Watsi

You're right. That could have an effect. I fly with a CI between 24 and 36. Depends on the airline I fly ...and also on my mood. 🙂 The low cost world isn't mine... Yesterday I had a pretty good descent (with STAR), also a quite in time initial instruction (LICR). I don't mind if BATC isn't 'by the book' all the time. In the real world, controllers tend to not care about your spoilers 😉 and respect their airspace-traffic first. That's ok. But with BATC it is kind of intentional / programmed and all the way. Today I had a flight into EDDM (without STAR). I tried again, for testing reasons, to do exactly what ATC tells me. Was too high all the way down. I even 'spoilered' all the last third of my descent to get ready for approach. But then, BATC actually kept me on 6000 until after the turn to final on 26R (which was very short to GUDEG). Had to intercept the 26R ILS too high and deep dive under the slope. EDIT: and yes I do call for descent where it fits me. But all I get from BATC is a runway and no descent instructions. That happens also often, even when BATC already told me to call, when ready for descent. When I then call ready, I only get the runway but no descent. That was also 'fixed' with 1.8.14 and came back with 1.8.18 (and later).

Even when flying in ICAO land most of the time, I like to leave the STAR 'open' and get vectored into the approach from time to time (about half of my flights). So these bugs appear very clearly to me. Using STARs, yes I agree (I said that all the time), this works much better. At least most of the times. Still, also with STARs, I would say the initial descent instruction is too late for the 737 (with the latest BATC EA version again).

I actually can't remember. Can you show me that? For sure I didn't "jump on you".

You fly 320s, don't you. Try a vectored descent / approach (no STAR) with a PMDG 737. Or another 'more slippery' plane. You'll see what people complain about... I was so glad when 1.8.14 came out. The descent instructions came earlier. The controller was more flexible, had more of a 'situational awareness'. And for the first time ATC monitored your descent not only at the next waypoint but through the whole route/process of descent and gave you the next, lower alt at any point. And you didn't have the constant feeling of, how should I get my plane lose alt and speed in time. You didn't have to use full spoilers for nearly the whole descent. Even descents direct to a rwy heading (when you already came in around the same hdg the landing runway is) worked kind of. And then came 1.8.18. And all is back to bad. ATC asking you, if you're ready for descent, you say yes, and then... nothing, no descent instructions. Initial descent is way too late. Most if the descent phase is 4000, 6000 feet or even more above. RIght now, I get speed instructions to slow down to 250 right after initial descent on every descent (a new one, so it is actually getting worse). And no time and space to get settled with your aircraft before final approach. If you actually would follow BATCs instructions you would have to fly one or two racetracks before final to get your plane to the correct alt and speed. If there's some development in that matter and it get's reverted back to the old... (yes I know, 'word not alowed' 🙂), you get frustrated. Why not keep the good move and work forward from that on... (and don't tell me some developer babbel-buzzwords. I'm in that business myself for living) You said earlier, sometimes it is two steps forward, and one step back. Well, I understand that. That's how developing works sometimes. But regarding the non-STAR-approaches (vectoring), it is actually one step forward and one step back. In another words, BATC is standing still for years now (at least in this regard).

They had a version, the one before the latest big patch to 1.8.18 (I think it was 1.8.14), where the descent path and the managment by the controler was much much better than before. Right now, with the latest version, they're back to the old word not allowed again. I'm frustrated. I also stopped communicating with them on their discord. Really toxic there.

Man, with all the features and updates, GSX got so complex, that someone new with it is totally screwed in finding out what went wrong (if something's wrong). I use it for a long time now and even made many profiles for airports at fs.to. But I'm no longer motivated to do so. If you use all the features available, when creating a profile, you need 1h just for one position only.

Thanks, I thought it's also about controller settings, since it says it in the describtion.

I would also be interested, if you can port MSFS2020 controller settings to MSFS2024 controller settings.

He's a troll. Let him do his thing, Adamski. Ignore him until he's gone. Some people don't discuss. They're doing monologues and don't listen. Not worth it.

As far as I see it (speculation!), your hardware doesn't affect the quality of PG that much (if you don't use a rig from 1998 😊 ). Maybe the amount of VRAM from your GPU is a bit of a factor (16GB VRAM is better than 8). But that's it. Also, it's not about your connection. 50Mbit, 100Mbit or more, it doesn't matter. I think it is indeed (still) the response time / bandwith of data, spit out by the MS/Azure server(s) you're connected to. I think, that is the regression you see. So you can do whatever you want on your side, you can't do nothing to make PG look better, until MS is willing to give PG/TIN a bit more priority on their servers. EDIT: and of course there also could be some issues on the way from the Azure server to your PC. There can be many kinds of bottlenecks in between. But this is also nothing you can change (except for using a VPN to check any differences).

