Fiorentoni

Descent management without a STAR has a fix in internal testing right now. For *with* a STAR it should be much better since the latest update. The late instructions were one of the biggest pet peeves I had with BATC, so the devs have put a lot of work into those very recently and I found them perfect now on a STAR.

What do you mean „change the STAR“? The pilot can‘t just change the STAR. You can ask for a different approach in BATC, but you need to ask for it, you can‘t just fly it and expect ATC to go along with it. I again suggest reading the tutorial, especially if you have no experience in Vatsim or real flying (BATC tries to be as realistic as possible in regards to procedures, flows etc.) For any issues come to Discord which is the official support place. There‘s no sense doing support here on Avsim, this forum is not really made for that. There‘s no trial for the experimental package, no. At the moment both base and experimental are the same basically (except for VFR traffic on experimental)

Hop over on the discord for any issues and also make sure to read the tutorial on the BATC wiki page.

For me such lazy modelling and texturing is more like a warning sign for the rest to come (or not to come). I could also start talking about the lack of functionality in the FMC (equitime point, climb derates, optimum flight level that includes winds etc.), but apparently you have found something you like about that aircraft and that‘s fine. For me I see no sense in investing into an aircraft that‘s visually appalling and limited systems-wise (at least in regards to the interactive stuff like the FMC, because this has a much bigger effect on procedures and my experience than an extensive hydraulic fluid simulation or something alike)

What FPS have you set in the BATC settings? It needs to be at least your low average in-sim FPS, preferably more if it still stutters. I have it set to 60 FPS and it‘s fine. Keep in mind just like Vatsim it will never be 100% smooth because its position is being injected into the sim rather than calculated by the sim itself (like with default / FSLTL / AIG default traffic).

"bummer for me as well"

Why? This does not affect the FSLTL models or liveries, just the FSLTL proprietary injector with life traffic. BATC uses its own (licensed) schedules from FR24, so nothing will change for BATC.

If you are using live weather in the sim but a non-live sim time, yes, it should be off. Otherwise BATC will use the weather of the time of the sim (= historical weather data). The option is there because some people (like me) want to use historical weather when flying in the past, but others want live weather and still fly in the past (e.g. because they don‘t like to fly in the dark). That wouldn‘t be necessary if there was a way to simply read the weather / metar directly from the sim, but Asobo has not allowed that, so any tool has to get their own weather data from the internet (e.g. aviationweather.gov), be it live or historical weather data.

What's the setting "enable historical weather" set to in the BATC settings?

And it doesn't offer visual approaches in IFR. So either it's not IFR conditions or the IFR conditions have changed after you started your descent (at which point you can always ASK for another approach type!) or you use historical weather in BATC but live weather in MSFS or your navdata is broken and the scenery does not have any other approaches. So what now? Get on the Discord and let someone have a look at the log. In no time we'll know what's happening.

If it doesn't load it means the scenery has some pretty bad issues, so bad that BATC cannot possibly work with it. It's really rare to have that with a payware sceneries, the only one I've seen in 2 years is KTEB by Dreamflight and that is - to their defense - about 5 years old. With freeware it's a bit more common, but still rare.

You must be talking about another ATC addon, which is suffering from feature creep. If you look through the BATC patch notes you will see that *every single patch* has fixed/improved stuff on the ATC side (mostly vectors, approaches). Two of the three devs are working only on that stuff. CPDLC and VFR are done by the third dev (who is part time only). As for the rest of your post, feel free to get on the Discord and have someone take a look at your issues. Personally my experience (also a Day 1 user) is much different from yours. I have 90% of flawless flights, 5% of smaller issues and 5% of more severe issues which e.g. force me to ignore instructions. I wouldn't be using BATC if it was broken. These days I'm preferring it much to Vatsim on any given flight, which is partly due to BATC being so reliable and immersive and partly due to Vatsim being either deserted or crowded with annoying people.

First thing I do with a new airliner is saving my own custom views. For all MSFS 2024 airliners I even simply copied over the camera.txt from MSFS 2020. Works perfectly.

Looks exactly the same inside and out. Had to double check whether I accidentally loaded into the -800, but no, I can't see any differences. It's still looking good, don't get me wrong, but if those are new textures, I'm the Emperor of China

If they don't climb you are definitely doing something wrong. As for "holding speed", that depends on whether you mean the speed target (this seems mostly correct) or the actual reached speed (this still fluctuates quite a bit)

That the buttons don't light up is correct and realistic - most operators have disabled this (to force the pilots to look at the PFD to see which modes are actually active). Yet you can re-enable the lights in the EFB settings

It's SABE, not SAEZ.

What do you mean "where your ILS is going to be"? It's where it always is in the scenery? Or do you mean the runway? Just look at the D-ATIS in the frequency tab (or aircraft MCDU) https://discord.gg/h68GPnmM Feel free to hop on the BeyondATC discord and ask for support. There's 50000 people on there, it's a much better place than Avsim when looking for support / feedback etc.

Your trim is not set correctly. You probably use the trim that performance calc gives you, but before you actually fill the aircraft in the loadsheet tab. Before you pushback, the very last thing you do should be to go on the loadsheet tab, look at the two CG values there, and reenter both of them

Reviews on contrail say Verticalsim KPBI is one of his best sceneries. And since he's already very good on average, I guess you can't go wrong with Verticalsim, if you fly there more often

This video above was done with two (!) 5090s. That's probably not something MSFS would implement, even more so considering that they try to simulate the entire world.

Yeah I think most people started that way, but by now it's all in my head. I only need do actual real checklist and even that one is already in my head (at least the Airbus one)

Leaving aside the person, what remains is what he took a look at and showed in the video (like the abysmal night lighting). I like his reviews exactly because the checks things in a much different way than the "common" streamer does and that's exactly what I need as a potential customer wanting to make a purchase decision. I don't need to take over his personal opinion, I can form my own

Jetstream is one of the better devs in general. Amsim is out of business anyway AFAIK

Thank you very much, now totally looking forward to the release!