An integrated AI traffic system: Difference between revisions

m
Heading level cleanup
No edit summary
m (Heading level cleanup)
Line 6: Line 6:
{{AI Navbar}}
{{AI Navbar}}


= Goals =
== Goals ==
* improve interoperability between AI traffic and AI ATC
* improve interoperability between AI traffic and AI ATC
* integrate existing AI traffic code with the FlightGear autopilot and route manager systems, so that AI traffic may make use of these systems
* integrate existing AI traffic code with the FlightGear autopilot and route manager systems, so that AI traffic may make use of these systems
Line 13: Line 13:
* make AI ATC fully script-able
* make AI ATC fully script-able


= Background =
== Background ==
* 12/2001: "We need to be able to have multiple instances of various FDM's running concurrenty (and with your proposed changes, accessible through the property manager interface.) I'm thinking of things like random 'traffic' that would get created and deleted. For instance we have fdm[0], fdm[1], fdm[2], fdm[3] and then we delete fdm[1] because it flew out of range, but now another aircraft flies into view so we need to create fdm[4], etc."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg00881.html]
* 12/2001: "We need to be able to have multiple instances of various FDM's running concurrenty (and with your proposed changes, accessible through the property manager interface.) I'm thinking of things like random 'traffic' that would get created and deleted. For instance we have fdm[0], fdm[1], fdm[2], fdm[3] and then we delete fdm[1] because it flew out of range, but now another aircraft flies into view so we need to create fdm[4], etc."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg00881.html]


Line 32: Line 32:
* 11/2003: "FlightGear is an old code base, and lots of the old assumptions (like a single aircraft) need to be teased out of the code before progress can be made on new features. This kind of work isn't glamorous, and often requires more effort than the new development does. But it's not brain surgery either."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18446.html]
* 11/2003: "FlightGear is an old code base, and lots of the old assumptions (like a single aircraft) need to be teased out of the code before progress can be made on new features. This kind of work isn't glamorous, and often requires more effort than the new development does. But it's not brain surgery either."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18446.html]


= Scripted AI Traffic =
== Scripted AI Traffic ==
 
* 11/2003: "Yes I would prefer an ac+fdm+autopilot solution strictly for realism purposes" [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18478.html]
* 11/2003: "Yes I would prefer an ac+fdm+autopilot solution strictly for realism purposes" [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18478.html]


Line 50: Line 49:
* 11/2003: "Therefore low level control procedures need to be defined in layers so that implementors can pick where to hook in, and have a well defined list of procedures that must be implemented to hook in at that level."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18502.html]
* 11/2003: "Therefore low level control procedures need to be defined in layers so that implementors can pick where to hook in, and have a well defined list of procedures that must be implemented to hook in at that level."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg18502.html]


= FDM driven AI Traffic =
== FDM driven AI Traffic ==
 
* "The present AIAircraft fdm won't do it though. It only handles "normal" maneuvers, like normal climbs, descents and turns."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg19095.html]
* "The present AIAircraft fdm won't do it though. It only handles "normal" maneuvers, like normal climbs, descents and turns."[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@flightgear.org/msg19095.html]