Hi guys, do we know whether they'll be any changes to Ai traffic? I find this area to be a difficult obsticle rather than a nice feature. Now don't get me wrong, I loved it when FS2002 incorporated AI traffic but ever since it's just never got any better. I have the standard traffic installed, Soar and Landmark etc however a large number of people are actually creating packages for Ai traffic, I've just never dared to use them because I like being able to land at an airport without having to go-around all the time.:D I would definitely consider using them if the Ai traffic behaved correctly.Any improvements to Ai traffic then? And does anybody have any info on this area, no mention from Microsoft.:(

Hi,Unfortunately if there is no mention from Microsoft, then there is no information at this point (they are the only source). Patience...Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Thanks Tom. I should add that there have been Ai traffic improvements in FS2004, that being the ability for touch & go's at airports and taxi into position and hold. I'd say it's more to do with the approach that the system has trouble with.

The AI Aircraft system itself should have AI characteristics in which the separation distances (via change in airspeed, altitude, etc.) of the AI Aircraft are directly proportional to 1) the number of total Aircrafts (AI and non-AI) in the region at a given instance, and 2) weather/visibility conditions in the region at a given instance. Or, perhaps, somehow associate the separation distances uniquely to airports and the number of Aircraft that are taking off and landing at airports.I don't know if these characteristics are true in FS2004, or know if it is even possible to implement such AI behavior in the sim.David

Yep, no question the separation distance is a problem with AI traffic in FS2004. I hate it when you're doing a nice final in a Cessna and you get a 747-400 running down your tail. Or vice-versa, you're in a 747 and you've got a Cessna Caravan in front of you on short final.Granted, in real life you wouldn't have these types of aircraft sharing the same runway, ordinarily...

Agreed Mace, although you can instruct GA types to fly VFR which enables them to do a short final rather than an ILS but the short final isn't short enough and they end up getting cleared to land 4 miles away. It would be great if the ATC instructed them to circle close to the runway (as in real life) if it's busy. The aircraft's sole intention is to takeoff, fly then land regardless of anybody else and whatever the cost.:-lol While I'm here, paralell runways are another problem. Ai aircraft having to cross a runway to get to another more often than not disappear because there are too many aircraft on final approach or departing on that particular runway. This can easily be fixed if ATC didn't wait for a landing or departing aircraft to be completely clear of the runway i.e. contacted the departure frequency, and contacted ground. I've watched them close hand in real life and as soon as an arriving or departing aircraft has gone past the nose of 'waiting to cross' aircraft they begin to move. Perhaps also, ATC clears arriving traffic too early sometimes 8 miles away, in that time it is very safe to allow upto four planes to cross an active.

Hi,While it leads to some (harmless but ugly) AI aircraft collisions, you can improve the crossing runway problem by using the "diamond" technique in the AFCAD file. This allows aircraft to cross the runway no matter what.Basically, you move the current taxiway/runway intersection node over to the right (to create the right half of the diamond), create another taxiway straight across the runway that does NOT intesect the runway, and then create a mirror image of the right half of the diamond on the left side (i.e. two more taxiway segments). Remove the line markings from the diamond taxiways if necessary.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Thanks alot for the info Tom. Which program would I need to do that? Don't worry I won't be asking lots of questions, I will read the documents.;-)

YES, AI is full of bugs.1. There is no concept of seperation - aircraft arrive for landing in "clumps", flying literally in military-like formation trying to all land on the same runway at the same time. 2. Aircraft movement on the ground looks often silly: aircraft gets stuck (sometimes on the runway!!) and won't move for long minutes even though nothing is blocking its progress. You often see aircraft half-way on a runway and half out of runway - and frozen. Interesting.3. Do not obey "hold short" points which clearly are not meant for your direction of movement.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>YES, AI is full of bugs.Are those really bugs, or are they indications that we, the users, have pushed the software well beyond its design limit?I don't see those types of problems using default AI, on a clean stock installation. It only seems to be a problem after installing tens of thousands of flightplans, using dozens of models, hundreds of repaints, and 3rd party AFCADs. How is that a bug?Just curious.Nick

Hi Nick,Yep this is why I've only ever stuck to the default setup, although I do use many addons like scenery and aircraft but Ai traffic is an area I've never had the courage to change. Even though go-arounds are low with default traffic I still have problems with aircraft trying to land before me and the problems I've mentioned previously. I suppose to make this work properly MS would need to open up another FS department working on an addon title for FS aimed at Ai traffic, the only trouble is would it sell? I for one would definitely consider investing in such a title aswell as Flight Simulator itself because I would love to be able to fly in such an enviroment.

Hi,I completely agree that the ATC and AI systems need an overhaul. There is no doubt about that.I too have had all the same troubles that you and Michael talk about. My only recourse has been to fly without ATC, and to put up with being cutoff by AI aircraft when I'm on final. Its the price I pay in order to have 100 Delta aircraft on the ground in ATL. No one wants to see speed restrictions, holding, and STARs for AI more than I do, but until I get it, I'm just going to have to compromise.Some people's criticism seems pretty unfounded. I would compare it to modifying a Honda Civic with a V-12 engine, driving it at 200mph and then complaining to Honda that the wheels came off. There was nothing wrong with the wheels. They performed as designed, but you asked them to do too much.Its the same way with the ATC/AI. There's nothing "wrong" with it, its just not as feature rich as we want it to be. I'm sure that this will change, sooner or later.Nick

Hi,You would use AFCAD 2.21. You can find it using an author search - Lee Swordy.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

>Are those really bugs, or are they indications that we, the>users, have pushed the software well beyond its design limit?Well, then design limits should be changed. There is no excuse for aircraft being stuck on the runway after it landed because it perceives there is too much activity on the parallel runway which it eventually must cross. This is no AFCAD issue - it is software issue. I imagine that there are design limits and any airport could be easily overwhelmed by too may landing aircraft but waiting indefinitely on the runway with plenty of acres of spare taxiway concrete in front of you is a bug - no matter how you slice it. A well written AI/airport software should be able to utilize airport resources and not create artificial bottlenecks. And that's what FS9 does today in the AI department - it generates its own problems and unfortunately these have a rather cascading effect.If word "bug" bothers someone - I am perfectly agreeable to call it "a serious limitation".If only I could get my hands on this AI stuff .... at my work we do very similar things simulating aircraft (not for gaming purposes). I am just itching ...Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

<>The analogy I had in mind was trying to clear pasture land of waist-high grass using a 2HP walk-behind mower, but your is good, too.