I always was a critic of BATC, especially regarding the TOD and the following descent path, especially when not using a STAR (getting vectored). But my own experience is actually - since one of the last 2 or 3 updates - that it got much better. They did make some backoffice changes in the descend calculation and how the pilot is handled (when no alt restrictions are on the way down), that are helping the pilot to have a bit more 'freedom' to manage their descend accordingly. Approaching with a STAR (especially when the STAR has any kind of alt restriction), BATC works best - but it always did. But I like getting vectored, even if there are STARs available. It's a bit more 'dynamic'. So I leave out any STAR nearly half of my approaches. Even at big airports. And I think BATC got better recently. Not perfect - but clearly better than before. What BATC still hardly can accomplish: vectoring to a runway, you already flew direct in when nearing the airport. Example: fly from EDDF to EGLL, with the 27 rwys in use at EGLL - and don't use any STAR in the SB flightplan. You'll come from the east and fly directly into the rwy heading at around 270°. Should be easy for BATC just to vector you straight in/down, one may think. But it seems not, at least not with the alts. (btw: I don't know how BATC is performing in the US, since I hardly fly there and some procedures are different in FAA land)

Be cautious: Men in Black, for sure.

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

Am I stupid or are there many items, I already had in the 1.0.2 update?? 1.0.3: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/185577-a340-600-pro-update-103-out-now/ 1.0.2: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/185438-aerosoft-a340-600-professional-update-v102-released/

I don't know if the stored database of scheduled traffic is from FR24. But from whoever it is, these databases do cost (the developer) big money. That's not a $150 thing. So buying a new set every year is no option for BATC. That's why it is a bit older (not older than 2 or 3 years, I guess). So if you fly the sim out of real time, deactivate the live traffic and use the scheduled traffic database. Then you have the correct traffic for your time, set in the sim. (btw @turnandbank: you do sound more and more like a FSHUD spokesperson. 😉)

That depends on how the injector is programmed to work. In other words, these are questions, the addon developer has to decide on. You can decide to remove the (static) plane on the parking spot and free it for the incoming/live plane. Or you can decide to use another gate. By the way: if there is a static plane, implemented within the airport scenery. There's nothing the injector can do about it. Cause the injector even doesn't know, that there is a static plane implented in the scenery, so you will get 'double planes' at this position. That's why I always appreciate scenery developers, who offer an option to deactivate their 'in scenery' static planes. So the best situation for using those injection addons is an airport with no static planes on any position and no static planes are injected from somewhere else than BATC.

My assumption on how it works: 'live' traffic doesn't really spawn into the sim live. Like if a plane drives on taxiway Papa near P2 in real life, it won't spawn at this exact location in the sim and moves forward live 'like you see a live show'. BATC (or other tools) just use plain (plane) data. For example: aircraft-type, airlne, flightnumber, departure and destination and finaly the (departure) time. This data will be used by the injector (in some cases the MSFS own injector, which has flaws, in some cases the addon's own injector, like with BATC). Now the injector injects the plane into the sim. Which doesn't mean, the plane will be set at the exact parking spot (it sits in the live situation) but at any fitting spot (airline and size). Then the injector lets the plane do its job. Off blocks at a specific time, taxiing to the (in sim) active runway, depart and fly to its destination. When you're in cruise the injector checks regulary new data from the provider and places planes along your flight route, according to the live situation. Which then are again getting handled by the injector. So just pure data. No live data or movement from the exact live position of a plane, but still pretty accurate.

Would be nice to hear some feedback from the Experimental users/supporters. 🙂

They used an API which was open for everyone. And now FR24 closed it. And no money was made with this project. These are just a bunch of people doing that on their free time and provide it for free for everyone. That's the whole story.

At some time in the future, guys... At some time, 'The Sims' will be in there. 🙃

Getting live traffic from FR24 (or here, Navigraph) is not as complicated. Yes, you can get data where aircraft XY is located right now. But actually you don't need that precision, especially if you have your own injector (like e.g. BATC does). You just need plain data: what aircraft what airline from where to where and at what time The injector can do the rest. And can sequence on its own.

Well, with some update (I think it was end of last year), they switched to MSFS2024 textures for MSFS2020. So yes, the original 2020 ground textures were better than the 2024 ones. For those, who stayed on 2020, it was a significant change to the worse.

He actually lives near Frankfurt (GER) these days. I guess he lived in Switzerland for some time. And I'm pretty sure he was in the US for a year or so during his school days. That's where he got his thick american accent, and now he either can't get rid of it or is proud of it.

I hope you will give us some results, when the survey is done. 🙂

Well, this comparison (SI=BMW and BATC=Skoda) is a bit off, to be fair. Both addons have their flaws and issues, they're both "unfinished" in one or the other way. And their level of luxury is more like BMW vs. Audi - with one being significantly cheaper. (for me, taking the level of completion into account, it's a bit more like a Skoda vs a Golf, to be honest). For sure both will grow up with time going by. The only question is: when will they be ready to move out of their parents house.