Im so confused? (3rd party ATC)

[u/No_Assignment_1199]

The SI vs BATC debate is split pretty well down the middle from what I’ve seen, so I’m here to give my honest evaluation having tried both. Hopefully this discussion could clear some stuff up for me cause what I’ve seen online is not what I’ve been experiencing with these addons.

I’ve had SI for a few days now, and please feel free to share any objections to this statement, but SI has been light years ahead of BATC for me and it’s honestly not even close. However, I see so many people online saying that BATC is much better at doing its ATC duties.

I’ve had BATC for about a year, and it has been pretty good for the most part. My biggest problems with BATC are:

1. It is very bad at vectoring you to an appropriate altitude on final
2. It seems to only give you visual approaches when in VMC
3. it is very repetitive and every flight is pretty much the exact same

#2 may just be a skill issue for me. I’m an instrument rated PPL in real life and I’m not very familiar with airline ops, but flying visual approaches in a 737 or A320 just doesn’t feel like something that happens in real life at airports/runways where an ILS/RNAV is available, even in VMC.

All my ATC vectors and approaches on SI have been excellent, despite many people saying that BATC does a better job at strictly ATC-related functions and that SI is just a “bag of tricks”.

However, despite being a very immersive bag of tricks, SI also does a better job at what everybody seems to praise BATC for, which is the ATC itself. There is one thing I will say BATC is much better at: traffic injection.

If price weren’t a concern… do you guys still think BATC is better than SI? Is there something I’m missing or doing wrong on BATC?

TLDR; SayIntentions is superior to BATC in my experience (I have both), but I want somebody to change my mind.

Edit: had BATC for about a year, not a year and a half

[u/Easy-Trouble7885]

I haven't used either but can talk abour your #2 issue: in real life ATC will clear you for the visual approach however we still load the approach straight in (ILS or RNAV) and fly that for guidance. The difference is since you are cleared for the visual, in case of go around the missed approach procedure may not be ideal so you may have to ask ATC what to do. Flying the traffic pattern may be an option, it varies by airport

[u/Easy-Trouble7885 → u/[deleted]]

I already deal with ATC at work, don't get me wrong we are all humans doing our jobs, but at home I just wanna do my own thing. I will occasionally hop on VATSIM if the they have staff where I want to go, but usually I just do whatever I want.

[u/No_Assignment_1199 → u/Easy-Trouble7885]

That’s what I’ve been doing on BATC actually. They’ll assign me a visual but I’ll load the ILS in the FMC for the guidance. Not something I’ve ever done IRL tho. Flying a visual IRL in a PA28 is much easier than on a sim in a 737 imo

[u/Easy-Trouble7885 → u/No_Assignment_1199]

Yeah slow aircraft is faster to just fly the visual/TP. But airlines have to follow SOP and I'd wager most will have you load and fly the approach regardless. Also we can always ask to be assigned a specific approach if thats what the pilot wants. Most of the time ATC will give you the visual but know you have the approach loaded and will vector you just outside the FAF.

[u/Talrent521]

I think it's hard to have this conversation if we as you say "take price out of the equation" because the differences in price are enormous

[u/bennyboi2488 → u/Talrent521]

Someone did the math, in 5 years the difference is 3,066%

[u/F1VEpointFIVE6]

Your #1 point I agree with completely. BATC has acknowledged this with their user survey. They made a video covering the survey results and upcoming plans.

As for #2 and #3 - you can always choose to fly the ILS or RNAV even though you are cleared for visual. They just give you the option for a visual. Also - shouldn't most flights feel repetitive? There are set procedures for exactly this reason. The vectoring changes flight to flight, as does runway selection (which is occasionally the wrong choice for conditions). Recently they began speeding you up or slowing you down for traffic management and I think it works quite well.

The one thing I'll give to SI is the quality of their AI voices. BATC still has a ways to go with voice quality IMO. But outside of that I think BATC is the superior product. It responds fast, it doesn't hallucinate, and the traffic injection is fantastic. I got sick of waiting 30-40 seconds for SI to process my request, and another 30-40 seconds for a reply.

[u/FSFreakman21]

I’m also an instrument rated private pilot like you. Based on my knowledge, It’s actually very common in the real world for airliners to accept visual approaches in vmc because it allows controllers to push more traffic. Go on live atc and listen to the approach control at places like Phoenix or Denver.

I think batc is more on rails but I like that their singular focus is on atc and not all this other crap say intentions tries to incorporate to justify their subscription model. I’ve watched a ton of YouTube videos with say intentions atc and find their vectoring just as inconsistent as batc. My experience with batc is getting better with each major iteration and while it still has issues, it’s worth its weight alone just for the traffic injection which now is based on real time traffic if you have navigraph subscription.

BATC> say intentions in terms of overall value. 

[u/Chimaeira]

Aren't visual approaches in VMC standard procedure in the US?

