1 hour ago, nrunning24 said:

.....I hope I'm wrong on all this, I would love to have the best ATC with the best AI handling possible. But calling out forum posters who plainly feel uneasy about the above as "insulting behavior" is a little much.....

I was the one who called it "insulting behaviour", and I stand by my words. Since you have little evidence either way as to whether Anil's claims are genuine or not, it is probably more respectful to stay silent, and watch developments from the sidelines.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by Christopher Low

9 hours ago, flyingscampi said:

The PAYG method BATC uses with their Premium voices is perfect for me. I use the sim far less during summer and it chafes paying for a subscription I'm not using.

This is my view exactly. I have no problem paying extra for the service when it’s warranted, but not as a standing monthly fee regardless of how much I do or don’t use it. Summer simming is relatively rare for me unless it’s raining out, I try to spend as much of our short summers outdoors as possible.

Sounds fishy. I'm sorry for Kennedy Steve.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Since you have little evidence either way as to whether Anil's claims are genuine or not, it is probably more respectful to stay silent, and watch developments from the sidelines.

Since there is NO evidence either way I would say those excited and those expressing honest doubts biased off the persons actual written posts are on the same footing, no? What makes your opinion more valid than others? If someone is marketing a product they plan to sell directly on this forum I don't see any reason that they should be protected from people expressing honest skepticism. That's what the forum is for no?

Honest skepticism is perfectly fine, assuming that it is respectful. There have been a few comments in this thread that (IMO) have been less than respectful.

2 hours ago, nrunning24 said:

Since there is NO evidence either way I would say those excited and those expressing honest doubts biased off the persons actual written posts are on the same footing, no? What makes your opinion more valid than others? If someone is marketing a product they plan to sell directly on this forum I don't see any reason that they should be protected from people expressing honest skepticism. That's what the forum is for no?

What marketing? There is no product to market at this stage. We are privileged to be given a rare glimpse into the development of a very ambitious and complex project. By all means ask questions but don’t go judging it on something you don’t have a clue about. Maybe save the judgement for when the product is released?

23 hours ago, tamsini said:

Haven't we had enough of subscription-based apps already? BATC found a way to offer their app without a subscription, so unless you have a human directing simulated aircraft, find a solution that doesn't require a subscription. My two cents.

Yep!!! I have three yearly subs already, not adding any more to the list!

2 hours ago, cowpatz said:

What marketing? There is no product to market at this stage. We are privileged to be given a rare glimpse into the development of a very ambitious and complex project. By all means ask questions but don’t go judging it on something you don’t have a clue about. Maybe save the judgement for when the product is released?

Huh? This is absolutely marketing. Not that I'm mad about it, but posting a hype thread about your product, including celebrity ATC involvement, previously posting teaser videos..... This is definitely marketing. In fact we didn't really get much behind the scenes, the OP read more like a feature list.

3 hours ago, cowpatz said:

What marketing? There is no product to market at this stage. We are privileged to be given a rare glimpse into the development of a very ambitious and complex project. By all means ask questions but don’t go judging it on something you don’t have a clue about. Maybe save the judgement for when the product is released?

There's nothing but marketing here.

The OP is 1700 words full of lofty AI-isms such as...

"An instruction issued thirty seconds ago still matters thirty seconds later. A decision made for one aircraft may affect several others."

"The controller is the part the pilot talks to. It is not the entire brain.

The radio is an interface, not the source of truth"

Progression matters. History matters. State matters.

And not a single shred of evidence. You don't have to be a negative Nancy to find that just a little bit odd.

I'm not saying this to put the guy down, he very well may be working on the next BATC or SI. But this stuff is really hard to pull off, and the people that managed to do it weren't posting about how it's the most amazing, genius thing in the world without something to show for it. That's the disconnect here. We've just had an incredible amount of fluff so far and not much in the way of anything substantive.

I could start a new thread right now and go on massive diatribes about how I'm building a next generation flight sim that will compete with XP and MSFS. I could get ol' Gippity to write me up some amazing things like "TO FEEL REAL, FLIGHT SIMULATION MUST BECOME REAL. THAT'S THE MISSING PIECE – WE ARE BUILDING IT". What does that mean? Who knows.

Would be odd if someone didn't call me out on that, no?

13 hours ago, vgbaron said:

ok gents! Let's keep it civil here. Enough snarky comments. There is some good discussion going on and it does not ned to be punctuated with snide comments.

Personally I would want to supoort a developer who is trying to improve our sim rather than say it's impossible because no one else has done it before.

Yeah, I think we should stay civil. A little skepticism is fine though, until some trustable and impartial live streamers get a hold of it and live stream it to the public, or even better, the product is released to the public for sale.

