IN SIM SIDE BY SIDE ATC CALLS WITH BEYOND ATC & SAYINTENTIONS AI ATC (MSFS)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2024
- TWO FLIGHTS, TWO DIFFERENT VOICE ATC SOFTWARE.
KABY TO KATL (BACK TO BACK DONE IN SIM)
SAME AIRCRAFT (E170), ABOUT 1 HOUR APART FROM EACH OTHER.
Use coupon code "LEXSTERYO" for $5.00 off your first month of SI. Thank you SI for this discount for the community.
INTERESTED IN TRYING SAYINTENTIONS - GO TO THIS LINK TO GET A FREE 24 HOURS TRIAL : sayintentions....
Thanks for watching!
Subscribe for all new adventures.
Please Like & Subscribe and check notifications to see future posts!
Follow me on Twitch - / lexsteryo
Follow me on Twitter - / lexsteryo
#flightsim #kodiak #flightsimulator #msfs #msfs2020 #shorts #flight #landing #airplane #aircraft #runway #pilot #pcgaming #aviation #plane #comparison #comparing - Ігри
I won't go in hard on BATC because Cap has said so many times that it's not finished and right now it can only do IFR flights. So, not sure if the comparison is really good to do at this point. Still, great to see both in action. Thumbs up.
It depends on getting good information from the sim, so the sim is the problem.
Just an FYI on the 'Incorrect Taxi Data Provided'. BATC is using the in sim taxi data at the moment so yes it is incorrect when comparing to Navi but the signage in the sim reflects what BATC is providing. Just want to point out that it is not truly wrong, just different depending on what source your judging against. Love the side by side comparison BTW, very helpful👍
I hope they gonna use navigraph data soon
@@matejmarosz20 The problem then is that your taxi path might not match what you're seeing in-sim, which is a bit crap.
@@CpnGoose i never fly to default airports so not a problem for me. Besides how about add it as an option
@@matejmarosz20 Assuming non-default airports are correct?
Also, Navigraph don't share that data outside of the sim.
@@CpnGoose hand made airports are usualy correct to charts, would be good if batc could chose navigraph data for hand made ones and default msfs fata for default msfs airports honestly
Funny that latency is a big issue. IRL it's there, however not as much noticeable because of other traffic and chatter, etc. going on around you. I've gone back to using Stick & Rudder's FS Chatter to help fill in the dead airtime for now, which for me helps with the immersion. With time and the addition of real & simulated traffic injected at your airports this will be less a issue I believe. Both programs are amazing when you think of what we had for ATC options not so long ago. Thanks for the VID Lexsteryo.
This video is sooo helpful - thank you VERY much!
Note that a side by side is missing the non linear capabilities that SI is handling so well.
First comparison I've seen. Very good video! Thanks for making it. I can see pros and cons to both systems. For me, BATC seems slightly more polished. SI is wayyyy to slow to respond, especially considering the controller is not busy talking to other pilots. It's just plain slow. On the other side, with voices, the SI voices seem more relaxed and friendly, but a bit robotic. The BATC voices seem more "human", but they all seem stress, aggressive or "excited". They just need to chill out a bit! Also, I like the static on BATC, but it feels a LITTLE too much. I would expect you might get that with some controllers, maybe if you're in a third world country or oceanic etc, but you'd expect clearer voices at big airports. Or at least a variety of qualities. Either way, both appear to be a big leap forward in ATC vs the MSFS default. I look forward to testing out BATC very soon.
That's a good point about way too slow. I'm part of a sim group and we fly weekly. One of the guys has and loves SI. It does respond slow. Sometimes it won't respond at all.
Yeah I was going to say the same, ATC can talk fast but they’re usually really calm, BATC voices sound like they’re telling you the tower is on fire. Also does American ATC read out tail numbers like fifty-nine instead of fife-niner? The price difference swings it for me though so I’ll be getting BATC, the other one prices itself out for people who only fly a couple of hours a week.
Major improvements on SI taxi is coming next week.
Fantastic video thank you.
In lieu of accurate taxi data availability, I made a suggestion to them to get rid of the immersion-breaking... "scenery at this airport is incomplete, yada yada" and just replace it with something closer to what we hear IRL, but I see they didn't listen. 😂 "taxi to parking, monitor ground" or "taxi to the gate, stay with me". Also should have recognized... "airport in sight" even if you didn't actually say "field in sight". ATC did say "airport" is at your 12 o'clock. So it should've accepted "airport" as well as "field". Oh well
Both of them ignored you not reading back the departure frequency, that wouldn't fly IRL...I have batc, SI and p2atc, and they all have flaws. batc is too rigid and seems to always give me the visual, SI has yet to send me to tower when on approach, and pilot2atc crashes to much. If I ask any of them somethign outside their box, there's a good chance they will crash or hang. I think p2atc is the most accurate when it comes to IFR in terminology, both batc and SI seem to make some stuff up. I think all three vendors need to get together and flush out a product. If I can get the configurability of p2atc, the voices of batc and the flexibility of SI, I'd be a happy camper.
