To learn or not to learn.

[abranpuko 369]

Hello again...
My case:
Flight to LEVC, with PSXT Learner and Realtraffic Professional Edition. When I am arriving at LEVC, I notice on the Realtraffic radar screen that an aircairo plane is landing at LEVC. I also see how it reaches its GATE. The same thing happens shortly after with a Vueling plane.
When I get to LEVC, Learner hasn't injected any aircraft.
This kind of thing happens a lot lately, and at such times I wonder what could be the problem.
The last time I had a chance to talk to you, you told me to restart the program or find another destination. But unfortunately it happens quite a lot.
It's like Learner doesn't record incoming planes. Only in some cases, very few.
Could you help me or take a look at your software?
Thank you so much.

[kiek 1,235]

41 minutes ago, abranpuko said:

It's like Learner doesn't record incoming planes. Only in some cases, very few.

It can only record a plane if it is at a parking position. That you see it at the RT radar screen landing does not mean it will end at a gate. 

Again, the Learner destination software has not changed a bit for at least a year. Try to fly to an airport for which we know it has good ground handling, EDDF, EGLL, LEBL too name a few here in Europe. I'm not familiar with other regions.

[mmcmah 445]

9 minutes ago, kiek said:

It can only record a plane if it is at a parking position. That you see it at the RT radar screen landing does not mean it will end at a gate. 

Again, the Learner destination software has not changed a bit for at least a year. Try to fly to an airport for which we know it has good ground handling, EDDF, EGLL, LEBL too name a few here in Europe. I'm not familiar with other regions.

With the creation of PSXTraffic, you removed the soft learning paradigm, if I remember correctly. I thought that soft learning would at least recognize that an aircraft was likely to land at a particular airport even if it didn't know the exact gate. For those that are at less-trafficked or poor ground traffic airports, would soft learning be a possible feature to add back in?

[abranpuko 369]

yes, there are some airports with ground handling like htat. ut LEVC was another one also. Thats why i said aircairo arrived and went to gate....it seems it didint exactly fit into the parking spot....

anyway i hope someday all the airpot has ground radar!:) 

thank you anyway. it would e a nice idea to have a list of realtraffic aiport that have ground traffic.

holds!

[kiek 1,235]

35 minutes ago, abranpuko said:

thank you anyway. it would e a nice idea to have a list of realtraffic aiport that have ground traffic.

interesting and good coverage places exchange - PSXseeconTraffic for FSX | P3D | MSFS - The AVSIM Community

 

[abranpuko 369]

1 minute ago, kiek said:

interesting and good coverage places exchange - PSXseeconTraffic for FSX | P3D | MSFS - The AVSIM Community

 

oh great! thats a present!:) 

thank you again!:)

[kiek 1,235]

44 minutes ago, mmcmah said:

 would soft learning be a possible feature to add back in?

No, that's not easy to add. At the moment I get once a week a download from RealTraffic with all GND traffic -world-wide-, a file of 200Mb. That is input for the offline learning tool, made by a PSXT user, that generates the airport files with traffic at gates. If RT would also have to add traffic flying around the airport, it would not only be difficult to decide what traffic and when, but the file would grow to maybe 1Gb... The Offline learning tool has to be adapted as well, which is complicated because it was designed with gnd traffic in mind only.  And the guy that has put a lot effort in the tool, during a sabbatical, is back to work, and does not have the time for such a major change.

[mmcmah 445]

1 minute ago, kiek said:

No, that's not easy to add. At the moment I get once a week a download from RealTraffic with all GND traffic -world-wide-, a file of 200Mb. That is input for the offline learning tool, made by a PSXT user, that generates the airport files with traffic at gates. If RT would also have to add traffic flying around the airport, it would not only be difficult to decide what traffic and when, but the file would grow to maybe 1Gb... The Offline learning tool has to be adapted as well, which is complicated because it was designed with gnd traffic in mind only.  And the guy that has put a lot effort in the tool, during a sabbatical, is back to work, and does not have the time for such a major change.

Thank you for the reply, Nico. I totally understand. However, since we're talking about Learner, I thought we were talking about PSXT_MSFS rather than PSXTraffic.

As I understand it, the current offerings of programs allow for the following (I'm sure I'll screw something up!):

1. PSXTRaffic is the preferred solution for most people because it massively reduces the workload on RT's servers. Part of the benefit of PSXTraffic is that it comes pre-configured with historical traffic that you periodically re-run on your machine to update.
2. The above works great for airports with lots of traffic and where ground traffic is also received.
3. PSXT_MSFS is still able to be used by users who fly in and out of other airports and where traffic with PSXTraffic is otherwise not there.
4. You added the PSXT_MSFS archive to the PSXTraffic installation to allow for some airports to pull from the user-generated PSXT_MSFS data set rather than the PSXTraffic data set when the file is "better."
5. Further, as users send you generated files from PSXT_MSFS, those could possibly be added to the archive (if there were a way to submit such files that doesn't create work for you).
6. I think the above is largely correct, but what I don't remember is if soft learning was disabled in PSXT_MSFS and Learner? I think it was, in which case, I think that re-enabling it in those programs would allow for user-generated files to be created for airports with little ground traffic, even if it would be static until those aircraft get removed by PSXT?

By the way, from a different post I read, I too have made a donation today.

Thank you for all you do.

[kiek 1,235]

1 hour ago, mmcmah said:

I think the above is largely correct, but what I don't remember is if soft learning was disabled in PSXT_MSFS and Learner? I think it was, in which case, I think that re-enabling it in those programs would allow for user-generated files to be created for airports with little ground traffic, even if it would be static until those aircraft get removed by PSXT?

Yes 1 to 5 are correct. 6 is not. Soft learning is not disabled in PSXT_MSFS, PSXT_P3D and Learner. You can still send in those files for the PSXT archive. That would work well for other users of PSXT_MSFS and PSXT_P3D.

However, PSXTraffic uses the real=true options of these files only, because the airport file is read and converted to the internal data structures in PSXTraffics memory, and they are real only because thats the only mode PSXTraffic knows and works with.

[mmcmah 445]

AHA!

Now I understand. So for those wanting to fly in and out of airports that are only going to be covered by soft learning, they should NOT use PSXTraffic and it wouldn't help to send you those files.

Thank you again!

Edited July 10, 2023 by mmcmah

[kiek 1,235]

8 hours ago, mmcmah said:

So for those wanting to fly in and out of airports that are only going to be covered by soft learning

Luckily there are not many of those airports, at least not among the bigger ones. And note that PSXTraffic does not leave those airports empty, it will place light aircraft. These light aircraft will not kill the immersion because you can see them all over the world.

Besides  why do you want to fly at airports without gnd traffic? You will not see live aircraft either...

But if you insist, no problem. Using PSXT will remain an option.