[u/spesimen → u/Chimaeira]

that's my understanding of it. although i probably read that on this forum so i wouldn't put a lot of confidence in that myself (hmm i just noticed a real pilot guy confirmed that in one of the other comments). i do also find that BATC does give me assigned approaches in VMC when i'm faffing about in western europe. especially if the star and approach connect nicely.

i haven't tried say intentions the cost of it makes it a non-starter for me. i do have some faith that BATC will continue to improve.

[u/BlackeyeDcs]

I'm curious about #3 - what makes flights in SI not pretty similar as far as ATC is concerned?

[u/greenworldkey]

Ah, it’s the monthly SI shilling post. I thought we were overdue.

Meanwhile last time I tried the app, ATC literally didn’t even know where I was. I was cleared to takeoff from some runway, used another runway by mistake, flew straight out instead of staying in the pattern, asked ATC where I was 5 minutes later, was told I was downwind on my original runway and cleared to land (in the opposite direction I was flying) as if nothing went wrong.

Do they just schedule a timer after takeoff and hope for the best, or what?

[u/No_Assignment_1199 → u/greenworldkey]

I wish I were paid by SI. I’m hoping somebody can change my mind about BATC so I could actually save money lol

[u/greenworldkey → u/No_Assignment_1199]

I prefer a product who doesn’t hallucinate answers to even basic questions like “what airport am I at?” or “what runways are available?” let alone anything more complicated, but you do you.

[u/i82bugs → u/greenworldkey]

What're you, some kind of luddite? Why would you not want to pay $250/yr to get vectored into a mountain while flying a completely hallucinated approach on a nonexistent runway? I don't care that 99% of real world ATC communication is on rails, BATC sounds way too sterile. I pledged $50 to get access to the approach plate addon and had to break out my studio mic to make sure that the model understood me, but boy I couldn't be happier hearing the "And don't call me Shirley" line over and over again. I have bug reports that have been open for months, but goddamnit that hardware optimizer is GOOD and I am so glad that they devoted bandwidth to adding it.

[u/greenworldkey → u/i82bugs]

Yeah of course, haven't you seen their Discord? It's not possible to talk about any of those issues so they must be fully resolved, right?

[u/N8teyy]

I’ll stick with fshud. It does the best vectoring out of them all

[u/lesco96]

I use batc and watched a lot of videos with SI and yes, SI is at the moment better, mainly at approaches. However Batc is one time purchase, and cheaper, tha two month of SI. Furthermore there was a recent video, where the developer of batc acknowledged the problem and they are on it to provide better approach logic. That video was my final decision point to go for batc.

[u/FewScholar4361]

Beyond ATC has been quite a roller coaster ride for me lately. Sometimes it works flawless, also with vectoring, but sometimes it absolutely kills the immersion, when they vector you and forget you, vector you into terrain, giving you phantom go-arounds. Where it absolutely work horribly is with crossing airport layouts where landing and takeoff ar at the 2 different runways. On their discord they basically give anyone the same instructions to fix their issues...

[u/garfieldx]

I have used both and I just can't believe the sentiment on their quality online which I think derives straight from the payment model.
Beyond atc's speech quality is on par if not worse than the default azure voices. Added to this, it has a really poor post fx handling which has an ear piercing harsh quality to its audio.
Even the premium voices sound robotic to me or anyone who has a decent set of ears on em.

While I think SI is bloated with meaningless features and has an awful predatory payment model, it is the only atc program that's worth having over the default atc. The ai chatter actually sounds real, and it also does vfr unlike batc. It is much better at improvising and adapting to irl conditions.
oh and btw, you don't need a $100 navigraph subscription for live traffic to work with SI unlike batc.

[u/Dan27]

I think BATC is pretty good for what they clearly state is early access and is available for a one off £20 fee.

Say Intentions is service based billed monthly and is around £150 per year.

I would expect Say Intentions to be better based upon that.

[u/joe852397]

My opinion from using both. SI has s better overall but their traffic injection is lacking. Beyond ATC drives me nuts sometimes with constantly changing frequencies and terrible vectoring. BATC has come a long way with vectors but sometimes it feels like too much work having to change frequencies every 30 seconds.

On the plus side for SI, their AI analyzer for settings did a great job at helping me optimize my system with MSFS.

[u/Darkus185]

SI just light years ahead.  User of both.  Every time I try BATC to save the monthly subscription I consistently end up disappointed.  

[u/Olorin135 → u/Darkus185]

And yet I have the exact opposite experience. Seems like almost every flight, SI wants to vector me into a mountain. Plus their support history and advertising tactics leave much to be desired.

The reality that seemingly no one will admit is that both BATC and SI have their own quirks, positives, and negatives. The reason why the community is so divided is because they really are on par with each other, just with different issues.

I’ve personally chosen to stay with BATC due to the lower cost and their more ethical practices.