Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Heff

AI behaviour

Recommended Posts

One thing I hope is really changing from previous simulations to FS2020 is the behaviour of AI Aircraft and vehicles. I hope for AI Aircraft to be affected by the weather conditions in the same manner as Aircraft that we fly. It would be dissappointing if Our Aircraft behave realistic and AI still will be on "rails". I also really hope that the sluggish ground manouvering ability has been significanly improved so that AI Aircraft and vehicles will make proper turns instead of Direct turns from point to point as we are used to. Nothing would impress me more if MS/Asobo can present a realistic representation here. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I have also posted some wishes about AI Traffic already.

I just really hate, how AI aircrafts do that 180 degree turn out of the gate in P3D. Also, it would be nice, if the ground vehicles (like catering and fuel trucks) work on AI traffic as well. Oh, and jetways too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree. AI needs serious work as does ATC.


                                                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it but... how beneficial would it REALLY be?

If you want them to react and fly like your own aircraft, that means more flight models need to be calculated by the computer. It's always a matter of resources needed to simulate things.. this is of course assuming that such calculations affects it of course.
And why woudn't they? We see how high traffic levels on FSX/P3D affect the overall performance, same for XP default AI (which, if i am not mistaken, actually does use the same flight models as the default planes and the performance hit is even greater)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's Al? I had an Uncle Al

We will have to wait and see, there are still so many answers to get yet, and no way anybody can guess

Edited by Casualcas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

I understand it but... how beneficial would it REALLY be?

If you want them to react and fly like your own aircraft, that means more flight models need to be calculated by the computer. It's always a matter of resources needed to simulate things.. this is of course assuming that such calculations affects it of course.
And why woudn't they? We see how high traffic levels on FSX/P3D affect the overall performance, same for XP default AI (which, if i am not mistaken, actually does use the same flight models as the default planes and the performance hit is even greater)

Hugely beneficial. I'm not so concerned with them being on rails in the sky as long as they fly proper procedures but as a heavy metal man nothing broke my immersion more than than AI aircrft doing jerky and jarring turns on taxiways and the way they would just drop out of the sky in front of me on short-final as if I was not there and with no care for SID's and STARS was nothing short of infuriating. I cannot stand the thought of another simulator where the AI and ATC are dreadfully archaic. There is simply no excuse for it anymore. The models absolutley do not need to be the same as the aircraft I fly and they need not be bouncing around in the wind the same way as my aircraft but they MUST behave correctly. That's a compromise I can live with.

 

And if the cost of performance is too high for some rigs then that is exactly what the slider and off button is for.

 
 
 
 
  • Like 3

                                                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Heff said:

One thing I hope is really changing from previous simulations to FS2020 is the behaviour of AI Aircraft and vehicles. I hope for AI Aircraft to be affected by the weather conditions in the same manner as Aircraft that we fly. It would be dissappointing if Our Aircraft behave realistic and AI still will be on "rails". I also really hope that the sluggish ground manouvering ability has been significanly improved so that AI Aircraft and vehicles will make proper turns instead of Direct turns from point to point as we are used to. Nothing would impress me more if MS/Asobo can present a realistic representation here. 

Not sure if I understand that. AI aircraft on the ESP platforms are already affected by the weather. Maybe not as much as you would like, but basically their flight model is as complex as the developer makes it, that is not really up to the sim. They aren't just 3D models being moved around on rails. They are simulated in many details - the flight model as defined in .air and cfg, and quite a few systens, like electrical and hydraulical, engines, lights, flaps, gear, control surfaces, weight and balance (when you overload an AI aircraft at a payload station in the aircraft.cfg it will no longer fly).

That they turn the way that they do on the ground is not because they can't do any better. The developers of the airport taxiways leave them no choice. The logic makes them follow a route that is defined by waypoints. If there is only a single waypoint that connects two taxiways, then the AI will have to do a 90 degree turn. If there were more points, forming a curve, that is how the AI would turn. Sure, one could write code to make them predict a gentle curve and follow it - but it is not that easy to make such an algorithm so smart that it finds the proper turn in all situations.

For example, take a look at this taxiway layout. Coming from the top, the aircraft has no option to turn left. It has to turn right and will then do a 180. Let alone the other strange artifacts like unconnected taxilinks.

48666064392_4a9665dcea_z.jpg

And they already request jetways too - a very annoying problem, because it costs so many FPS (check T2G EDDM for example).

Other ground vehicles are often done using animations - in that case what they do is completely out of the control of the sim.

Naturally, all this accuracy comes at the expense of performance. Complex AI models with all moving parts modelled bring the simulator to its knees - and that won't change on a new platform. Everything "more" means some other thing becoming "less" - mostly the FPS. One has to choose carefully how much one is willing to sacrifice for advanced features.

Best regards

Edited by Lorby_SI
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Oliver Binder

LORBY-SI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jazz said:

And if the cost of performance is too high for some rigs then that is exactly what the slider and off button is for.

