Please give us some info and best practice about destination
-
@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.
-
@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 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
-
@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.
