Speaking about annoying things...

[WebMaximus 372]

Sounds good and if Aerosoft could do this with AES in previous versions I like to think it would be possible in the current version as well. 

[charlie130 196]

7 hours ago, WebMaximus said:

The other day I brought up how the seasons in our simulated world don't very often match the real life seasons and what you see looking out your window which I personally find quite annoying.

Today I came to think of one other thing that always annoyed me quite a bit and wanted to hear if I'm the only one and if there's some kind of fix I overlooked even when I doubt that since I guess it's all on each developer.

What I'm thinking of today is how the vehicles on the apron when you're using airport scenery that comes with such seem to be totally blind as well as liberated from any kind of intelligence running straight through your aircraft and sometimes even into each other, will never stop and give way and in general behave like they had quite a few too many drinks before positioning themselves behind the steering wheel.

Will airport scenery developers ever come up with apron vehicles that don't behave like this? I guess it must be extremely hard considering for how long we've seen this same behavior and still do in 2017 regardless of airport developer (or at least those I ever bought an airport scenery from).

Good point! This issue is a realism breaker for me too! I turn collision detection off and airport vehicles as well. Even GSX vehicles drive through each other and the follow me car drives through your aircraft! It can look rather daft!

I use UT2 and that does appear to have some sort of intelligent detection zone, on the taxi way. I do see aircraft giving way to my aircraft, which is a step in the right direction.

With no VAS limit, I guess collision detection routines, will be another benefit we could see in 64 bit? Along with some photo realistic flight decks, replacing those 32 bit "painting by numbers" ones!

Best regards.

[n4gix 4,947]

4 hours ago, simbol said:

The problem relies with the ESP engine, apron vehicles are still driven by the AI engine, so this is similar to the nonsense of ATC and AI planes racing to land at the same time.

This is why I disabled crash detection it is hopeless.

Simbol 

Anyone who cares to do so can load any airport into ADE and see just how the service vehicle traffic lanes are laid out. They follow fixed paths for the most part. I stipulate "for the most part" because if the user's aircraft has the exits marked properly, the service vehicles will leave their defined paths and seek for the enumerated doors. If they aren't properly marked in the user's aircraft, the service vehicles will try to guess where the doors are -- and usually miss completely.

What is comical though is when one of the paths has an error and the vehicle(s) get lost. Then they have to wander around for awhile until they find another path to join!

[vortex681 806]

15 hours ago, charlie130 said:

With no VAS limit, I guess collision detection routines, will be another benefit we could see in 64 bit?

I don't think that increasing VAS will help in this case as it's much more of a processing problem.

15 hours ago, charlie130 said:

Along with some photo realistic flight decks, replacing those 32 bit "painting by numbers" ones!

High quality, photo-realistic VC textures were around long before the advent of 64 bit flight sims. There are even some stunning freeware cockpits: the Jahn/Visser C-47R is a perfect example of just what can be done if you apply sufficient resources to the task.

[somiller 694]

22 hours ago, SpaceMonkey said:

You have to consider that the guys that drive these vehicles are only apprentices, hired on zero hours contracts and they've been told in no uncertain terms to cut costs, drive up profits, and at the end of the task "One of you WILL be fired". I'd drive the same !

 

Regards Brian

Union folks, you mean.

[charlie130 196]

20 hours ago, vortex681 said:

I don't think that increasing VAS will help in this case as it's much more of a processing problem.

High quality, photo-realistic VC textures were around long before the advent of 64 bit flight sims. There are even some stunning freeware cockpits: the Jahn/Visser C-47R is a perfect example of just what can be done if you apply sufficient resources to the task.

I don't know how much memory it would use to implement some sort of detection system? But that's a programming problem for the developers to solve. The ESP engine is supposed to use multiple cores, but again that depends how the programmer writes the code. 

Yes, I think Jan's C47 is very interesting. It doesn't seem to use much VAS either. Also, the GPU memory usage is always pegged at 2Gb (on my system, GTX 1080). So there does not appear to be any significant "cost" to use photo realistic textures.

If I can look around a flight deck and not come across hexagonal air vents that look like they have been painted on the surface, (as an example) then that would be good. Some of the Caranedo interiors are really good. The Phenom has leather seats that I feel sure give off a leathery aroma!

Onward and upward!

Regards

 

[exeodus 78]

For what it's worth the same thing happens with X-Plane.  I think it would just be too many variables to consider to prevent them from running through objects.