  If it's a new airport then yeah you'll have to get a bit closer especially if it's a hazy day or something.  I like to get people over to CTAF as soon as possible so they can talk to others in the pattern if is anyone else.  For jets and faster turbines I usually point out the field 15-20 miles away.

I've learned to just tune the ILS or the RNAV approach in anyway.  For the GA stuff I fly it isn't a huge deal, but it would definitely be nice to stay IFR.  Requesting a new approach sometimes works too.  

At least I can work with this.  I only had time for a couple of test flights, but the vectoring seems better.  I still have to descend myself, but the angle to the runway seems to work well.  Still no getting "lost" by the ATC, and so far, no late go arounds (which was mentioned in the notes).  I even landed at KEYW which used to confuse BATC, and that seemed ok.  

Still need a lot more testing, I wish I had more time to fly.  I'm getting more confidence in the program though, definitely some things to adjust, but so far, no major issues.  

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

For USA ATC, 10 miles is where I start to ask if a pilot has the field in sight.  10 miles isn't too far out at all.  If it's a new airport then yeah you'll have to get a bit closer especially if it's a hazy day or something.  I like to get people over to CTAF as soon as possible so they can talk to others in the pattern if is anyone else.  For jets and faster turbines I usually point out the field 15-20 miles away.

Not up in here🙂 We have has most of the time. 

18 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Not up in here🙂 We have has most of the time. 

 

I'd be shooting an instrument approach personally, especially if I wasn't familiar with the area.  Or you could shoot a contact approach if you were.  BATC's mind would melt with that LOL.

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I'd be shooting an instrument approach personally, especially if I wasn't familiar with the area.  Or you could shoot a contact approach if you were.  BATC's mind would melt with that LOL.

Naah us local know every bush in the area 🙂 Gotta sneak out to do some maneuvers with students. It's no uncommon even for solo student return from early morning cross-country and end up in the haze. We make sure they know whats up!  MSFS come as great training aid for all local prominent landmark as vfr waypoints!