 

Sure. Except that in XP11, the only example out there with traffic using the same flight models, the number of planes (if i am not mistaken) is limited to 10-something or so. And most deactivate it because it really cuts performance too much.
Hence why other AI had a simplified behaviour.
I have no idea if things have progressed so much as to make such calculations not performance heavy for nowadays config. But i am certain that if they are, they will be implemented as such. If not, you know why 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pastaiolo said:

If you want them to react and fly like your own aircraft, that means more flight models need to be calculated by the computer

I'm ok with this, thats why i'm hoping the coding will take full advantage of all the cores it can use.  i'm ok buying a 16c/32t cpu


MSFS Beta tester on W10 Pro x64. Hardware: AMD 3700X 8 core 4.5ghz all core O.C. Cooler Master ML360R AIO, Asus X570-E mobo, Asus GTX1070 8GB gfx card, G.Skill TridentZ 64GB (4x16) DDR4-3600 RAM, Samsung 250GB SSD (OS), 2x Corsair MP600 500GB M.2 pcie-4 NVMe SSDs (MSFS install+Cache). EVGA 850w Gold cert PSU, CUK Continuum full ATX tower.  43" Sceptre 4K display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:  If we are talking live traffic, and we get runway clearance, do we expect AI to take control of the live traffic and put it in a holding pattern?  I guess I wonder what most people expect to happen with live traffic in different circumstances, like ground taxi, emergency, altitude clearance conflicts, etc.


My brother has Coronavirus, confirmed by testing. On 3/26 he almost didn't survive the night.  He had extreme trouble breathing and was given a steroid inhaler.  He was very weak, had nausea, and other issues that aren't pleasant.  As of this update he is feeling much better, and seems he will be fine.  Stay safe out there.  (Updated 4/6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 5:04 PM, Lorby_SI said:

For example, take a look at this taxiway layout. Coming from the top, the aircraft has no option to turn left. It has to turn right and will then do a 180. Let alone the other strange artifacts like unconnected taxilinks.

Interesting post.

Tell me, why doesn't airport developers create these waypoints on the taxiways in higher detail? That is to say that on the curves create more of them so the aircraft turns in a more real and natural way? Is it part of the AFCAD?

Edited by n4gix
REMOVED EXCESSIVE QUOTE!!! Please don't quote the entire post you are replying to!

                                                     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my experience, the greater the number of nodes on an AFD taxiway (particularly on curves), the slower the AI plane will move. If you have ever been following an AI plane on a taxiway, you will notice that there are times when it speeds up, and other times when it slows down. The "speed up" sections are those that have a long section of AFD taxiway between two successive nodes. When it slows down (usually because it reaches a taxiway junction), it is because it has encountered a group of nodes in close proximity. The reason it slows down is because those nodes are not quite perfectly aligned, and it has to make a slight adjustment to its movement.

It is worth commenting further about taxiway junctions. If (for example) one taxiway (let's call it ALPHA) joins another taxiway (let's call this one BRAVO) that is perpendicular to it, it might seem reasonable to create two curved branches for the connection (one to the left, and one to the right). After all, this is generally what we see in the real world. However, this creates a problem for the AI system. Since these sections are all linked, the AI system sees those two curved sections as an alternative route for AI planes that are already on taxiway BRAVO. This can cause BIG problems when two AI planes end up facing each other with nowhere else to go. The solution (which is not quite as aesthetically pleasing as the split curved sections) is to create a single perpendicular connection at this point. The AI system (which is actually quite clever) will "see" this when it tries to compute a safe taxi route for the AI planes, and it will hold one of them further back at another junction (so that a conflict is avoided).

Edited by Christopher Low

Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jazz said:

Interesting post.

Tell me, why doesn't airport developers create these waypoints on the taxiways in higher detail? That is to say that on the curves create more of them so the aircraft turns in a more real and natural way? Is it part of the AFCAD?

I don't think that the old FS9 "AFCAD" even exists in that form anymore. But yes, that is what it is about.

I try to stay away from "why" questions, you would have to ask a scenery developer. Most likely it is just too much effort. Check the example above, that is the taxi layout of a payware scenery overlaid over the real airport. And it is only part of the truth anyway, the vehicles that follow the waypoint lists must be created to equal sophistication. And some things just don't work. Most AI taildraggers for example can't taxi worth a word not allowed. 

Consider for example a T-crossing: there are those that have a gentle curve onto the next taxiway, and there are others that are actual 90 degree turns. How would an advanced "taxi round a bend" algorithm differentiate between the need to run a smooth curve and the hard 90 degree turn if the developer of the taxiway layout doesn't include that information? And what should it do when the aircraft developer made it so that this aircraft can't even do 90 degree turns?

The point is, this is not a problem that a new sim can resolve just like that and on its own. If the platform shall work as openly as it did in the past, at least three things must come together: the scenery layout, the vehicle configuration and the movement logic. 

Best regards 


Oliver Binder

LORBY-SI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

I don't think that the old FS9 "AFCAD" even exists in that form anymore. But yes, that is what it is about.

AFCAD never existed.  That was the name of a program created to modify airfield layouts, many people then ran with the name and decided it should be applied to layouts in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    34%
    $8,610.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...