Having said that, I think it's okay to give this team the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I remember when the community was very skeptical about the Synaptic team and their announcement of the A220. It's true that the original announcement of the Synaptic A220 was freeware and not commercial, which they later changed. It's also true that Synaptic had to pair up with iniBuilds for the 3D model. But I think it was just the same few developers at the original announcement of the A220, that were there when it was finally released. More or less, the same few developers were able to complete what they set out to do, albeit they did have to change it to a commercial project, and pair up with iniBuilds for the 3D model.

It doesn't seem like these ATC projects require a very large team. From my understanding, the BeyondATC team and Say Intentions team aren't that big of a development team either. And these days with AI, you can get a lot of development done with fewer developers, because AI can churn out so much code - the human developer is just supervising AI. If ACE was claiming they were going to make another flight simulator that is better than MSFS - then I would be pretty skeptical. But making another ATC program is very doable with a small team, especially in the age of AI were AI does most of the coding.

So I think we should wait for an actual demo, but I wouldn't dismiss this project outright. The people that dismissed Synaptic, well, it turns out that MSFS has a decent A220 now, courtesy of the Synaptic team. And if you check out the developers of the Synaptic team, they are very young adults now, but when they started, I think they were just teenagers, lol.

Edited August 21Aug 21 by abrams_tank

I’ve hidden a post that is an unproven accusation. The OP is not located in India not that that is relevant.

Any more unproven accusations will be hidden and the poster will get a holiday from AvSim.

55 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

It doesn't seem like these ATC projects require a very large team. From my understanding, the BeyondATC team and Say Intentions team aren't that big of a development team either.

The Radar Contact team (remember that? 😁) comprised a lead programmer who had no ATC knowledge at all and his associate who was a retired AT Controller in the US. There was a second ATC from England covering ICAO rules.

Then there was a mathematician who did the trigonometry, Pete Dowson who helped with FSUIPC and a bunch of unpaid enthusiasts including myself who did the beta testing. We got a free copy and a paid for trip to Washington for a AvSim conference back in 2006. Thank you John and Doug! 👏

The program was highly popular and is still used to this day by us dinosaurs who still use P3D and some with FSX. 😁

For a single person to take on all that work is extraordinary. Where does he acquire ATC knowledge for FAA and ICAO? Is he an expert in trig? The list goes on.

13 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

(remember that? 😁)

glad you reminded me about it!!!
😁

51 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The Radar Contact team (remember that? 😁) comprised a lead programmer who had no ATC knowledge at all and his associate who was a retired AT Controller in the US. There was a second ATC from England covering ICAO rules.

Then there was a mathematician who did the trigonometry, Pete Dowson who helped with FSUIPC and a bunch of unpaid enthusiasts including myself who did the beta testing. We got a free copy and a paid for trip to Washington for a AvSim conference back in 2006. Thank you John and Doug! 👏

The program was highly popular and is still used to this day by us dinosaurs who still use P3D and some with FSX. 😁

For a single person to take on all that work is extraordinary. Where does he acquire ATC knowledge for FAA and ICAO? Is he an expert in trig? The list goes on.

Yes, like many out there, I loved RC!! Not trying to "defend" this developer but that was then, and AI nowadays can really do some amazing stuff including trig ala ATC... so it's just this guy and "Steve"? Hmm - yeah I call scam on this "claim to ATC fame!" (Comment removed by moderator).

Edited August 21Aug 21 by Ray Proudfoot
Removed unsubstantiated claim.

I usually stay away from threads where this happens, but it seems to become the norm and therefore difficult to escape from: Argue back and forth without substance, express - preferably loudly - a negative opinion about somebody, a company or a product we know very little - if anything - about, so as to claim later on, should the project fail: "See, I was right and told you a long time ago!"

What purpose does it really serve beside hurting people and spreading negativity? Warn potential buyers? What exactly are we encouraged to buy at this time: Be part of the testing, so why don't doubters enlist and fire at the team with something tangible to criticise: the real product instead of a list of objectives? Because that is not appealing or rewarding as it means hard work and no public forum to shine through with hasty judgement.

Some people here need to take a deep breath and learn how to enjoy life instead of throwing their misery to others in fora like this one made for genuine aviation lovers, not for experts in tasseography (tea leaves readers if you prefer).

This thread is (should be) about learning of a product under development, and for us to ask pertinent and constructive questions so as to guide and contribute if at all possible... not to throw mud at somebody who tries to explain his project, with some degree of passion and deft marketing - as his position would require.

We will have every opportunity to judge positively or otherwise the final product when it will be up for sale. Then we will have substance.