With SayIntentions one can use real or fictional airlines. Then you could be flying all day IFR or VFR with the “Stoneygate Air” call sign. Sayintentions.ai
1 Like
…and 20 USD/month subscription.
1 Like
Sorry but, no, you won’t be able to use Stoneygate Air in BATC at the moment. For now you have to use an ICAO 3 letter code that has an associated callsign.
There is a possibilty that in future this may be possible as they do have a list of Virtual Airlines, but this isn’t yet fully functional and you have to request it. At the moment I think they’re far too busy with the core programme to entertain more virtual airlines.
I was lucky, there is an unused ICAO code I wanted to use and they created my Virtual Airline using that, so it is possible, just not now.
And just for interest, it is a VERY small team creating this addon, only 2 programmers plus a couple of support people. Also, of course, 2 or 3 testers. So we all have to be patient and enjoy what they’ve achieved so far.
2 Likes
Thanks for the clarification, this is what I thought would be the case. Looking forward to what they can do in the next few years!
Maybe a way to amend the airline ICAO list, within BATC?
That shouldn’t cause a major issue, as each user has their own list, so no issue with confusing others.
I once put up a recommendation on BATC’s page that instead of managing an ever expanding list of virtual airlines there should just simply be a text field on the BATC options to enter your VA code and an other one to enter how it should be said in full. So if your flight plan matches those fields, then BATC would use that.
You can upvote it here
1 Like
I’m on batc and sayintentions (SI). SI is more expensive, and even with premium batc voices, that’s debatable, but is far better, more immersive, more innovative. And he progresses quickly, very quickly, the response times are those of reality now. batc is a pain… he doesn’t understand, you have to repeat your callsign 3 times, speak like an idiot very slowly, you can’t improvise . With SI, you can manage your plane radios, for example, the taxi is very good, and errors are quickly analyzed and corrected. And lots of other immersive benefits…and what about the discord servers of both… IF is super responsive, you can even report your problems in mid-flight…Just give your flight number, and a guy will connect to check. there is good humor and a lot of interaction, listening and taking into account… BATC is pretentious, cold, and not convenient at all.
2 Likes
On the contrary, I just cancelled, perhaps temporarily, my SayIntentions subscription, for three reasons:
-
I primarily fly IFR airliner routes, with some GA VFR thrown in. For about the last ten or so IFR flights, the descent and landing has been rather disastrous. Altitude calls too late, or I’m already on a STAR and it’s telling me to descend via a different STAR a hundred miles away, etc. being cleared to land and then being told to descend to X and intercept localizer, etc. SI seems to focus on other things like Tour Guides that I don’t use, though I respect the dev’s desire to cater to audiences outside of IFR tubeliner flying…they started as VFR only. But I wish they’d spend more resources fixing things like the above. I fully get that that both SI and BATC are works-in-progress, but I feel that BATC is more reliable at this point, given that it is scripted vice AI driven.
-
Traffic seems to be very close with BATC, and I don’t hear much from SI on this front, so will assume that BATC is ahead of the game.
-
However, the deal-breaker for me is that the new SI client forces you to run it as Elevated Administrator. As a .NET Windows app developer in a past life, the elevated admin requirement is a no-go for me, as it goes against least-privilege and zero-trust principles. Per their Discord, this was done to fix microphone issues for presumably a small set of users. No other client that I use (BATC or vPilot for VATSIM) requires elevation. So until we are at least we are given the option to run in User mode and not Elevated admin, this will be a hard pass.
I’ll revisit this perhaps in early 2025, assuming #3 has been changed.
6 Likes
i test the same flight with the two atc , a320 orly bastia… the more catastrophic is batc lol… and by far…traffic very close ? their atc is so problematic, how could you hope a good result ?
It reminds me of the Xplaner at the beginning who came as a guardian of the temple to affirm ad nauseum that MSFS was ■■■■, and the only simu was Xplane… supposedly because of the flight model… which was contradicted by a lot of real pilots but this legend endured as if to allow the last users to convince themselves of the relevance of this sacrifice. I see hardcore simmers on youtube who abandon batc for sayintentions.
but batc is supported by overkill… lol, holy reference
Is your main issue the speech recognition? I have little to no issue on either BATC or SI, though I’m careful to enunciate my words clearly. Maybe BATC is biased to American accents?
I still stand by my experiences as stated above, mostly flying in the US. If #3 is changed, then I’ll likely continue to alternate between SI and BATC.
2 Likes
Anyone ever had the auto responding voice be unrecognised? The auto-responder had to say the same thing again, caught me way off guard lol.
When asking permission to take off? This is a known bug, hopefully to be fixed with the next update.
1 Like
Yes, I’ve reported that on their Discord and was told that’s a known bug and will be fixed.
1 Like
Thanks both, I’ve only noticed it today oddly enough.
1 Like
Traffic progress video’s dropped. Traffic itself still pending 
Bummer that the thumbnails don’t show… Sorry for that 
And
6 Likes
First version of traffic is released to supporters!
Together with VR panel and other updates. Looking forward to test later this evening.
Also fair to say its a alpha version with all that contains, its still is not full product - a lot of things like enroute traffic and seperation comes later.
5 Likes
No enroute traffic? So does it just evaporate after it takes off?
1 Like
What features are available?
Traffic data for the globe based on live traffic from an historic week of data, limited to any aircraft flying IFR with an active transponder
Ground, departure, arrival traffic to and from the airports you have planned in Simbrief for your flight
Traffic fully managed by Beyond ATC including parking, runway and procedure assignments
Parking spots represent the actual parking spot of the aircraft in real life, irrespective of the parking assignments in the airport scenery
Support for FSLTL, AIG and FS Traffic models - at least one of which must be installed
Initial separation handling of aircraft at injection
Ability to use premium, basic or turn off voices entirely for traffic, separately from the voice setting being used for your the player.
Traffic managed by ATC out to 200nm from the player even without those aircraft having to be present in the simulator, saving valuable sim resources.
A slider that limits traffic based on a time range from our data set - the higher the slider, the further out the time range.
What features will come in future builds?
Enroute traffic not flying to or from either of the airports you have planned.
Any ground services, in particular a tug for pushback
Full separation handling through the entire traffic aircraft flight
Continued improvements to handling procedures
Hmmm, so right now it’ll only have traffic to and from the airports in the current simbrief flightplan…
5 Likes
I would guess that it eventually will. It might be they follow a path if you are within 200nm range, just not programmed to go to an airport - but thats my guess.