% of parked live aircraft vs % of static live aircraft

[G-YMML1 583]

Nico,

I'm just curious why the algorithm has been changed? With old program everything was straight-forward: we had a specific total percentage  of available parkings at a certain airport, where live aircrafts always had a priority. Actually, I'd like to have 100% of live aircrafts at the cost of diminished percentage of static planes. But with new software I have to manually decrease static planes' percentage as long as a number of live parked planes is increasing. It's very inconvenient and put a pressure on the system.

Am I wrong?

 

Dmitriy.

  

 

[G-YMML1 583]

Let me give an example.

* a specific airport has 100 parking positions in total.
* I have set 30% for static and 30% for live parked aircrafts, i.e 60% in total.

What i'd live to see is when I have a number of live planes reached 31, the static value would drop to 29, as it was with old PSXT. 

Thanks. 

[kiek 1,218]

6 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

I'm just curious why the algorithm has been changed?

Upon user request. If you want live parked aircraft only (or just a few static), the single percentage approach did not support that.

What you want can also more or less be achieved by setting static at 30 live at 30 and check the ILO box. Then the static aircraft will gradually disappear in favour of live aircraft.

Let us hear some more opinions first, and let us get some experience with the two percentages. We can always make changes or fine tune it further.

Edited June 22, 2023 by kiek

[G-YMML1 583]

10 minutes ago, kiek said:

Upon user request. If you want live parked aircraft only (or just a few static), the single percentage approach did not support that.

If I want live parking only, I would simply turn static percentage to zero, right?

[kiek 1,218]

1 hour ago, G-YMML1 said:

If I want live parking only, I would simply turn static percentage to zero, right?

No, not right. In PSXT the percentage was about live+static. If you then would have set it to 0, you would not have seen live parked either...

Edited June 22, 2023 by kiek

[G-YMML1 583]

Let me clarify one thing though. Those live AI that taxiing IN or FROM the gates...they are always at 100% by default. The percentage refers to parking AI only.

[somiller 694]

7 hours ago, kiek said:

No, not right. In PSXT the percentage was about live+static. If you then would have set it to 0, you would not have seen live parked either...

I think what he meant was in PSXTraffic if he sets static to 0 he should get only live parked at whatever percentage he has set for live.

Ex.: Live parked 40%; Static parked 0% should park up to 40% of available parking with live parked aircraft.

[kiek 1,218]

8 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Let me clarify one thing though. Those live AI that taxiing IN or FROM the gates...they are always at 100% by default. The percentage refers to parking AI only.

Yes I know, that's by design. An aircraft is parked if it stands still at a parking position ("gate or ramp"), whether it is live or static does not matter.

.

Edited June 23, 2023 by kiek

[kiek 1,218]

4 hours ago, somiller said:

I think what he meant was in PSXTraffic if he sets static to 0 he should get only live parked at whatever percentage he has set for live.

Ex.: Live parked 40%; Static parked 0% should park up to 40% of available parking with live parked aircraft.

No, the number of live parked is limited by the percentage set. So if static=0 the percentage live is still relevant, and remains a mechanisme to control the number parked. This is particularly relevant if ILO is checked.

Edited June 23, 2023 by kiek

[kiek 1,218]

@somiller   and @G-YMML1,

Maybe a nice compromise to make both approaches possible:

I'll add a checkbox named combined or something like that. If checked it gives you the same behaviour as in PSXT. So combined with 15% live and 15% static will give max 30% parked, with priority for live aircraft, setting 30 and 0 or 0 and 30 will have the same effect as 15/15. Every 20 minutes the number of static parked will be set to 30% minus the actual live parked.

What do you think?

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by kiek

[vidha 91]

2 hours ago, kiek said:

@somiller   and @G-YMML1,

Maybe a nice compromise to make both approaches possible:

I'll add a checkbox named combined or something like that. If checked it gives you the same behaviour as in PSXT. So combined with 15% live and 15% static will give max 30% parked, with priority for live aircraft, setting 30 and 0 or 0 and 30 will have the same effect as 15/15. Every 20 minutes the number of static parked will be set to 30% minus the actual live parked.

What do you think?

 

 

 

I would chime in to say I think that sound's like a good compromise. I also liked the old PSXT variant better with a combinded % for live and static. That way I can start with a lot of static, and they will gradually be replaced by live aircraft during the spotting-session

Actually I use ILO so there will not be any static added later in the session, but in the new version I normally set 30 % or so in both fields to get the same as the previous single percentage.

When flying to an airport, I like the airport to be filled with static as otherwise it would be rather empty on arrival.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by vhaaland

[somiller 694]

5 hours ago, kiek said:

No, the number of live parked is limited by the percentage set. So if static=0 the percentage live is still relevant, and remains a mechanisme to control the number parked. This is particularly relevant if ILO is checked.

That is exactly what I said - "Live parked 40%...should park up to 40% of available parking with live parked aircraft." - a limit of 40%.

[kiek 1,218]

I've tested the compromise, but it is much too complicated and moving in the wrong direction. PSXTraffic supposed to be easy to understand....

I've decided to go back to the PSXT approach, just one percentage.

EDIT:  what about ILO, should PSXTraffic remember your preferences per airport  (just like the percentage) or not ?

Edited June 23, 2023 by kiek

[mmcmah 413]

19 minutes ago, kiek said:

I've tested the compromise, but it is much too complicated and moving in the wrong direction. PSXTraffic supposed to be easy to understand....

I've decided to go back to the PSXT approach, just one percentage.

 

To circle back to a previous question, will the percentage (single or two parameters) limit the amount of live traffic? In other words, if we want to see 100% of live aircraft movements, does the percentage need to be higher than some likely out of movement for that airport?

For example, at EGLL, you'd likely never see 40%+ of parking spots being live at any moment, so 40% there might guarantee you always see all the live traffic. But if for performance reasons you set it at say 10%, then if there is live traffic in 15% of the parking spots, will you only see 10% max?

[G-YMML1 583]

3 hours ago, kiek said:

@somiller   and @G-YMML1,

Maybe a nice compromise to make both approaches possible:

I'll add a checkbox named combined or something like that. If checked it gives you the same behaviour as in PSXT. So combined with 15% live and 15% static will give max 30% parked, with priority for live aircraft, setting 30 and 0 or 0 and 30 will have the same effect as 15/15. Every 20 minutes the number of static parked will be set to 30% minus the actual live parked.

What do you think?

 

 

 

I think that this return to old classic approach would be great. Thank you