Claudius_

It's different here: BATC reads my flight plan, which I edited in Simbrief. I would be happy if BATC took full responsibility to plan the entire flight plan, not just the STAR. Anyway, I did a flight from LiRF to EDDF with the cargo TFDi MD-11, and it worked well. But I'm not a BATC enthusiast, sometimes this new BATC feels blind to me. At EDDF, on runway 7L, the altitude to intercept the ILS/GLS is 5,000 feet, so why is BATC telling me 4,000 feet? For now, though, I do like how it manages air traffic through FLTL.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to explain, because your claimed transparency doesn't seem all that transparent. In simulated flight planning, we sometimes have to adjust the STAR to accommodate the aircraft's requirements as well as discrepancies between the simulator and Navigraph. That's why the older Pro-ATC was certainly more flexible in that regard. I’m also free to share my opinions here and ask for help if I need it. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm not asking for help—I'm simply sharing my experience as a new BATC user. Yes, I'm reading the tutorials, but they contain some errors, confusing the prerequisites for MSFS2000 and MSFS24, along with other small but substantial issues. These tutorials are typically not updated, and it seems the creators were more focused on making money quickly. Let see what happens in the future.

This morning I did an EDDM/LIRF flight in the Fenix A320, BATC followed the flightplan as filed. But it doesn't seem flexible like Pro-ATC was, because if you change something to the STAR and the approach from the original Simbrief flightplan, BATC seems to go crazy. I want try the experimental branch, I have the base package, is it possible?

I'm new at BATC, I bought it yesterday and it failed both the STARs and the approaches in the 2 flights. Good catch! Now I try to reduce the arrival density at 2 because I see a lot of traffic around me, the ATC is controling well the other flights except mine.

It's done for people that needs to manoveur their joysticks without worrying about energy retention. 😁

Youn can't compare combat sim vs. civilian sim, in my experience I see that the combat sim airplanes generally lack realism in landings, take off, engine management, and a flight model that consent you to have a lot of energy. Just compare the A2A and the DCS P-51: completely different airplanes. In MSFS24 I find a good without bullets compromise.

maybe I had a crosswind, more tests tomorrow.

Tried this thing just for few TO and landings, it's interesting. But landing is more difficult than the take off, it should be the contrary.

I tried to restore the previous default FS24 aircrafts traffic options, it shows more parked aircrafts from the installed FSLTL folder, apparently without fps or vram losing.

thank you! 🎃

Wanted or not, Fenix are 3 airplanes vs 2, $90 vs 85. An A319 is an A320 variant. A 777 is not a 737 variant.

I works well, great!!

this is not for pc MSFS 24

Because it seemed like you needed some clarification, especially regarding the flight model.

Many have complained about the iFly B38M's EFB being difficult, but I found it to be fine. What really matters is that we get a highly accurate simulation with a realistic flight model, proper VNAV, solid ILS approaches, etc.