I requested IFR from ground directly. They gave it to me and told me to contact them for push and start.
I contacted them for start and they said I wasn’t anywhere near 13L for departure clearance. I double checked that I was still on ground frequency and I was.
I started anyway, and asked for taxi and received the aforementioned tongue lashing.
Ground even gave me departure clearance. I never even tuned to tower.
It was just broken. Dunno what else to say.
Unless your log file is edited to remove lines, it looks like you stated you were ready to taxi.
Did you actually ask first to push and start?
Not edited. The below was copied from the bug report on BATC’s Discord.
Yes. I asked to start, but not push, as it wasn’t necessary.
Speech Transcription Raw: Kikoto American three two four ready for engine start.
Speech Transcription AI Processed: Kikoto, American 324 ready for engine start.
------------------------------
RUNNING AI Controller SCRIPT: AICommunicationSystem.LLMPilotRequestScript
ParseResponse: input: Chico Tower American 324, we don't see you at assigned departure runway as yet. Contact Ground.
text: Chico Tower American 324, we don't see you at assigned departure runway as yet. Contact Ground.
speak: Chico Tower American 3 twenty-fore, we don't see you at assigned departure runway as yet. Contact Ground.
[time: Tuesday 20:18, lat: 39.8005, lon: -121.8576, alt: 239, hdg: 326, spd: 0, gs: 0, lastFix: RunwayDepart, currFix: Vector_Departure_1, inVector: True, com1: 121.900(On), com2: 121.500(On), transponder: 1652(On)]
Chico Tower American 324, we don't see you at assigned departure runway as yet. Contact Ground.
I was tuned to ground at KCIC – 121.900
Dunno what that “Kikoto” nonsense is about, but it should be irrelevant anyhow.
I just did a flight. It appeared that the injected traffic was smoother. Will need to do a few more flights to confirm.
Good news then 
Kikoto is in Uganda from what I can tell, but BATC does know where you are based on the lat/long that it reports. Very odd.
Did a short hop from MYNN to KOPF in the BBJ yesterday. A northerly cross-wind 005/15G23 was reported - BATC selected 09L (although 30 would have been preferential… and this is what Simbrief suggested as well) - was given the OLAHS3 STAR and then bad vectors for the visual - basically not possible to intercept the LOC without overshooting and reinterpreting from the other side.
So it seems that BATC logic does not consider the drift angle when providing vectors. ICAO also states that intercept vector to final should not exceed 45deg to prevent overshooting. Most aircraft AFCSs are also not capable of clean capture with big angles…
So vectors still remain a big issue in BATC. I still do not understand why… and pointless to point it out repeatedly.
Disclaimer: I am only a PPL with approx. 120 hours irl and have zero experience flying ifr.
I know it is not what is supposed to happen, but I have learned to simply make a turn a little before the late turn call out. batc usually has me heading at a 90 to intercept. batc always tells me to turn to intercept a little late. I know this, so I make a turn that puts me at about 45 degrees to the intercept. The batc call usually comes within 5-15 seconds of this. It’s close, but always just a little late.
It doesn’t bother me, but I understand why others are annoyed. I am sure they will fix it eventually.
Of course I could easily vector myself - but for what do I need BATC then ?
What you have discibed seems to be true in what BATC does and the probable outcome, especially the effects of wind drift etc. - and every PPL has used an E6Bcalculator.
Now they apparently have 40 real pilots helping with the development of VFR but they still can’t get the vectoring right. It is always a hit and miss situation with BATC.
I know it is EA… but honestly ?
I have said this many times and I will keep doing it until the day that it is fixed… sorry people.
Your comments keep on carrying a certain kind of load, which makes them a bit heavy to digest.
I mean: they are three developers. They are asking rl pilots like myself to help out with the local VFR-phraseology. You also don’t know whether they are full time developers, or that they are doing this beside a job, or have other obligations.
We are sponsoring a passion project here, not a professional development studio with tens of people.
So if it is such “a heavy load to digest” that conjures defensiveness there maybe a slight point or uncomfortable truth to what I keep on mentioning.
The biggest red flag for me is, that nobody of the dev-team wants to make a clear commitment or statement and say: “we are going to fix that” or to say “we are unable to fix that due to limitations of the Sim” if that is really the case. This is referring to my vectoring example. There are obvious flaws in the vectoring model logic. You can make a vector logic with a procedure, that will guarantee a good vector onto final with an acceptable intercept angle with info that is availiable from the sim (e.g. runway driection, tdz location and elevation, spot wind for drift calculation etc) and to consider a few seconds lag in the speech engine most of the time. (i.e. Do a parallel course reversal to 6-10+NM centerline fix at correct AGL for 3deg path to intercept final approach from whatever direction the arriving player aircraft requires, to ensure a nice approach clear of terrain…).
