Please give us some info and best practice about destination
-
@jf-john said in Please give us some info and best practice about destination:
The update is now out and should address many of the reasons you are not seeing destination traffic.
Thank you for the info. Sadly I have no time this weekend to update and check, but I will ASAP!
... currently there is a requirement that you pass 250knots at 5,000ft to activate the processing of the flightplans. When our attention turns to GA we'll look at changing this.
Ah, this answers some of my questions and confirms some of my impressions.
Probably I was just to slow and low on some of my short test-flights (even with the 737)! I should have known this before ;-)
I will tests this. Thx! -
@steve67 No problem. It was done for performance reasons. Basically the sim has to process a tonne of flight plan data and we thought it would be best to do it away from any dense scenery to avoid stutters. We will be seeing if we can make this less restrictive though.
John - Just Flight
-
@jf-john said in Please give us some info and best practice about destination:
When our attention turns to GA we'll look at changing this.
And of course do we want to see traffic at our destination in GA-planes and helicopters! ;-)
Why shouldn't we?!Basically the sim has to process a tonne of flight plan data and we thought it would be best to do it away from any dense scenery to avoid stutters.
Understand. I just like to have more infos like this to better understand the philosophy behind all this and to better understand and expect whats going on and what not.
-
I did a again a very short tesflight today with the update.
Started in KMIA with traffic, in- and outbound. Very nice.
After 20Min. I took off to a short flight to KFLL. I flew 260Kts and was above 6000ft. Arrived at KFLL with only ONE aircraft waiting for me!!!
C'mon guys!!! Please answer my questions in the first post. I don't get your philosophy about the destination!
Are my flights to short? Or what is my/the problem?I'm frustrated and disapointed and back to FSLTL for the next couple of weeks unitl there is a best practice, "Dos and Don'ts" and fixes.
Sorry, I just want to have fun and this definetly isn't (for me)! :-( -
@jf-john said in Please give us some info and best practice about destination:
@steve67 In your case you are likely not seeing any traffic at your destination using the turbo arrow because currently there is a requirement that you pass 250knots at 5,000ft to activate the processing of the flightplans. When our attention turns to GA we'll look at changing this.
You do realise that people who fly smaller aircraft will buy your software because they too want to see planes coming and going from their departure and arrival airports?
There is nothing in the requirements for the software that says anything about needing to exceed 250 knots and 5000 feet to activate flight plans either.
Why not lower it now to something more attainable, say 1000 feet and 80 knots? At least then people flying GA and VFR who also paid for the software see some traffic.
-
However. No traffic on most flights on arrival. No matter if i fly 30000 feet, 250kts or whatever. Most of the time...the destination airport is empty. Today it was KLAX, coming in with the PMDG 737. Only 2 or 3 planes in the sky....over the westcoast. FS Traffic is still in BETA. I remember hight quality software form JF.
-
Yes, the application has a lot of potential and is easy to install and use, but there are too many factors to take into account that make the experience not a very good one in most cases.
I understand that the simulator has many limitations that limit developers a lot, but other developers have worked around some of them with imagination, getting a better experience, so it is possible to improve the software.
Waiting for the next update and see what the great developers of Just Flight can surprise us with.
-
Indeed. I am looking forward to the next update.
My main complaints are:
- Lack of AI traffic enroute (always nil for me)
- Destination airports frequently empty
- Phonetic pronunciation of callsigns for AI aircraft.
Other than that I think FS Traffic is great. I know JF are working on these issues, so hopefully we’ll see the fixes soon. 👍
-
@cbcdesign We are looking at bringing this requirement down.
Perhaps I should explain why this was done in the first place, I can imagine its baffling without any info.Basically it all boils down to performance. The in-sim module has to process the flight plans for the destination traffic. This does have some overhead and can introduce stutters if its done in an area with dense scenery, close to the ground and close to the airport. We don't deny that in current form FS Traffic is aimed at commercial airline flying. We do need to change this as we think about GA in the future and were also becoming more comfortable with what we can and can't get away with in terms of performance.
What the above all boils down to is that we are currently working on revamping the whole system.
John - Just Flight.
-
@jf-john Thank You for the explanation.
I think it would be good if you made this information public in an official way (and not only in this forum), since there are many comments in various forums, groups, etc. with many people unhappy with how the software works in its current state.I understand your position regarding performance but I think that perhaps you have been too conservative.
In the end, this largely depends on the hardware of each user. In my case, for example, I have tried all existing AI traffic programs for MSFS today and I don't have a big performance loss with any of them, even with those that inject more traffic, like FSLT or AIG. It is true that there is a loss, but with my hardware, I continue to enjoy a good performance.I understand that this does not have to be the case for all users and I understand that your objective is to cover the requirements of the greatest number of users possible.
In this new update that you are doing, perhaps you should add more configuration options, so that users can configure the software according to their needs and the power of their hardware.
As I have said in other posts, I think the software has great potential and I look forward to seeing what you surprise us with in the next update.
-
@jf-john thanks for the info.
Is it an either/or requirement, i.e 5000 feet or 250 knots because I am finding that flying my TBM I do get traffic at the destination airport and on route and I dont exceed 200 knots but do fly above 5000 feet?
-
@cbcdesign Both conditions have to be met for the flight plans to be processed. It's linked to the groundspeed so with any altitude and weather dependant you're likely meeting the conditions.
@DigFS I think you may be correct. Whilst it worked well with our testing group, we had already briefed on what was to expected so it never came up as an issue. It may account for some number of users reporting no destination traffic. We will look at providing options where possible. I'll be dipping into the other forums later on. We appreciate the support.
John - Just Flight
-
@jf-john said in Please give us some info and best practice about destination:
@cbcdesign Both conditions have to be met for the flight plans to be processed. It's linked to the groundspeed so with any altitude and weather dependant you're likely meeting the conditions.
I see, that makes sense then as to why its all working for me. Thanks John.
