2 minutes ago, Funky D said:

I loathe the default ATC as much as everyone else, but I just find it a bit sad that even the add-on products have the same issues as the default ATC. Basically the only time the default ATC is somewhat reliable is when flying into larger airports. Maybe its a core sim issue in the end, but from what I've read of other sims they have similar issues.

From what I can gather, all ATC/AI addons suffer from interfacing with core MSFS to a greater or lesser extent. I wish Asobo would get its act together ...

7 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

This is exactly my experience. I can rely on BATC vectoring or terrain clearance. It becomes more like background ATC chatter.

BATC has an elegantly simple GUI, fabulous audio especially if you are using Premium voices. But it is weird how some of the most basic ATC elements fail. Even ground traffic conflicts. This is why I actually use it for ambience in large part. I use the old free FSLTL injector, get ample traffic for less performance cost plus ultra smooth animation in the AI aircraft unlike BATC's injection/management. And bonus: by NOT using BATC's traffic injector this limits use of Premium characters to comms between me and ATC, not all controllers talking to all other traffic because there is no traffic BATC recognizes, so it become very affordable. It's not all bad sometimes it all controls like you would expect it should.

The OPs issue with BATC is why I have not used it for some time - not sure what to do about ATC as I can't stand the voices in FSHUD. For the time being I just fly the published procedures.

Bruce

For the descent I always ask 5 or 10 miles before my TOD if BATC doesn’t ask me to descent. When there is a STAR approach and ILS it works very well. But when vectoring me for the approach, it is not good and I think the go around procedure is not well performed by the ATC (sometimes BATC forgot me !)

BATC works fine with a full SimBrief flight plan including SIDs and STARs.

BATC will descend you to the altitudes in the STAR. This makes it straightforward to manage energy using VNAV, and cope with a late instruction to descend. The same with the approach.

If BATC gives me a tight angle to intercept the ILS, then I use LNAV / HDG to perform a smooth turn onto final before engaging APP - this avoids S turns.

I record my flights, so I can review a failed approach. Usually, it was a mistake I made.

8 hours ago, Noel said:

I actually use it for ambience in large part.

I think the expectations that we set for ATC programs in MSFS, directly influence whether we think these programs are any good or not.

ATC is not a huge part of why I sim / what I enjoy from the overall experience. But I do love audio and I love immersion. So like Noel, I see BATC (or even SI when I used it) as part of the ambience, rather than a substantial/procedural element of my flights.

I love hearing different accents when my flights cross linguistic borders. And when I am on approach, I almost never do what BATC tells me. Whether it's ILS, an RNAV, LPV variant or a visual, I will have configured my approach in the box (I fly mostly GA IFR and use the PMS GTN 750 almost exclusively. The VNAV and Garmin Visual Approach simulations are amazingly accurate). So even on a visual, I have runway extension fixes and visual vertical guidance. I don't need no steenking ATC! 😄 But I wouldn't be without it for the ambience and audio,

4 hours ago, kopek666 said:

For the descent I always ask 5 or 10 miles before my TOD if BATC doesn’t ask me to descent.

2 hours ago, flyingscampi said:

BATC works fine with a full SimBrief flight plan including SIDs and STARs.

This is so important to enjoying BATC. If I'm not instructed to descend, I always tell ATC when I'm ready to descend.

When things go wrong while cruising, I just restart the program and choose "cruise" and BATC picks right up again. If I hear something from ATC that doesn't make sense, I ignore it and move on to the next controller.

The devs still have work to do, but I will never go back to using default for an IFR flight. I'm actually considering going Experimental.

I love the program and how it functions but I don’t have any idea why they can’t provide on route flight separation in any meaningful way. I mean it’s an ATC program and they don’t point out other traffic at all. That’s pretty hard to understand how that’s not implemented when even default ATC can do that.

10 hours ago, brucewtb said:

The OPs issue with BATC is why I have not used it for some time - not sure what to do about ATC as I can't stand the voices in FSHUD. For the time being I just fly the published procedures.

Bruce

I find myself steering towards your approach Bruce too! I have become disillusioned with BATC for some time now, the last few flights I have just used FS ATC chatter. OK, it's not proper ATC, but ya know, it's quite nice not to have to try and decide if I'm going to get any kind of useful descent or vectoring instructions. To date, I have very few flights where the descent instructions are anywhere near useful. Always late. Then there are times when ATC tells me to turn 180 degrees and fly a completely illogical route. On top of that, 8 out of ten flights I lose a connection with BATC.

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by Rocky_53

2 hours ago, jspilot said:

mean it’s an ATC program and they don’t point out other traffic at all.

They can't even get ground interactions working right. Yesterday, it cleared me for takeoff on 26L, and halfway down the runway, it let traffic cross.

3 hours ago, Rocky_53 said:

I find myself steering towards your approach Bruce too! I have become disillusioned with BATC for some time now, the last few flights I have just used FS ATC chatter

This is my preferred method of ATC when flight simming. I just like hearing ATC for the ambience and immersion, so FS ATC checks that box perfectly. It is such a nice little no fuss application with a wide variety of global dialects and voices. I love my FS ATC!

That separation point is a big one for me too. BATC has very good ambience and the voices are clearly one of its strengths, but if it is not really sequencing traffic or calling conflicts then I start treating it more like background radio than ATC.

For offline IFR I still end up valuing the boring procedural parts more than the voice quality: descent timing, vectors that make sense, and what the program does when there is traffic around you. I do not mind helping an ATC add-on a little with a descent request, but once I am managing most of the arrival and traffic awareness myself, the value changes quite a bit.

Haven’t experienced any of the issues discussed in this thread.

There really isnt any Traffic solution thats the best right now... BATC right now is in the lead imho with its latest experimental... (Between BATC, Si, and FSHUD) Even FSHUD has regressed and doesnt do traffic separation like it used to... Hoping we get back on track!