That delay with Say Intentions is such a huge dealbreaker for me. It also tends to hallucinate.
I tried their 24 hour trail, and sadly wasn’t impressed. BATC also isn’t perfect, but I’ve enjoy it much more than Say Intentions so far.
I do hope they add Navigraph AIRAC support though.
The BATC voices are also way too aggressive, like they’re all leads in their own action movie. But I’ll take that tradeoff.
No comparison between SayIntentions and BATC. Other than the delay which has improved since January from 25 seconds down to 8 seconds average response time. Sayintentions blows BATC out of the water with Real AI, Navigraph And ActiveSky implementation and IFR. 14 languages and regional accents. VR support where BatC doesn’t.
@@Mrv1960 Except that A, SayIntentions tends to hallucinate, and B just doesn’t do procedures and phraseology realistically.
During my 24 hour trail period, it many times sent me off on vectors, and then just forgot about me.
It does a good approximation of real ATC, that’s just it, it by its very nature can only aproximate. You’re asking an LLM to pretend to be a controller, rather than just purely simulating a more limited but vastly more accurate controller. It was very easy to tell during my 24h trail that, just like they say themselves, it’s their implementation is not “study level”.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s cool that it even exists, and competition is great, but there’s really nothing gained from having a fully interactive AI model running your ATC. ATC, by its very nature, is a pretty linear conversation.
BATC might not use Navigraph directly, but it takes it’s procedures from the SIM, so I’m pretty sure it has the up to date AIRAC regardless. I haven’t run into any inconsistencies except with taxiways (which are even worse in SayIntentions. At least BATC just gives you nothing, SI just makes stuff up when it doesn’t know).
Again, real AI doesn’t do much for ATC. You’re never gonna ask the controller how his day’s going, and BATC does support asking for pireps, etc, and will support emergencies.
I don’t care about activesky. SI supports it, that’s nice, but it’s not really an improvement over the base sim.
And I don’t know how many voices/accents BATC has, but I’m pretty sure it’s way more than 14. I haven’t found a country yet in which the accent hasn’t matched.
@@joelmulder Trying it for 24hours isn’t enough to get a fair assessment. I have had it for over over 1 month. I have BATC also and it’s very frustrating it doesn’t understand simple responses. You cannot talk to BATC in different languages and it will respond to you in your own language that is huge for many of us that speak more than one language. I am not putting down BATC it’s a great product but it will never achieve the level that SayIntentions can reach once it’s the final release. VFR will be very difficult for BATC to master and it might be years away. Also VR implementation is not there yet and to some a deal breaker. BATC fills a market it’s cheap and affordable. If you want close to Vatsim or real life ATC then SayIntentions will reach that goal with time. They also upgrade their software everyday which has seen significant improvements from January.
@@Mrv1960 If I do 10 flights, and most of them have issues, I think 24 hours is plenty of time.
I ask you, who wants to speak to ATC in a language other than English? I speak multiple languages too, but why on earth would I want my ATC to be in anything other than English? Sure, there are countries where they use different languages on the radio. Here in Japan for example, and also in places like Germany and France, but that’s mostly for VFR traffic, and all the controllers can still also speak English. It’s literally the law.
Okey sure, if you don’t speak English, or you for some very specific reason really want your ATC to speak French, I guess BATC isn’t for you at the moment. But the subset of people with that requirement is tiny.
Why do you think VFR would be difficult?
Do you know what 90% of ATC calls are like when flying VFR? It’s calling FIS, asking for flight following, and then just listening as they talk to the IFR aircraft. They basically only talk to you to advise you of traffic, which doesn’t even happen that often. Back when I was flying in the Netherlands, a tiny country with a very congested airspace, I’ve literally never had FIS call me to alert me of traffic.
As for VFR ATC in the TMA, all that is is calling in, saying where you are, and what you wanna do. You either wanna cross, or you wanna land. If you wanna cross they more or less just tell you yes or no, and if you wanna land they tell you some very basic information, and then you fly the VFR route and report the required points. Again, you might get traffic alerts, you might even get sequencing in the pattern, and you will get a landing clearance.
But this is all pretty basic, and can be done with more or less the same system that allows ATC to vector IFR aircraft. It’s just a matter of programming the logic required so the system knows the procedures are a little bit different. ATC is so non-essential for VFR flying that a radio isn’t even required outside of class B,C, and D airspace.