Puristically, the IFR phraseology is already borderline slang (i.e. there is loads of room for improovement) and as to local VFR phraseology: sounds like they are busy opening another can of worms here. I would rather strongly suggest to get some official literature where phraseology is defined for reference. This is found in official radio license courseware and books. But who am I to suggest such an “evil” proposal ? The question is, will it sound professional or will it stay an amateuristic half baked product ? (SI is even worse in this regard…)
I am not willing to sponsor my time and being (ab)used for somebody else’s gain to their conditions - this is what is happening on their Discord. If people are happy to go along with it, that’s fine. i will not.
At the end of the day of course they can choose to focus on what ever they want - it is what it is. I would prefer it exceeding expectations rather than falling short in key aspects.
Things are never black and white…
Nevertheless I conclude I am am glad to continue the use and enjoyment this app.
And this happens to be exactly what they are receiving from us. The official standards for US, UK, and DO, with some allowed deviations for variety’s sake.
It’s over and out from me to you now, as this gets us nowhere, and leads to repeating grievances. I’m happy that you still can appreciate the app, and patience (years) is warranted to get everything solved. If ever…
Boy Ghostly, you certainly have a great disposition and a very measured response to some very over the top demands and expectations from somebody that clearly has no programming experience and no investment in the finances and choices of running a software business. The product is great and is getting greater by the day. I am continually amazed by the rapid advances from such a small programming and support staff.
C’mon now! You can’t in one sentence call the developers who made one of the best addons for FS a “bunch of amateurs” and in the very next sentence claim to “not have any grievances”.
Respectfully, that’s neither honest nor nice.
It is a really great addon and I do not dispute that. I also recommend everyone to use it.
I did not accuse them being amateurs . it just how the outfit was described above… so take it with a pinch of salt ? And yes I find the model a bit strange to rely so much on customer input and then being picky about it.
I also do not honestly believe that the vectoring issues are unsolvable and that it does not receive the attention I think it deserves. It should be possible because the system is already capable of getting it right at least 50% of the time - but it is still hit and miss - I would expect a 95% success rate acceptable. I believe getting the player aircraft from A to B without issues should be first priority before adding all those other functions - which are very nice to have, but play a secondary role.
I’m sorry, but I have to correct you again, because what you’re saying is misinformation based on your own interpretation, not on facts.
The quoted message is wrong on many levels. You clearly misunderstand what early access is, what the team is actually doing, where we come from, the amount of work involved, and the role feedback plays in our process. We never said that issues would never be fixed, and we never said that we do not care about problems. You are projecting your own interpretation onto how we work, and honestly, that’s not okay.
Once again, you’re complaining because you feel that your issues are not being prioritized. For every issue you believe should be number one, I can easily find ten others that people are just as angry about and would also claim should be the top priority. You have no idea how much feedback we receive, or how contradictory it often is, even within our professional group. Do you really think it’s easy to deal with all of that?
Please keep this as an opinion. A wrong one, in our view, but still an opinion. Don’t try to present it as reality.
You had the opportunity to join our professional feedback group, and you chose to leave the Discord because, at the end of the day, you couldn’t accept that development priorities differ from yours for many reasons you may not be able to see or understand from the outside. We accept feedback and we listen, but don’t expect us to follow every suggestion within the next few weeks. This takes time.
If you’re not willing to be patient, then maybe waiting until we leave early access would have been a better choice, when you would have a legitimate reason to expect a certain level of stability and correctness.
Well - that is also your view and that is fine. But you misjudge me. I understand very well that things are different on your side and of course you have thousands of other issues to deal with.
First of all, maybe I am getting bored but I am not angry. That is projection.
Instead of writing long replies - why can’t you just say like you did now: we will fix the vectors. Simple answer - nothing more for me to rinse and repeat. If it is not fixed in 3 months, maybe I will care to mention it again as a reminder…
It would have been a better gesture in your favour to reach out a long time ago and ask me personally for my feedback and input. And yes, I actually have the arrogance to say that.
Geez. This thread. I wish it would cool down in here.
Note that the heat seems to be egged on by a limited set of recent thread contributors. A very small set, in fact. Fortunately, the forum software allows us to hide or block posts from disruptors.
Folks, this is a friendly reminder to please keep your posts respectful and in line with the forum’s Code of Conduct.
Improve the Discussion
We recognize that our forums are an official place for feedback on Microsoft Flight Simulator, whether it is positive, neutral, or negative. Help us make this a great place for discussion by always adding something constructive to the discussion, whether big or small. We do not remove posts for being negative; however, we do remove posts that are toxic or non-constructive (click here for specific examples on how to improve the discussion). Non-constructive posts do not add to the community and include but are not limited to:
- Being intentionally disruptive
- Derailing threads
- Creating threads for the sole purpose of promoting other threads or enticing users to vote on specific issues or wishlist items
- Creating posts or threads intended to cause unrest in the forums
- Bumping threads (except occasional reminders in Multiplayer events)
- Discussions that deviate from Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Posting memes that break any of the other rules addressed in the Code of Conduct
- Off-topic posts
- Spamming
- Using AI to generate low-effort content