Ai traffic?

[Guest THEGENERAL22]

Well I've heard of programs called AI Smooth and AI seperation but the comments I'm seeing on forums is that they don't perform as expected. I agree that the limits of the Ai software are reached as soon as you begin to add a few flightplans. But as AI traffic is an important enviroment factor to flight simming (you'd think so anyway) I think Microsoft should perhaps give this area a little more attention than in the past.Tdragger, I believe you are from the FS team, I take my hat off to you, I can't even imagine how difficult a product Flight Sim is and keeping all us geeks happy.:D

[Guest tdragger]

<>Oh, please, we don't desrve it. Michal is right--we're basically a bunch of slackers who couldn't program our way out of a paper bag using a chainsaw. Seriously, the effects you observe are the result of applying general purpose algorithms to specific problems and is something just about every software developer faces regardless of the application. Because FS is not a level-based game and because we allow you to create and add an infitite variety of content we don't have the luxury of programming specific routines to achieve a "perfect" result.Take the ATC system. The airport manager is basically a complex routing system that can take an aircraft's current position and desired destination and compute a path to get there along an arbitrary network, taking into account constraints like other traffic, hold short rules, etc. But it does not control the aircraft--the AI pilots do. Plus, since any 3rd party aircraft with unique handling characteristics can be used by AI pilots we cannot assume how the actual aircraft will behave once in the system.Throw that altogether and you have a very complicated problem. In the case of AI aircraft crossing an active runway the airport manager has to make a "best guess" as to how long it will be from the time it issues a clearance to the AI pilot until the aircraft is safely across and then reference that guess against the aircraft on the runway, on approach, etc. We could script everything to make it perfect but that would mean no custom aircraft, no custom airports, no custom AFCAD files, etc.When faced with a problem like this is often makes sense to take a conservative approach. The net result for you is that things appear to happen more slowly than they do in the real world and the system shows its limitations when the traffic volume increases.So that explains why it works the way it does. Will it ever work differently? We have a good idea of the system's limitations and we know from reading feedback on the forums and email send to tell_fs that this is important to you. So it is something that we consider as part of advancing the state of the platform.Cheers.

[michal 44]

>Well I've heard of programs called AI Smooth and AI>seperation but the comments I'm seeing on forums is that they>don't perform as expected.No, unfortunately they don't. In this case pendulum swings in another extreme direction - no aircraft land at all. You have an empty runway waiting for someone to land but nobody does because all sort of conflicts were detected. :(If I were to sit and design AI software I would begin by enforcing some simple rules that I would make of highest priority in the code:1. vacate the runway immediately (when practical) after you landed2. never make 180 turn on the active runway3. if you have spare taxiway in front of you - move forward to the next hold-short point4. allow for occasional crossing of active runway - if you don't do that an imbalance quickly arise between landing and takeoff aircraft....6. implement a pseudo-Tracon facility that would at least space aircraft 90 sec apart for landing. Perform S-turns, control speed do holds to realize this separation. Not a very complex programming should allow us to cope say with off-peak hours traffic at Boston-Logan.Please take it as constructive criticism, I have faith in MSFS programmers that they can accomplish it, eventually. I know it is all about man-hours. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest g0kmt]

>2. never make 180 turn on the active runwayHmmm on an airport where the ONLY exit is behind you once landed this is impractical.At the airport I control (on VATSIM) EGNH, the only validentry /exit to the runway for IFR traffic is at the western end of 10/28 makes that rule impossible even!Cheers n beersIan

[michal 44]

There are some isolated and small airports around the world where 180 on the runway is the only way to go. But this doesn't apply to great majority of commercial airports where jet aircraft land. By the way, this falls under AFCAD. My rule simply states: if AFCAD allows you to "not" make a 180 turn - DONT. At some airports AFCAD will tell you that you have no choice and 180 is required to get you from the runway.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest pixelpoke_from_MSFT]

>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.>>NickThat has to be one of the most level headed posts I've ever read regarding Flight Sim. Thank you.Cheers,Jason

[Guest garwig2]

Even the simplest of rules has consequences. It's not a matter of making the right rules, it's a matter it's a matter of what you're willing to lose in user experience and computer performance:>1. vacate the runway immediately (when practical) after you>landedMy observations are that aircraft currently vacate the runway by first slowing to a certain speed then exiting at the next available exit. One way to improve it might be for each aircraft to calculate a somewhat realistic exit point and adjust their rate of deceleration so they just make that exit. Now, how many FPS are we willing to sacrifice to make this happen?>2. never make 180 turn on the active runwayI have not seen a landing aircraft make a 180 when it has an exit in front of it (can you cite a specific airport?). I do see departing aircraft backtaxi to the end of the runway before takeoff, but this is comon in the real world.>3. if you have spare taxiway in front of you - move forward to>the next hold-short pointThis movement to the next point could just as easily block the way of another aircraft, so this rule would not prevent gridlock on the ground (the sim does try to prevent taxiway gridlock now).>4. allow for occasional crossing of active runway - if you>don't do that an imbalance quickly arise between landing and>takeoff aircraft.Well, I'll agree here. We need to allow aircraft to cross active runways in between departures. *I* won't complain when this delays departures, but I'm sure someone will.>>...>6. implement a pseudo-Tracon facility that would at least>space aircraft 90 sec apart for landing. Perform S-turns,>control speed do holds to realize this separation. Every turn on an S-turn and every speed restriction and cancelation of restriction needs to be directed by ATC and read back by the pilot. Ever have a hard time getting in a word to ATC now? How much worse would it be this way?

[michal 44]

I don't dispute your observations but I doubt you put any stress on the system. I am talking about a custom airport like the new freeware Boston-Logan and running full AI which is close to real-life operation (off peak hours). If you run something like that for an hour or so then we can compare notes.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[michal 44]

>Every turn on an S-turn and every speed restriction and>cancelation of restriction needs to be directed by ATC and>read back by the pilot. Ever have a hard time getting in a>word to ATC now? How much worse would it be this way?(sorry, overlooked this comment of yours - it is important so I am replying now)This can be easily solved, using many techniques. 1. When the system originally starts (your start the FS) there may be a period of adjustment when blobs of flights get seperated in the air - since this may be a highy unstable period all ATC AI communication could be suppressed until an 'equilibrium' is achieved.2. Even better - when system is orginally started the AI aircraft destined for some destinations could already be generated in the locations in space that assure separation. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[MD83 1]

>Thanks Tom. I should add that there have been Ai traffic>improvements in FS2004, that being the ability for touch &>go's at airportsFS2002 has touch & go's as well :)