December 10, 20241 yr Author 21 hours ago, Fiorentoni said: Guys no one expects you to fix these errors yourself. I'm ok with fixing them, if I have a proper weapon to deal with it (and I have had it for years with FS2004-FSX-P3D). If BATC relies on taxi architecture that comes with the scenery products, it's a dead-end approach. But I'd like to hear from BATC how they AI engine on the Ground selects and assign taxi paths/ instructions, and resolves conflicts. Yesterday, I had literally 14 AI at EDDF that stuck on the ground and either could not arrive to a gate or depart from it, I asked this question on their Discord. No answer as of this morning. 9950X3D, X870E ROG CROSSHAIR HERO, Corsair Dominator Titanium 64GB DDR5-6000 PC5-48000, ASUS RTX 5070Ti 16GB, 9100 PRO 4TB Samsung ,990 PRO 4TB Samsung, AX1600i 1600 Watt 80 Plus Titanium ATX, ASUS 360 ARGB EXTREME 360mm Liquid CPU Cooling Kit.
December 10, 20241 yr 50 minutes ago, BoseGlucke said: Imagine blaming procedural and data issues on scenery devs, instead of fixing the issue.... Lazy approach. Why I switched to another AI program.. they gave us a way to edit and fix the data ourselves.. They don't use incomplete sim data, and instead manage their own database... All of it shows ownership of the issue. And it reflects in their quality... Never had an airport fail due to scenery issues with them.. I don't understand why the community puts up with this from batc?? Alright so letting customers do the job is the non-lazy approach, I get it. And what to do when no one has yet done this for the airport you are using? Get no taxiways at all? I'm sure there's a couple of those 50000 airports worldwide that have no user-data yet... And what if person A has *this* scenery for an airport and person B has *that* scenery for this airport, with outdated taxiways? Is one of them just going to have taxi instructions that just don't exist in their scenery? These are the reasons why the BATC devs figured that using the approach from that other AI program would just shift the problem somewhere else. Don't get me wrong - to crowd-source is a legit approach, but there are some major drawbacks as outlined above. The BATC approach has also major drawbacks. But I kind of like that they put the responsibility onto the scenery devs which for the love of god simply have to stick to the SDK and all is good. As I said, 90% of my payware airports work flawlessly, so it's not a general problem, but a problem of some scenery devs being "lazy", incompetent or simply the scenery is abandoned. Both approaches are valid in my opinion and it's good people can see what fits them best. For transparency: I'm a community mentor at the BATC discord. However, I do not get paid for it in any way.
Create an account or sign in to comment