traffic

[an-225]

Do you think we'll be able to assign flightplans to aircraft and watch them fly above the 100k limit?Imagine a 747 at fl 1500!

[flyboy 28]

I'd imagine it would stall.

[Jakemaster]

I'd imagine it would stall.

It would stall AND the engines would die

[Cobra]

I was gonna say that....but i doubt AI actually will have anything to do with the physics engine in the game will they??? Arnt they just moving objects?

Dunno why you would wanna though

[an-225]

I also mean Space Shuttle missions.

[Ashton Lawson]

Its definately possible.

If you download the current traffic toolbox SDK, there are take-off length parameters, speed, cruise alt, and more stuff like that.

The actually AI aircraft have no relation to the actual physics engine, otherwise the whole simulation will slow down.  The AI flight paths are basically invisible roads for the AI to follow exactly.  Which is why you can make an F-14 use only 50 metres of runway to takeoff, and land.

Besides, should all the AI actually have real-physics applied to them, there would be so many processes to calculate the behaviour, and so many processes to control the 'virtual pilot' in the AI.  And thats a huge load on YOUR PC's processor.

[Daube]

A little bit off-topic, but in the latest X-Plane updates I read that they have implemented physic engine-dependent AI. I wonder if MS wil follow fo the next FS

Anyway you're right, this would be very heavy on the proc....excepted if they enable it ony for takeoffs and landings, maybe....

[Ashton Lawson]

There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings.  Nowadays huge jets are on autopilot even when taxiing.  The only physics I would apply, is the wind speed and direction, so planes have to re-adjust for the slip.  Otherwise I'd leave MS with their current configuration.  ;)

In packages with Aircraft Carriers, it is conveintient to hav no physics so that you can emulate a true catapult-assisted takeoff, and arrested landings.  I think MS hav gon the rite way with their AI system. :)

There is still one Issue i'd like MS to modify tho.  When I crash into an AI plane, on ground or in mid-air, I want the other plane to stop, or go on fire, rather than just carry on with its buisness like nothing happened.  >:(

[Ben R]

yeah..was landing with FSpassengers....san fran intl to london in a 747 and i was 350 nm from base..some jerk off wanted to play and crashed into me..i was very upset =[

[Jakemaster]

yeah..was landing with FSpassengers....san fran intl to london in a 747 and i was 350 nm from base..some jerk off wanted to play and crashed into me..i was very upset =[

You were still 350 miles away, that kinda thing happens to me on final.

That is why you should always turn off crashes, I know its not realistic but why take chances with AI/MP?

[Daube]

[quote]There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings.

[PisTon]

[quote]There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings.

[vololiberista]

Why would you want to fly a 747 above 100,000ft?
On a hot day their rate of climb fully loaded is so low they can barely make it to 10ft!!!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

[Nexus]

I guess Volo has never seen an A343 at MTOW at Gran Canaria airport, 39c OAT

I swear that thing got passed by a frigging kite.
Slowmo climber, for sure.

[vololiberista]

Whwn I was in london i lived under the rwy 09R SIDs 5dme downrange.  747's on a hot day were frequently still below the 1,500ft legal minimum.
I remember a hot day at Gatwick many years ago watching a Cathay Pacific 747 en route for Hong Kong rotate "in the red zone!!!!" His V1 must have been whilst he was still taxiing!!!!
Vololiberista