4 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.

I do update and check via a few flights about once a month.  I'm usually pretty honest about what I see good and bad.  But I mostly post here.  And quite frankly the program usually does what is expected from pushback (if applicable) to arrival.  It definitely handles structured routes such as SID/STARs better than just a few waypoints though.  It's the instrument approach phase where things can go sideways.  I actually just flew today.  It's rare for me to fly an airliner but the 737 into KMSP via the BAINY star worked well basically the entire way there.  It did give me a visual approach and I've not seen many issues with that.   I actually was issued a go around when for some reason it cleared an aircraft for takeoff with me on a 1 mile final (that can work at smaller airports between 2 small aircraft but it's impossible with jets etc).  That was pretty fun because I actually touched down and tookoff again just like irl as it was a late stage go around.

I would have been curious what an ILS or RNAV would have looked like.  (I sadly had to leave the sim).

I understand there are limitations.  That being said, vectoring and approach phases of flight should be the priority for any ATC software.  It's probably also the most complicated to code?

I have noted solid improvements over the initial EA version (I think I've owned it almost since day one).  Looking forward to the next update.

After the last update today, the flight from KBKV-KOPF (brand new airport I just bought from flightsim.to) ended the same way as my last few flights. Excellent departure, loved the en-route phase with lots of atc chatter, but the approach was terrible. At one time the controller had me flying away from the airport, then forgot about me. Oh well, maybe the next update will be an improvement.

I'm starting to wonder if this is a v2024 issue, because I don't remember BATC being so unreliable in v2020.

Edited April 12Apr 12 by CFIJose

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

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".

Yep I've got it now.  I explained above: the Navigraph app on my phone would not allow me to scroll the menu down far enough to see the final chart in portrait orientation.  I could only see it when I turned to landscape.  Would not have expected charts could hide haha.

Ok my 2 cents. 
Came back to BATC after being away from it for a few months.

situation: Test flight from DD KEWR to Flightbeam KIAD FSTL A380  Around midday, few clouds bright sunshine and windy. PARKE HYPER9 at FL220. Landing 1R  

Pros:

At level 9 across the board, no performance issues. (Flying the freeware A380 in MSFS202)

The program understood every word I said with my NJ/NY accent

Plenty of traffic and plenty of chatter on frequencies. 
 

Cons:

Early descent.  Not a huge deal as Airbus logic kept the 1000FPM until the path was captured 

Landing: was prepped for the visual to 1R and ATC had me at a good altitude. Was given the instruction “Leaving TICON, turn right heading 320.” Then “report field in sight”. As I was executing the turn I could easily see I would need way more than 320 to get aligned. At this time I was about 6.5 miles away and if I was a real world pilot, I’d be making arrangements for another approach as I didn’t like what I was seeing. However as a sim pilot, I had to land! I finally saw the field then turned 055 as the best intercept course. Once “field in sight” ATC happily cleared me in while I dealt with the justifiable complaints  of the A380S computers. 
 

The visual approach is what scares me as I know I’ll be in relatively close to the field and have to do some serious maneuvering and configuring in a short window. BATC was doing that before I took the break from it and apparently it’s still an issue. 
 

Both a pro and a con: BATC did not give me any speed restrictions but BA219 Heavy (behind me) was getting an earful. When the traffic first came on frequency it was given the instruction, “reduce speed to minimum approach speed “. Seems like a bug. Then subsequent speed restrictions seemed plausible. Pro? Speed restrictions issued by the program. Con? Maybe not instructions you’d expect to be issued to a heavy at 12000. 
 

All in all, I’d recommend BATC. Know what you’re getting into and know the other alternative program can be pricey. 

Edited April 12Apr 12 by SKEWR
Syntax

The issue with the 'cleared to 09L via OCK' is just not realistic. EGLL always vector aircraft to finals.

