BATC has potential, but is a long way from being satisfactory. Like other posters, it sometimes stops working correctly during a flight and there is a lack of ATC atmosphere, i.e. other ATC calls and responses. But, I will stick with and hope that we can get VFR flying, realistic background ATC, improved stability and have to option to use different flight planning tools.
1 Like
Yes, itâs cool. I tested it in the morning. The controller even asked me if I want to proceed with the STAR and runway as from my OFP or change that.
1 Like
That will be fixed when they introduce AI traffic into public builds which will be soon, if I understood correctly.
2 Likes
Very nice set of changes here:
I really hope the continue work on the procedures though. Runway change requests are a great first step but we also need to be able to request different procedures (e.g., request the ILS instead of a visual or vice versa).
6 Likes
Just tried the ârunway changeâ feature, KSLC to KDEN. KDEN has four north/south runways, and two east/west, so perfect for this test.
While I was still on with Salt Lake Center, it said expect LONGZ3 arrival, RW 16L, both of which were in the Simbrief-generated flight plan. The BATC menu now has an option âRequest Runway Changeâ (or similar), so I tried multiple changes back and forth between 16R, 16L, and 17R, all worked fine. I tried 36R, but ATC said RW not active. Once you say ârequest runway changeâ, the menu shows the choices available, which is three of the four N/S runways. As is always the case in BATC, the lower-left menu will show all of the valid choices.
Slightly unrealistic I think to have Salt Lake Center approve runway changes, vice Denver Center or Approach. I think you need to request runway changes before ToD, but Iâll have to verify that.
All in all, great feature. I wish I had this last night flying into KMCO/Orlando. I had to land on 35R, which is super-far from my gate. 
@DrVenkman3876 agreed that the next logical improvement would be to request the actual procedure.
2 Likes
Sometimes the overlaying Center will call and ask what runways are in use so they can pass it along to the aircraft that might be 100 miles out or more (the aircraft should be able to get the ATIS though). Mostly when the wind is calm and the pilot wants an opposite direction approach to the active runway.
As far as Center allowing a runway change without approach approval at a tower controlled airport, thatâs not realistic. Now if itâs uncontrolled and Center is providing approach services, the pilot can usually get any request depending on the traffic in the vicinity or at the airport.
1 Like
Thanks Alpine. I was thinking that there might be something in that direction, but for the developers, it might help to have an output option within the program itself, being an external application.
Well, I am certainly going to get it as it looks a good half way house to what I am used to, i.e. live ATC that isnt Vatsim
Thanks for taking time to respond, it is appreciated.
1 Like
If you are a regular Vatsim user (like I am), youâll find it ok. Couple with the FS-chatter app and itâs not too bad at all.
@DrVenkman3876 Glad to see they have added runway selection. Hopefully procedures are indeed not too far behind - it is the most upvoted feature request on their forum. Once thatâs in place it will be properly useable for me again.
1 Like
Well, I took the plunge and purchased yesterday. One flight done and I think it is great. A few quirks to learn but in all the flight was a success and added a layer to my workload that made the flight enjoyable from start to finish. I got switched from a STAR to a âVectors to ILSâ approach and it added enough to keep me on my toes in much the same way as a live ATC service.
Setup was fairly straightforward once I had my headset configured and the ability to move the BATC screen to another monitor was a great help.
One thing that did amuse me was that I was given a climb to FL260 in the Duke, which was 2000 higher than I expected, but on requesting a descent was told in a slightly acid tone by the girlie ATCO " You are already at FL260 so STAY THERE!" It reminded me of the old exchange between aircraft and female ATC leading to the non handling pilot asking âWasnt I marrried to you once?â
In that case, you would ârequest new altitudeâ vice request descent. The menu in the lower left of the BATC screen will show all valid requests for your current state.
Welcome to the club! Itâs improved quite a bit the last 2-4 weeks for quite a few things. I alternate between this and SayIntentions (and VATSIM).
1 Like
I saw that one later in the flight thanks, but it is a measure of the success of BATC that I flew at all. I had expected merely to get it set up and deal with any Gremlins, but there werent any and before I knew it I was opening the taps to blast off for Cardiff.
For years in FS2020 I have been used to waiting for Wednesday nights where the group that I fly with provide a live ATC service from end to end but now, I can experience something similar at any time to suit me. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
2 Likes
May I ask how these compare in your opinion and what makes you alternate between them? I canât decide which one I want, or whether I should just wait for MSFS2024 and see if they improved ATC.
I do this too. If Iâm flying VFR GA planes I always use SI. If itâs an IFR situation I use either SI or BATC (mostly SI as itâs a subscription and I want to make my money worth it). If Iâm flying airliners Iâm using either FSHud or BATC. And if Iâm using BATC in such situation I use it in button mode.
Lots to cover, so here goes:
Cost - BATC is one time charge ($30 USD). If you want to use premium voices, then you have to periodically refill your credits, otherwise no more fees. SI is now $19.95 USD a month, lowered from $30 just recently.