As for wanting to get close to realism, I’m not an IR pilot. But I do have a PPL and am currently working through the IR theory. None of these programs are good enough to do real training on, obviously. But in my experience, SayIntentions is just really far away from how radio is conducted in the real world. It’s not just that it messes up procedures and hallucinates, I’m sure BATC sometimes fucks stuff up too (even if I haven’t experienced it yet), but the controllers just don’t talk the way real controllers do most of the time.
Both programs are still in development. Hell, BATC hasn’t even been out a week. So I’m sure both will improve, but I personally have more faith in the BATC team programming a solid flow, than I do the SayIntentions team constraining their AI enough that it will stay on it’s leash while roleplaying as a controller.
Because SI doesn’t use their own AI model. Maybe they do for traffic flow, but not the speech portion of their service. They can’t, because custom training a capable LLM costs millions of dollars. They can put constraints on the model and tweak those constraints, but at the end of the day that large language model is a black box which they have no direct control over.
Maybe one day LLM training will be cheap enough so that they can train their own model, specifically on ATC recordings. I’d love to see that. But until then, I’ll personally stick with good old fashioned logic programmed by a human.
@joelmulder try the trial again!
I couldn't put up with that ding sound in BeyondATC. It breaks immersion for me. SayIntentions takes too long to respond (I am aware that it is simulating what happens in the real world but I don't have all that much time or patience when I just want to get going - this will be more of an issue when I fly VFR). A slider to adjust intervals would be good in SayIntentions.
The aggressiveness in BeyondATC is a bit much. I think both developers need to do a bit more work on the issues people have brought up. Marvellous as they both are I don't think they will be for me if they don't do just that much better.
You can turn the "ding sound" off.
Last comment … don’t want to be a smart-ass but … SI’s comment on IFR approaches being worked on (or something like that) made me laugh and is exactly what I mean about not feeling realistic.
Also… when ATC asks ‘Report X’ you respond either ‘Wilco’ or ‘X’ (X being ‘Field in sight’ in this case) nothing more nothing less.
In the real world you can of course get away with ‘Field 12 o’clock’ but it’s not correct.
So what is better for you?
Both apps are awesome and in the end it’s just a matter of preference.
I just don’t think BATC deserves to be battered by simmers who (respectfully) don’t know the rules of play.
I do appreciate the feedback, and you have been very respectful. Thank you.
I continue to learn more about ATC calls the more I watch IRL videos and listen to LiveATC. I'm very much a newbie in this area.
The (IFR) responds from SI is to let people know it's a work in progress. Some people don't know where the development is currently at with SI, so the developers placed that in just so people are aware.
"I just don’t think BATC deserves to be battered by simmers who (respectfully) don’t know the rules of play." - This I'm not sure what you mean, by the rules? Sure, I could say word for word what BATC is telling me to say, but I'd also like to see how much it understands. What key words is it picking up. I know this is a AI "SIM" and I use it that way. VATSIM is still "SIM", but it's RP, so you follow things much more carefully.
Again, thank you for the feedback!
@edwinkorteweg3612
As I commented about the ridiculous taxi comment in BATC, upon clearing the runway and taxiing to the gate/parking. It's comparable to the "unrealistic" comment SI made about IFR approaches being worked on! Both programmers need to get rid of those totally unnecessary and immersion breaking lines of speech IMO 🤣
They've already made it clear that both programs are a work in progress, so why the need to add such stupid sounding comments to the ATC responses, is beyond me.
@@redtailpilot Yeah, fair enough. I was commenting while watching and indeed BATC did the same thing. I guess both need patches like this.
I appreciate SI and BATC warning us on their software's current limitations real time, but I have to say, that's a real immersion breaker!
Yeah when things don't go so smoothly you get sucked out of the plane haha.
But I agree, I feel whoever gets the Taxi instructions rolling best and has the best vectors will have a higher consistent userbase.
The long pauses in SI are worse, IMHO...
@@b1bmsgt Agreed but it's too be expect since it's sending info out, translating, creating response, and sending back to you. If you have ever used ChatGPT, you'll see the delay with the text, now add in audio and the delay is even longer.
@@lexsteryoit’s my understanding that SI is opening crowd sourcing as well and users can update the taxi instructions so they’ll be updated in real time for all other users. I’m not sure if they have that rolled out yet or not
Yes that is coming soon from what I have seen in the Discord. I'm super excited for this feature. I feel it's the best way to do something of this size.
Does BATC support VFR flight?
Not yet, but that's the plan
@@casstephens3124i have a plan to become millionaire…
No but that’s going to be a huge challenge for BATC which uses only Simbrief and No Navigraph implementation.
SI is nothing new - same speech since FS 95…