malichek

I'd treat it as a live/default traffic issue first, not necessarily something you changed locally. When the sim's own online traffic goes quiet it can look exactly like that at otherwise busy airports. For that reason I usually keep an injector option around for offline flying. FSLTL is a good quick check, and AIG is still useful if you care about model and schedule coverage. If those inject traffic normally while the default/live option is empty, that points more to the sim service or data side than your install.

Good list. For normal airline ops I would add briefing and verification habits more than extra manoeuvres: check the route, constraints, fuel, alternates, weather, and then keep checking that the aircraft is still doing what you think it is doing. The big practical skill for me is energy management. Descent planning, speed control, when to intervene in VNAV, and when to stop trying to rescue a bad approach and just go around. That probably teaches more than another perfect autoland. I would also put radio and ATC workflow on the list, even offline. Clearance changes, vectors, late runway changes and holds are where a flight starts feeling less scripted.

I can see why SayIntentions appeals if separation and taxi conflict handling are the main priority. For my own use, the subscription side is still the sticking point, because I do not fly enough every single month to make that feel painless. That is why I still judge all of these ATC tools mostly on the boring parts: descent planning, vectors, sequencing, and what they do when traffic is actually around. BATC has very good radio ambience, no argument there, but once I am babysitting the arrival and traffic awareness myself, it stops feeling like the main ATC tool and starts feeling more like background chatter.

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.

I have seen similar odd behavior with BATC, especially around descent planning and late vectors. When it works, it can be very impressive, but for IFR I still care more about predictable vectoring and separation than the voice side. That is basically why I have been using FSHud more for offline IFR lately. It is less flashy in some areas, but I find the approach handling and traffic flow easier to trust. For BATC specifically I would probably do what kerosene31 said: keep the planned approach ready and treat the ATC instructions as advisory if they start sending you away from anything sensible.

If the aircraft disappear right as they reach or contact the runway, I would separate that from the airport layout/taxi data first. Taxi tuning usually matters once the aircraft is trying to route along the airport network; an instant despawn sounds more like the traffic/ATC injector deciding the flight is complete, stuck, or no longer manageable. I would try the same arrival at one or two other airports with similar traffic levels and, if SI has any traffic/debug log, check whether it is removing the aircraft deliberately. If they can taxi normally at some airports but vanish at Bari, then the local airport data becomes the more likely suspect.

That regional phraseology answer is good to hear. For offline IFR, that sort of detail matters to me almost as much as the voices themselves, because it changes how believable the whole flight feels once you start crossing between Europe and the US. One thing I'm curious about is airport/runway configuration. Will VoxATC mostly take the runway choice from live weather and the sim, or will the user be able to influence which runways/procedures are actually in use? Bad runway choices can spoil an otherwise decent ATC session pretty quickly.

The ideal version of this would be a filter that says: show me airports I own, then sort them by what I have not flown recently. Addon Linker's map is useful for seeing coverage, and Volanta is good for the history and aircraft side, but they do not quite meet in the middle yet. Until something dedicated does it, a simple My Maps layer or Addon Linker map plus SimBrief route planning is probably still the least painful workaround.

I would treat twist rudder as a workable compromise, not a full replacement for pedals. For taxi and airliners it can be fine, because you are not usually asking much from the rudder axis once airborne. The place where it gets ugly is small GA in a crosswind, where the same hand is trying to do aileron, elevator and rudder at once. If you stay with twist, a small dead zone and a flatter curve near the center helps a lot. Also worth checking for any spiking in the axis, because a slightly dirty or worn twist sensor can make landings feel much worse than they should.

I'm mostly still flying the PMDG 737, so I'm watching the iFly from a little distance, but steady updates like this are a good sign. For me the interesting part is less the version number and more whether the normal IFR behavior keeps getting tightened up: LNAV/VNAV, approach handling, and the everyday quirks you only see after a few sectors.

Reliability is a big part of the ATC choice for me. Nice voices are good, but on an IFR flight a disconnect at the wrong moment can ruin the whole session. That is one reason I still lean toward the more boring option that stays predictable with vectors and sequencing. I can live with less personality in the voices much more easily than I can live with losing ATC halfway through an arrival.

I have been using the historical option more than the live one, because most of my sim time is late evening. If I load European live traffic at that hour, many airports are naturally much quieter than I want for an airline flight. With FSHud Traffic I can move it back to an earlier part of the same day and get the daytime departure/arrival flow instead. I checked a few airports against the FlightRadar24 history view and the traffic was close enough for sim use, certainly enough to make the airport feel like it was operating in a real busy period. It does not mean every livery or aircraft subtype will be perfect, but the time-shifted traffic is a very useful feature if you cannot usually fly during the busy real-world hours.

I'd take both, honestly. A proper 737-200 would be a nice change from the modern magenta workflow, especially if the developer gets the older systems and engine management right. But I also agree on the 182/206 side. A solid old Cessna utility aircraft with good systems would probably get a lot of actual use, not just screenshots.

This is exactly the kind of thing that matters more than it sounds on paper. A bad taxiway network can make AI traffic and third-party ATC look much worse than they really are, because everything starts going wrong before the flight even gets moving. I haven't tried your files yet, but the idea is very useful. I use AIG with FSHud, and airports with clean taxi routing, gate assignments and runway data are a big part of whether the traffic flow feels believable. Nice to see someone tackling the default-airport side instead of only blaming the ATC apps.

I actually hope it stays as a small single-purpose tool. Not every useful sim utility needs to become a whole product with accounts, installers and a support burden. The browser/local-storage approach is part of the appeal for me: open it, get a sensible short flight, send it to SimBrief, then close it again. That fits the way a lot of us use the sim on weeknights.