Fiorentoni

Did they say anything about a release time frame? EDIT: Oh I got ninja'ed !

Not officially but also never ruled out. They hadn't mentioned anything about the A350 either which was their original post-A320 plan. There's hope at least :)

No that was an A350. An A330 (+ neo) is still very much on the list and I am rather sure it will be the next Fenix aircraft after the A320neos. It's an aircraft no one else is working on and this time they can't be leapfrogged by iniBuilds as they can't work on the A330ceo (since it's owned by Microsoft).

This hurts just as much as knowing that the Bundesland I live in (Hessen) has just spent 560.000 € for designing a new logo, which looks almost like the old one.

No that's not a pay to beta. This is the final version minus some very small bugfixes that will come. The A330Ceo was just as abandoned after one or two small patches.

That's ... interesting. As even streamers (!) say it's even worse than the Aerosoft A330ceo, which in itself is an accomplishment. https://youtu.be/CucQ8e1_Rx8?si=HnBuNDncPK0LYkmb

The A340 was saved by the fact that Aerosoft was involved as little as possible! (And even there they failed utterly, see textures and night lighting). This here is all Aerosoft and it shows.

What's your typical cost index on the 737? A 3 degree descent path (assuming average weight and no winds) should be around a CI of 20-25. If you have a lower CI (most airlines, especially low cost, have a much lower cost index), your descent path will be significantly shallower, meaning your calculated TOD is earlier. ATC is using a default 3 degree glide path for its calculations instead. If you don't call in yourself for descent in these cases at your TOD, you will be chasing the path for the rest of the flight.

I actually fly more Boeing than Airbus, mostly the PMDG 737 and 777 in fact :) And I absolutely have perfect descents 100% of the time, except for arrivals without a STAR (which I rarely fly), as you said yourself, they can sometimes still get buggy. Devs are aware, believe me. I hope all the constant work will eventually get vectors locked in for good. It‘s about time now, especially with dynamic shortcuts inbound soon.

There's the "dynamic auto respond voice" which will use the accent of the country of the airline you are currently flying, so you always have something fitting automatically. I don't know whether they will make that manually selectable; not sure how many people need a e.g. Vietnamese copilot on a British Airways flight or something like that :)

Yes in the end Simconnect is often the limiting factor. For example when there's little AI traffic / small airport, it's often very smooth (because little simconnect traffic per second). On big hubs it's the opposite. I see the same when using Vatsim by the way. Very lagging on a Frankfurt Friday at EDDF. Although that's the least problem on a Frankfurt Friday....

Merely looking at my own daily experience with BATC. I can guarantee you I would not touch it again if I had to ignore its instructions all the time. I'd rather fly on Unicom then

Sorry for the bump - but still waiting for a DM. If you changed your mind, it's fine, just want to know how/whether to proceed :)

What FPS setting have you set in the BATC settings? Set it to at least 60 FPS (even more if you have more FPS in the sim). It affects the traffic smoothness.

I haven't had to do that for half a year at least. Before that, yes descents were sometimes bad.

I wish - but Navigraph has only bought live traffic from FR24, so you should rather ask Navigraph, because BATC just uses the Navigraph API :)

Vectoring is still a work in progress, but it's been the main focal point for a couple of months now. Sometimes it's two steps forward, one step back, but it's constantly being worked on by the main dev in almost every update (the other dev, part time, does all the VFR stuff).

Can you send me a DM please with the name and website of your VA? I've got an API working now and would like to send you the "documentation" and an API key, so you can give it a try.

Quite the contrary - "this does not seem legit" is exactly the type of feedback a serious developer would when reaching out to the community! It means that from the perspective of the user the presented information and marketing does create an impression of not being true / serious. And again - the "know next to nothing" is also a legitimate and important piece of feedback, because it's caused by the apparent lack of information and clarity over by now 5 pages. EDIT: Do you remember back in the days when BeyondATC (before release) was being marketed as a subscription model, then a s***storm broke loose here on Avsim, and the devs changed their mind and made it a one-time purchase? This was valuable feedback and BeyondATC is now one of the most popular addons ever in flightsim history by sheer sales numbers.

So what‘s the purpose of this thread from the OP if not getting feedback, and feedback being either factual questions, critical questions, a „looks nice“ or straight out „This doesn‘t seem legit to me, I‘d like to see some concrete stuff, this is not enough information etc.“. That developer came out here in a community forum - not a marketing platform -, so what reaction would you consider appropriate? An acknowledging nodding?

Understood. The foundation is already there, so I'm confident I can get that done. Not sure when, but I'll let you know.

Hi, as for „integration“: You want to e.g. send flight data from your VA homepage / app and then get the results back as data? Or is it just about having the VA as an airline in the database?

What do you mean "go back to real time conditions"? If I use live weather, I'll still have live weather, but the sim-time is x hours later. I'll not change back the time, why would I? I land at the time the actual flight lands too, so x hours later. Same for historical weather, weather from x hours later then.

Yeah it's obvious it's a binding issue.

Honest question - what makes SI "for hard-core guys" and BATC for "casual simmers"?