Tower!3D Pro - Low Traffic Due to Gate Availability

[crbascott]

In another thread, Paul brought forth a problem he was having with traffic volume at TIST. In an attempt to see what he was experiencing, I started a TIST session at 13:00 and all 11 parking spots were full. Well, what this means is that there will be no arrivals until spots free up. Which is what happened. I'd have a departure and then an arrival would show up, but some arrivals got skipped because no gate was a available. 

So, I looked at the log and tried to figure out how the initial gates were allocated. I'm sure it's a tough algorithm to code but what I'm seeing is planes at the gate 2-3 hours in advance of their departure time. The most obvious example was JBU900 at gate 1. It had a departure time of 16:06. In reality this plane would not have even arrived at the airport yet (based on the schedule the incoming plane would arrive beginning at 14:38).

I've seen full gates as a problem before but never really dug into it. It's a little clearer to me now what the cause is. Actually, what I've been doing is making smaller schedule files. For example, if I want to control starting at 13:00 I'll create a 3 hour schedule file that only has flights from 12:00 through 14:59. It works pretty well, but the airport can look/feel a little empty at times.

I'm attaching the output_log.txt file from my session. This might be a tough egg to crack, but it looks like the initial gate assignment logic could use a little tweaking. Thanks, Craig  

output_log.txt

[Avwriter]

Just a couple of notes:

I recal that Dick Parker has commented on this as well, noting that with SC if you includ significantly more flights than the gates can handle that you will actually end up with less flights than if you created a schedule with something more reasonable.

I also recall that Vic made a comment some time ago that since Tower3D's release that they did tweak the amount of time that planes spend at the gate and that he pointed out that, you will sometimes see some flight depart almost immediately upon arrival. I have observed this on occasion, as I am sure other payers have as well.   I have no idea how this length of time is managed in the game logic, but it is evidence that it can be adjusted, and so there should be some level of hope that further tweaking could improve things even more.

 

Andrew

[FeelThere_Vic]

It's a pretty complex piece of code that handles delays, etc so I'm not sure if we want to modify it for one or two quirks or custom made schedules. 

[crbascott]

For the record, the example I provided was using the Nyerges schedule and there are easily more than one or two in the hour I tested and provided in the log. I'm sure I could find plenty of "quirks" for every airport using the provided schedules.

I figured the code was complex but didn't figure on a close-mined response. But that's ok - I'll continue with my work-around and make smaller schedule files (I guess you would call this custom) in order to improve my 3D Pro experience.   

[Avwriter]

To be fair, I really don't see Vic's response as being closed-minded, just cautious.  He has demonstrated the opposite too many times to make such an assumption so quickly.  After all, he did not say "no" outright, he simply expressed doubts based upon what he knows (and what we do not know) about the nature of the software.  My take is that he is simply concerned about whether such tweaks in a "delicate" part of the code would be likely to create more problems than they would solve.  It is reasonable to weigh such things against one another.

[WildCard]

Just my 2 cents worth, as I've looked at this already but have been too busy to post a detailed analysis.

The airline schedule (excluding GA and Local) for TIST included in the game (not the RT one) has 94 arrivals and 96 departures between 06:50 and 21:22. The game only loads 6 hrs worth of flights from the time selected in the menu.

So, starting TIST at 04:00, will give 3 GA flights at 04:18, 05:55, 09:20, 13 inbound flights and 17 outbound flights. That's it.

Edited April 24, 2017 by WildCard
Looked at wrong schedule (RT) when working out inbound/outbound flights, numbers from unmodified game now posted

[pracines]

1 hour ago, crbascott said:

I figured the code was complex but didn't figure on a close-mined response. But that's ok - I'll continue with my work-around and make smaller schedule files (I guess you would call this custom) in order to improve my 3D Pro experience.   

Craig,

This is exactly why I went to Mr. Parker instead of even trying to be "responsible" and go through any kind labor providing details, logs, examples. Unless you have a "name" (clout), FeelThere is simply not willing to entertain suggestions of possible improvements. They are just too busy with an agenda (of making new airports & SE ) that does not include allowing for suggestions to be even looked at or discussed.

