Hello Kiek. Some suggestion:)

[AbrahamGR]

Hi Kiek. I'm really enjoying PSXT, and even more so since I can finally see the planes at the airport I arrive at, and I also have the PTonly option enabled, which is a luxury.

I've noticed that, when i am on the ground, planes often wait in a "short hold" to take off, for several seconds or even several minutes. I usually notice that when they're stationary and there's no movement, their signal disappears. When they start moving in real life, PSXT reinjects them and they reappear in the scenery, as a result of the command I assume RealTraffic gives them.

My question is: Could an aircraft remain visible in MSFS even when its signal in RealTraffic has disappeared?
It's a small suggestion I'm making because when waiting longer than usual to take off, or in a long taxi queue, some planes disappear until they move again. Since it's assumed they won't disappear from where they are in real life, could PSXT keep it visible?

[Dave_YVR]

They shouldn't disappear while in the departure lineup at all unless there's a data issue. Where do you notice this happening?

[Harrier77]

5 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

My question is: Could an aircraft remain visible in MSFS even when its signal in RealTraffic has disappeared?
It's a small suggestion I'm making because when waiting longer than usual to take off, or in a long taxi queue, some planes disappear until they move again. Since it's assumed they won't disappear from where they are in real life, could PSXT keep it visible?

I notice this too at many airports that I visit. One in particular is EGKK, where the RT coverage is very good, some aircraft are removed when in the holding queue for takeoff and then reappear when they move again. This behaviour is also seen after pushbacks when the aircraft does not move off relatively quickly.

[kiek]

Hi guys,

This has been discussed many times before. It is simply a lack of traffic data issue. I do not remove an aircraft for fun, you know...

When PSXT no longer receives data about an aircraft it will do this:

If the aircraft is flying, it will continue its course for say 45 seconds, hoping new data comes in, otherwise end of show

If the aircraft is holding on the ground it will hold for another 30 seconds.. before it is removed, otherwise it may block upcoming aircraft that will simply run over it..

If the aircraft is on the ground, moving, I'll let it move for a short while before removing it.

Although RT coverage may look good the data streams are not that regular and good as you may think. PSXT  has a bunch of heuristics build in to overcome gaps or other irregularities in the data...

For the disappearing when  holding for take-off issue, I may add another heuristic. I could check if another aircraft is moving towards it. If not I could extend the artificial 30 seconds before removing? Will cost some computing time, but CPUs are getting faster every day 😉

Nico

[Harrier77]

2 hours ago, kiek said:

For the disappearing when  holding for take-off issue, I may add another heuristic. I could check if another aircraft is moving towards it. If not I could extend the artificial 30 seconds before removing? Will cost some computing time, but CPUs are getting faster every day 😉

Hi Nico, any help in reducing the chance of aircraft being removed when they are clearly still present IRL would be appreciated.

[kiek]

21 hours ago, Harrier77 said:

Hi Nico, any help in reducing the chance of aircraft being removed when they are clearly still present IRL would be appreciated.

Another drawback of holding it a its place if there is no data, that when data returns the new position may be hundreds of meters away, so you'll see it jump to the new positions .... This is also killing the immersion too. 

It is not easy... EDIT: I could try to hold till a collison with other live and then remove, plus when a new position arrives when in holding then decide if it can continue without jumping.

 

Edited March 27 by kiek

[AbrahamGR]

1 hour ago, kiek said:

Another drawback of holding it a its place if there is no data, that when data returns the new position may be hundreds of meters away, so you'll see it jump to the new positions .... This is also killing the immersion too. 

It is not easy... EDIT: I could try to hold till a collison with other live and then decide if it can continue without jumping.

 

Hello again. Thanks for the replies.

I think what you say is absolutely true, kiek: we risk the plane reappearing meters later, due to the fact that it remains visible in its last position.

The only positive thing is that some planes disappear and reappear minutes or seconds later in the same place. So, in their case, the fact that we can see them and not disappear does add to the immersion.

i have been "studying" the probabilities, and this usually happens after pushbacks and during taxi hold shorts or before takeoff.

I think if a plane disappears after a pushback (they usually do this to engage the engine and open the flaps) and then reappears meters later, it wouldn't affect the immersion much.

Is this possible?

[kiek]

8 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

Is this possible?

Today I've implemented this new algorithm, and it looks very promising. More to come.

[AbrahamGR]

3 hours ago, kiek said:

Today I've implemented this new algorithm, and it looks very promising. More to come.

Wow!! Cant wait for that. 
Thank you very much for hearing our suggestions.

[kiek]

12 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

Wow!! Cant wait for that. 

Try 10.8.0  

[AbrahamGR]

10 hours ago, kiek said:

Try 10.8.0  

Hi Kiek. First of all, thank you for considering the new option you included in the update.

I have just ran a test, and unfortunately it didn't work. Let me explain.

In this case, flight ET727 is parked at LMFL.
It's about to push back, and it does. When it does, it disappears from the radar on Realtraffic and flightradar24 (it's starting its engines). PSXT maintains its position. Two minutes later, without any other aircraft having crossed the airport, it disappears. That is, even if by some chance it no longer appeared on the radar, PSXT didn't maintain its position for 20 minutes, or even five. Now im observing that in the airport. 

Another thing I notice is that when it pushes back, the plane moves backward and then turns right or left, but continues moving backward for a few more meters. This interferes with the potential pushback of the plane next to it. For that reason, it might be interesting to have the aircraft pushback only in a straight line, allowing it to turn around itself, but without any further "L"-shaped roll.

Interestingly, I just checked LMFL and flight ETH727 has reappeared taxiing, and PSXT has injected it out of the pushback zone. No other aircraft are around.
I hope this information has been useful, and thank you again.

to summarize: planes are not still there, even if the y dissappear on radar

 

 

[AbrahamGR]

I hope i havent said anything wrong. 

[G-YMML1]

Nico, this new option does not work for me at least for now. I presume that if I remove hidden parameters from the *ini file, PSXT handling of taxiing plane would return back to 10.7?

[AbrahamGR]

Hello again. Well, for me it was spectacular. I was able to see planes that didn't disappear at Heathrow. They were performing their short hold, and although, for example, on flightradar24 they disappeared until they resumed their movement, that wasn't the case on MSFS.
The same thing happened with pushbacks.

I was only able to witness one aspect that has yet to be resolved:

Sometimes the transponder of an aircraft that hasn't begun its pushback flashes. I've seen a JetBlue aircraft at Heathrow adjust to its parking spot, but immediately pushback. It then flew to its gate and once again pushed back. It did that 10 times. I suppose PSXT was unsure whether the aircraft was departing or arriving. This could be because some aircraft flash even while at the gate, before pushing back. Piot dont disconect their transponder. I think it could be fixed with a "Rule" that notifies PSXT that in this situation, the aircraft can't yet push back.

It's certainly very interesting what can happen with these changes, and thank you so much once again for considering them!

[kiek]

10 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

I hope i havent said anything wrong. 

No, but in MS Edge I could no longer post in the AVSIM Forum.... I've switched to Chrome now.

 

Edited March 29 by kiek