SI is both VFR and IFR, BATC in only IFR for now. SIâs IFR has really improved recently.
BATC is âon railsâ and scripted. All possible requests/responses are found in a list on the app; if you try to ask ATC something that isnât in the list, then it will not know what to do. SI is AI driven, more free form. For example, youâve always been able to request a different runway in SI, whereas BATC just introduced that feature last week.
The premium voices on BATC are amazing, with worldwide accents. The standard voices are pretty good. There are only a small handful of voices on SI, and youâll sometimes get the same voice when handed off from one ATC to another. Huge advantage to BATC here.
BATC has âauto respondâ and âauto-tune radiosâ, so if you just want to fly and have your copilot do all radios, you can do soâŠvery helpful in task-saturated situations, as well as if you want to step away on a long haul. SI does not have either feature.
Both have gotten much better over the last month or so. They both still have quirks. SI has a ârate your flightâ survey at the end of each flight, and itâs worth taking the time to fill it out.
Neither have traffic yet, which will be the panacea of both these products. If you use a traffic injector like FSLTL, SI will warn you of nearby traffic, but thatâs about it. You can use an injector in BATC, but it only makes the sky less lonely; BATC does not see the traffic.
I use both, just because I like to tinker and test, and show support to innovators. Sometimes I flip a virtual coin to decide which I want to use on a given flight.
Hope this helpsâŠlet me know if you have further questions.
10 Likes
But BATC is making a traffic injector that will be available soon, so we wonât be alone in the skies anymore.
Correct. I think traffic might be coming soon to the âSupportersâ, paid early-alpha testers. Will guess itâll be a few months away for regular users.
I have a traffic injector already ⊠the built in live traffic. I just wanted BATC to communicate with that. Their choice to use âhistoricâ traffic data and not live traffic is a deal breaker for me, but they already have my moneyâŠoh well.
Ride report:
Used it on last nightâs stream, first time since the update. Took the Duke from Columbus GA (KCSG) to Shelby, NC (KEHO). My flight plan was direct Spartanburg VOR (SPA), direct KEHO.
Clearance was good.
Taxi was interesting. It assigned taxiways that donât exist - this is likely due to the sim having incorrect taxiways pretty much everywhere (more strong reason for the World Hub to exist).
Takeoff and cruise no problems except one instance where it said â604CF, expectâ I didnât answer. It repeated â604CF, expect.â I replied with a roger. It repeated â604CF, expect,â so I repeated â604CF, expect,â which was acceptable. So⊠expect what? lol. That was a little ridiculous.
Approach, hereâs where it got bad: I purposely let it continue saying nothing until I was about 30nm from my destination, still at FL230, knowing full well it was getting me into trouble. Spartanburg VOR is about 20 miles from the airport and is a good feeder fix to the IAF of several approaches, which is why I filed it. The approach in use (RNAV 5) is just under 8mm from SPA. Unfortunately ATC did not start my descent until I passed SPA, so I needed a descent rate of about 10,000 fpm to make the IAF. Funnier, they still gave me the PTAC and approach clearance as I blew right across final, still about 15,000â too high.
I opted to fly back to SPA, do a couple turns in hold to lose altitude, then came back and shot the NDB runway 23, because thatâs more fun. I didnât tell anyone and didnât get yelled at for it.
I recognize that thereâs a command to request descent, but I really shouldnât have to use it - itâs not like ATC forgot me in the midst of all the other traffic itâs not handling.
So, itâs good in several ways, but still needs a lot of work in others. Iâll continue giving it a shot.
I have been using BATC for about a month now for nearly all my IFR flights. I find it to be a good option for those of us who get a bit frustrated with VATSIM. Of course it lacks the real world and highly personal feel of VATSIM, but it also obviates long periods flying on UNICOM and the need to stay in present time (as opposed to time compression) in the case of long distance flights in mods like the PDMG 777.
Initially, BATC could be maddening, especially when the AI repeatedly failed to understand my call sign, but the developers appear largely to have cleaned this issue up in recent updates. And I do wish that the cost of premium voices were more reasonable.
My current issues with BATC are two fold. First is the fact that it wonât recognize requests that are not on its prescribed list. For example, it often will not let me change to an altitude that is not on the list, even though doing so might be essential to make a logical descent along a STAR. Similarly, I would appreciate the ability to do DTOs of my own choosing or otherwise change my pre-filed flight plans. Second, BATC often leaves me far too little time to descend and often, I find myself extending my arrivals (with the AI telling me I am off course).
I have a sense that the developers will conquer these problems in due course. And of course I look forward to BATCâs introduction of AI traffic communication.
If you have VNAV you can announce you are ready for descent if you hit your TOD before ATC clears you. Then they will clear you to descend. Whenever I have a STAR in my flight plan, I always get clearance to descend along the STAR.