14 minutes ago, Blueline308 said:

I watched a video of a guy using it a few days ago and the voices still sounded robotic and not real world, but to each thier own....

This thread is on BATC's new feature "live traffic." So it's fair to compare it to FSHUD.

The voice quality and phraseology are very important to me, but even more important to me, is being able to complete an IFR flight from start to finish with a reliable ATC system.

I get a reliable ATC from BATC about 10% of the time. That 1 out of 10 flights is what keeps me hoping that one day BATC will get it right.

I don't need "live traffic" especially if it's experimental and I need to pay for a subscription. What I need is a reliable ATC system that works with AI Traffic every time. That's what I paid for and I'm still waiting for years later.

If I want to read about FSHUD I will find a thread on it.

5 hours ago, RobJC said:

I think it is, because I noticed it right away.

Let me know what you see going forward. I very see smooth in BATC sometimes, but more often than not poorer animation. IOW, you may have just caught a better example. Plus, I would have to believe this live traffic might well be slightly more burdensome, but the proof is in seeing how it does who knows maybe something required to use live traffic actually impacted animation quality.

Right now I'm very happy with FSLTL's old injector which supplies ample parked and AI traffic and does not require an Ultimate sub. And as said before conflicts arise on the ground at roughly the same rate, except with FSLTL it's going to be predicted on occasion, but when it happens with BATC it's a big puzzle. Plus, it allows me to use Premium voices at a fraction of the cost of use BATC's traffic injection.

I put in a request to allow the option for users to constrain ATC controller comms to just the user's plane when Traffic is selected and I hope they consider it as it won't hurt anyone, and will help those who like to use pricey Premium voices.

Edited Wednesday at 09:09 PM1 day by Noel

Looks like there is still work to do to get this working correctly. Live traffic is not very accurate yet. When comparing to FR24, there have been several flights on approach that are entirely missing from BATC after connecting my Navigraph Ultimate subscription and enabling live traffic. This has happened at several airports.

This happens when using FSLTL by itself and when using both AIG and FSLTL together.

Sliders are all maxed out at 10.

Edited Wednesday at 07:50 PM1 day by RNAVV19R

6 hours ago, CFIJose said:

What I need is a reliable ATC system that works with AI Traffic every time. That's what I paid for and I'm still waiting for years later.

Works every time on my end

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

When comparing to FR24, there have been several flights on approach that are entirely missing from BATC after connecting my Navigraph Ultimate subscription and enabling live traffic. This has happened at several airports.

From what I understand BATC just uses live traffic for flight data (Airline, aircraft type, departure time), not positioning data.

So you’re not going to see anything in the air line up perfectly with FR24

Edited Wednesday at 09:26 PM1 day by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, RNAVV19R said:

Looks like there is still work to do to get this working correctly. Live traffic is not very accurate yet. When comparing to FR24, there have been several flights on approach that are entirely missing from BATC after connecting my Navigraph Ultimate subscription and enabling live traffic. This has happened at several airports.

This happens when using FSLTL by itself and when using both AIG and FSLTL together.

Sliders are all maxed out at 10.

Also keep in mind that if you don't have the model/repaint I'm not sure those aircraft will display. I know there have been some GA aircraft I studied on FR24 that didn't show in MSFS and I think this is why. Otherwise, it's been solid.

BATC just needs to keep their heads down and work on separation, for example start where it's easier - at cruise FL380 and aircraft coming at me head on. I'm not sure which is the appropriate pilot for ATC to "ask" to either change altitude or turn but someone needs to! It's not a game of chicken. I realize other scenarios aren't nearly as easy to detect and correct - but why not start there?

52 minutes ago, KERNEL32 said:

Also keep in mind that if you don't have the model/repaint I'm not sure those aircraft will display. I know there have been some GA aircraft I studied on FR24 that didn't show in MSFS and I think this is why. Otherwise, it's been solid.

Maybe that’s why. Noticed that there were a bunch of AIG liveries not installed by default.

Installing them now to see if it will make a difference.

2 minutes ago, RNAVV19R said:

Maybe that’s why. Noticed that there were a bunch of AIG liveries not installed by default.

Installing them now to see if it will make a difference.

it might help, yes but keep in mind I don't think AIG (or anyone) has ALL of the real world aircraft you may encounter. So unless someone models every aircraft possible, we probably won't ever see 100% of the traffic. I'm not sure if BATC uses any alias though. If they do, that would also help!

Edited Wednesday at 11:06 PM1 day by KERNEL32

On 6/11/2026 at 12:39 AM, KERNEL32 said:

I'm not sure if BATC uses any alias though. If they do, that would also help!

Well, I use FSLTL for the liveries/planes and when there is a specific plane/airline not available I see a white plane.

32 minutes ago, Watsi said:

Well, I use FSLTL for the liveries/planes and when there is a specific plane/airline not available I see a white plane.

For repaints yes, I can see where BATC might alias white models (not sure they do though?) but what about missing/un-matched models?

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by KERNEL32