BATC provides some nice aural immersion, but it's not very good if you don't exclusively fly airliners. I fly all my approaches and landings from TOD to touchdown according to the relevant charts. Not interested in the LLM, since I have "no intentions" (pun intended) to talk to my computer. 

I think the LLM feature is interesting, if it provides more flexibility in terms of the readbacks. Not sure if this is the case. Other than that, I guess it can add somewhat to the immersion to occasionally hear some non-standard chatter on the frequency (which I've heard occasionally), as well as being able to ask for the destination weather etc. 

In terms of the core functionality, I still think FSHud is a bit more accurate when it comes to the ATC part. I do get somewhat early descents with BATC - last flight probably around 15-20nm before the estimated TOD. It wasn't a big deal as I just did a 300ft/min descent until I was on the profile. 

Vectors to final is handled a bit differently with BATC vs FSHud, in that it happens much earlier. IIRC it can happen 20nm out - or even earlier. Usually in the form of "cross xxx waypoint at or above xxx altitude, cleared ILS runway xx report when established". Whereas with FSHud it usually lets you fly the whole STAR, then at some point during the ILS transition, you'll get vectors to the FAP. 

I know this thread isn't meant to be comparing different ATC addons. But that sort of ends up happening in these type of threads anyway 🙂 At the moment I'm using both FSHud and BATC, both have their strengths and weaknesses. It'll be interesting to see what sort of direction each of these will take. 

49 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think the LLM feature is interesting, if it provides more flexibility in terms of the readbacks. Not sure if this is the case. Other than that, I guess it can add somewhat to the immersion to occasionally hear some non-standard chatter on the frequency (which I've heard occasionally), as well as being able to ask for the destination weather etc. 

Agree, the counter argument may be that non standard chatter would not be immersive if its delivered at the wrong time (ie a busy ATSU).  It's good that the dev recognises that, have to see how that pans out when its implemented.  Having said that, in my piloting experience, I have never received a great deal of non standard comms from any ATSU, other than common extended pleasantries and politeness when there wasn't too much traffic around.  I'd be interested to hear other pilot's perspectives on that, maybe the culture is different in different parts of the world?

11 hours ago, Greazer said:

However I also hope BATC will one day add an option to provide Taxi Guidance with a little arrow either in the sim or the dialog window somewhere.  That would be a killer feature I reckon when you want to have an easy taxi to terminal etc.

 

11 hours ago, Farlis said:

What I would like better is a kind of virtual pilot monitoring. Because in real life you have a chart in front of you and not a path drawn for you on it.

Just to be sure: you both are aware BATC has a map specially for taxi guidance?

3 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I know this thread isn't meant to be comparing different ATC addons. But that sort of ends up happening in these type of threads anyway 🙂 At the moment I'm using both FSHud and BATC, both have their strengths and weaknesses. It'll be interesting to see what sort of direction each of these will take. 

I feel its healthy to mention the other addons as the end results are to create and provide an option to the default ATC and AI traffic. If we talk more about all of them in general, it would seem to remove the this or that, ones better than the other, mine vs yours. They all have their strengths and are all taking different paths and with the one time charge of BATC and a free (yet limited) option of SI since there is no option for ATC without a monthly cost from SI, there isnt much reason not to have more than one of these addons and try them all out. Use the version that is best for flight that the user is about to do. Especially if that user likes to mix up short and long, IFR and VFR, small planes and airliners.

 

3 hours ago, mistolip said:

 

Just to be sure: you both are aware BATC has a map specially for taxi guidance?

Never knew such a thing.

28 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Never knew such a thing.

Just hit the arrow next to the earphone on the bottom right and the taxi map will pop up. 

I was about to mention that there's a map, but they need to add a north up feature. I still prefer to look at the airport diagram and try to figure it out on my own.

5 hours ago, mistolip said:

 

Just to be sure: you both are aware BATC has a map specially for taxi guidance?

Does anybody know if the EFB in MSFS 2024 has a map for taxi guidance too with the Lido charts? I thought the EFB in MSFS 2024 with Lido charts would also show the plane location on a map with taxi guidance, but I couldn't really find one for CYVR (I ended up using the BATC map for taxi guidance).  I don't have a subscription to Navigraph, I use the free Lido charts in MSFS 2024.

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

As a non-real life pilot, I find BATC OK, but I am getting frustrated at receiving instructions far too late, or vectors which, for no particular reason, take me miles and miles from my destination.

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Does anybody know if the EFB in MSFS 2024 has a map for taxi guidance too with the Lido charts? I thought the EFB in MSFS 2024 with Lido charts would also show the plane location on a map with taxi guidance, but I couldn't really find one for CYVR (I ended up using the BATC map for taxi guidance).  I don't have a subscription to Navigraph, I use the free Lido charts in MSFS 2024.

Yes!

 

4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Yes!

 

Thanks for the video! But the Lido charts in the EFB are missing the taxiway numbers/identification when you zoom in? In BATC, if the ATC ground controller calls out say, taxiway A, D, hold at D1, etc, the Lido chart in the EFB doesn't show which taxiway is A, which is D, where is D1, etc (it shows the taxiway numbers/identification in BATC though).

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

8 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Thanks for the video! But the Lido charts in the EFB are missing the taxiway numbers/identification when you zoom in? In BATC, if the ATC ground controller calls out say, taxiway A, D, hold at D1, etc, the Lido chart in the EFB doesn't show which taxiway is A, which is D, where is D1, etc (it shows the taxiway numbers/identification in BATC though).

Ah!  Yes, you're right - that's actually a feature I really like in BATC ( also present in FSHUD if I correctly recall ? ).

Strangely in this other example you can see the designators:

 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by jcomm

40 minutes ago, Rocky_53 said:

As a non-real life pilot, I find BATC OK, but I am getting frustrated at receiving instructions far too late, or vectors which, for no particular reason, take me miles and miles from my destination.

I also find very strange instructions with BATC.  I'm not a RW pilot either but for starters yesterday it directs me in the Longitude in 2024 to a runway too short to use for take off.   Before I realize this I'm proceeding to taxi to that threshold and then realized I needed to request a change in runways.  So I call up Clearance, and it essentially asks me what runway I'm requesting, but only offers me the same short runway.   So we had to take off anyway from the longer strip and then BATC says I'm a bad boy and I need to report myself!  And later we did KPSP to KSBA and BATC sends me to Rwy 15L at KSBA which means I have to descend some 4000' in a matter of a few miles.  Clearly BATC doesn't seem to have a clue what I'm flying in.  And yes it's in some ways WORSE than default ATC in 2020 in terms of managing mountainous terrain ATC..and that's saying something 😗

6 hours ago, kevinfirth said:

Agree, the counter argument may be that non standard chatter would not be immersive if its delivered at the wrong time (ie a busy ATSU).  It's good that the dev recognises that, have to see how that pans out when its implemented.  Having said that, in my piloting experience, I have never received a great deal of non standard comms from any ATSU, other than common extended pleasantries and politeness when there wasn't too much traffic around.  I'd be interested to hear other pilot's perspectives on that, maybe the culture is different in different parts of the world?

Depends on how busy the circuit is.  A few pleasantries but fairly official on Port Elizabeth tower (FAPE).  Strictly business only on Port Elizabeth approach and Cape Town East.  On the unmanned VFR frequency there is loads of chat about flying and weekend plans etc.