Fiorentoni

Charts are not installed locally, they are fetched via the API e.g. when opening them on the EFB. So all "updates" will happen without you having to do anything or even noticing it frankly

Assuming you have the EA version and fly no-star arrivals - those (and in general vectoring) got some pretty big fixes on EXP. I suggest trying it again once they come to EA soon. Also keep in mind you can always post a log on the discord support channel and let someone take a look at it, if you find something happening consistently to you but not to others apparently

That was the theory of one of the ATR pilots over at the MSFS forums. I haven't tried the 42, just the 72. The 72 is definitely severely underpowered, I mean you can just compare it with the MSFS 2020 version. The 2024 version can't even reach 200 kts during level flight at cruise.

Yes it does. Apparently they put the 42 engines on the 72 and viceversa. It's an ridiculously awful update

I have no problems with any ini airports and PG off in MSFS 2024, KJFK including. No bumps (except those normal ones; definitely not unusable).

I know what the point was and the point is correct.. That argument I quoted is still stupid, even more so when there are much better arguments on the table. That whole thing could have ended mid-page 1, when someone would have said "Most people think it runs fine now, what's your specs? You cannot generalize your experience, making a fact out of it etc etc." Instead people responded with "Build one yourself then Superstar." or "They do that in their free time!", which doesn't even address anything he said, and from there on it derailed as usually with both sides talking completely past each other. And I would attribute just as much blame to those guys as to him. EDIT: I actually almost stopped commenting here on Avsim because of how every thread goes like this. Guess that was a relapse, sorry back to rehab!

That's a stupid argument. Most people probably can't build a CaptainSim 777 either, so does that mean they cannot say anything negative about it?

Have finally turned PG off a month ago and haven't looked back. It's crazy how smooth my sim has become. Before that I would have stutters and what else in all airports at PG-cities. VRAM usage has gone done by a solid 2GB overall too. Of course for those iconic skylines (like New York) you need some city pack, otherwise it kills a bit the immersion; but other than that the cities look pretty good and most importantly consistent.

Yes it's a Boeing feature. It's called the "dead band" and is around 10 degrees pitch during the rotation. Same for the 777 AFAIK

I agree that vectoring has had some regression over the last one or two months, especially overshooting the localizer for me. That said the devs are aware and consequently vectoring is currently the major focus of internal testing in BATC, so there's hope for significant improvements in the very near future.

I use time accelration just fine with the 777. Never noticed this bug; the time is correct in the top right corner, so I guess it's just a rare situation or I don't know.

Their airports look very good, but they do not update them at all mostly. They stay with bugs and flaws (e.g. at HECA there's still a miscalibrated ILS, for two years now) and they don't respond to emails or anything. That said their airports don't have too many flaws, I use most of them regularly.

Keep in mind I'm not neutral when reading this (see signature), but this is my honest opinion as a customer nonetheless: I've using BeyondATC daily from day one, so 2+ years. The progress is immense in those two years. Seriously, you should look back what issues there were in 2024 and compare that to now. Of course it does have some temporary regressions while trying to fix complex stuff for good (for example right now a complete overhaul of ground handling is in internal testing, with the aim to prevent stuck traffic much more reliably), but that's the nature of an early access product. Keep in mind BATC can inject a lot more traffic than any other tool (especially if you are using live traffic) and this does increase the complexity even further; it's not an easy task (if it was, someone else would have done it ages ago and we'd be all using that software). It does frustrate me too at times, but it's still the most reliable tool, and I've tried them all (and I also regularly watch videos with flights with SI, so I know the progress [or lack of] there). I'd love to fly with Vatsim and I do every once in a while (1000+ hours), but it's so limited quantity wise (either overcrowded or deserted, nothing in between), that just doesn't make fun. I know for a fact that the big anonymous survey BeyondATC has made with its userbase has given a very positive overall feedback, so - contrary to this thread - most people are overall happy with the progress and current state and are using BATC for most of their flights. On the other hand I can tell you for a fact that the devs are aware of all the issues and flaws and what's still missing (we make sure they know, that's the advantage of such a huge huge userbase) and - which is even more important - are constantly working on it. EDIT: And as for "unnecessary features" - yes GSX integration ended up being one of them (which is more due to GSX), but CPDLC support and live traffic are immensely popular with the userbase and have led to an influx of a lot of new users on top. Other than that I don't see any unnecessary features? I mean if we are talking stuff like cabin crew voices or the webcam watching you while you're playing in order to know whether you're still at the keyboard, that's not BATC, that's another tool...

I'd stay away from anything from RD Presets; I haven't seen one scenery yet that got favourable overall reviews from them