When I did this as instructed (flying the published OCK approach), I came dangerously and unrealistically close to other aircraft

Does anyone know how I can fix that there are no takeoffs from RWY32 at LSZH and the queue getting longer and longer because planes still taxi to RWY32? MK Studios scenery, never observed that before...

10 hours ago, SKEWR said:

Early descent.

Is not a con. As I explained just yesterday already, your personal descend calculation means nothing to ATC. They descend you when they need you to, not when your FMC says it wants to.

Well, kind of.  Yes if ATC needs you down early for traffic, you're coming down early.  But usually this isn't the case and your initial descent clearance will be at pilot's discretion.  They do this specifically because they know we want to remain on our FMC calculated vertical path, based on the cleared arrival. 

It would be fair to say that a pilot's descent calculations for optimized performance are secondary to traffic deconfliction needs, but I wouldn't say they mean nothing to ATC.  I'm not sure what BATC is doing these days but if it's regularly forcing you to start down early vs using a discretionary descent, that would be pretty unrealistic.

Yesterday on the new beta they completely forgot about me regarding step downs during the approach.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

But usually this isn't the case and your initial descent clearance will be at pilot's discretion. 

In FAA land yes, in EASA land, not so much. When I fly in FAA Land using BATC I usually get cleared via a STAR with the added "descend at pilots discretion".

In EASA land it tells me to descend. Sometimes exactly at my calculated TOD, sometimes I have to request it, sometimes it is early.

Edited April 13Apr 13 by Farlis

On 4/11/2026 at 11:00 AM, 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.

I get around that running Radar Contact v4 in P3D by initiating the shallowest descent that keeps it happy. 200fpm.

Try that until you catch up with the ToD. 

On 4/10/2026 at 7:09 PM, 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.

This is the crux of the issue.   I've had this add on since nearly Day 1.    ATC was broken then and I'd argue that it's just as broken today.    I'm at a loss for why they don't focus their resources on fixing the major component of BATC - the ATC system.  Instead, they are going off on multiple tangents trying to introduce the latest new "feature".    Only thing I can come up with for a reason is that it's an attempt to generate sales revenue.     At this point, I use BATC for the AI traffic (which in itself is still heavily flawed) and for taxi/takeoff.   Once I'm at TOD, it simply ignore BATC instructions (if they even remember that I'm out there). 

On 4/12/2026 at 6:45 AM, AnkH said:

Does anyone know how I can fix that there are no takeoffs from RWY32 at LSZH and the queue getting longer and longer because planes still taxi to RWY32? MK Studios scenery, never observed that before...

I see this at KCLT. It has runway 36L, 36C, 36R but atc direct everyone to 36R creating a backlog

3 hours ago, 11bee said:

This is the crux of the issue.   I've had this add on since nearly Day 1.    ATC was broken then and I'd argue that it's just as broken today.    I'm at a loss for why they don't focus their resources on fixing the major component of BATC - the ATC system.  Instead, they are going off on multiple tangents trying to introduce the latest new "feature".    Only thing I can come up with for a reason is that it's an attempt to generate sales revenue.     At this point, I use BATC for the AI traffic (which in itself is still heavily flawed) and for taxi/takeoff.   Once I'm at TOD, it simply ignore BATC instructions (if they even remember that I'm out there). 

You must be talking about another ATC addon, which is suffering from feature creep. If you look through the BATC patch notes you will see that *every single patch* has fixed/improved stuff on the ATC side (mostly vectors, approaches). Two of the three devs are working only on that stuff. CPDLC and VFR are done by the third dev (who is part time only).

As for the rest of your post, feel free to get on the Discord and have someone take a look at your issues. Personally my experience (also a Day 1 user) is much different from yours. I have 90% of flawless flights, 5% of smaller issues and 5% of more severe issues which e.g. force me to ignore instructions. I wouldn't be using BATC if it was broken. These days I'm preferring it much to Vatsim on any given flight, which is partly due to BATC being so reliable and immersive and partly due to Vatsim being either deserted or crowded with annoying people.

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

You must be talking about another ATC addon

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.