I thought Mr. Parker could help, maybe he can't, who knows. 

1 hour ago, Avwriter said:

To be fair, I really don't see Vic's response as being closed-minded, just cautious.  He has demonstrated the opposite too many times to make such an assumption so quickly.  After all, he did not say "no" outright, he simply expressed doubts based upon what he knows (and what we do not know) about the nature of the software.  My take is that he is simply concerned about whether such tweaks in a "delicate" part of the code would be likely to create more problems than they would solve.  It is reasonable to weigh such things against one another.

Avwriter,

Caution is welcome, but that response statement began and ended with that caution alone, therefore ending the response as caution being the final possibility. This is a forum and people get time to think about what they write and read over it. 

A Log file was attached but was not even mentioned by FeelThere and that communicates a lack of interest, so Avwriter you are being "fair" to Vic without fully understanding the conversation so far. FeelThere did not say, "we will look into it" or elude that this a continuing discussion, so where is the fairness to Craig? Therefore, Craig correctly evaluated the response as close-minded, yet he remained kind and still willing to support the flawed product. So when looked at with closer attention Craig was really the fair one in this exchange. We should not be bringing in past or other topics to evaluate or cloud the facts of this specific topic/exchange.

For all,

Tower 3D is a most awesome concept, it has potential to be much better, and I hope FeelThere succeeds at making it much better, however:

Its a total shame that a developer cannot at least respond in this case with a little interest (1 or 2 quirks!) in our complete satisfaction.

The fact is Tower 3DPro is devalued greatly (essentially an over priced game!) w/o Nyerges, yet time and time again its the customers fault for buying real traffic & color. An add-on which only serves to make Tower3D better has been a mistake, all because FeelThere cant seem to adapt to the demand that the add-on requires. We customers have to bare the burden. So we all have to ask, is this the way it should be?

I always like to give companies a chance to do the right thing, when they do, they succeed, when they don't, we customers have an arsenal of tools at our disposal to make companies either go out of business (ACES found that out fast!) or wallow in unsuccessful attempts to remain in business.

No company is bigger than their customers......care to debate this, anyone?

[crbascott]

2 hours ago, Avwriter said:

To be fair, I really don't see Vic's response as being closed-minded, just cautious.  He has demonstrated the opposite too many times to make such an assumption so quickly.  After all, he did not say "no" outright, he simply expressed doubts based upon what he knows (and what we do not know) about the nature of the software.  My take is that he is simply concerned about whether such tweaks in a "delicate" part of the code would be likely to create more problems than they would solve.  It is reasonable to weigh such things against one another.

Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I've been around this forum a while, have more years of software development experience than I'd like to admit, and because of that I have always presented thorough information regarding bugs and such. In this case I felt my time, effort, and intelligence were insulted by simply brushing my post as "one or two quirks". 

But as I said, I've got a work-around that I started using with Tower!2011 that minimizes this particular logic issue.So, I'm ok ... but can't speak for others.  

[FeelThere_Vic]

"The most obvious example was JBU900 at gate 1. It had a departure time of 16:06. In reality this plane would not have even arrived at the airport yet (based on the schedule the incoming plane would arrive beginning at 14:38)."

I guess it's pretty easy to understand by normal 'human way" of thinking but let's say we would add a rule "load traffic  only that will leave in the next 30 minutes after the game starts". This would solve this specific problem with the JetBlue but what about let's say a long range flight at LAX which stays at the gate for 2 hours before it turns around? It would not even show up for the game. There are so many times when a human brain understand one thing easily but when you try to write down the rule on paper it's much more difficult. We spent weeks to make the schedule as it is today, we tried so many things to find the right balance.

In T!2011 there were times when you had to wait long minutes before any traffic showed up. Now the first traffic shows up in the first minute or two. I'm sure for the next version this would be something we want to adjust even further. 

Vic

 

[crbascott]

Response #1 - swing and a miss!

Response #2 - a double off the top of the wall - almost a home run! ;)  

There are several scenarios and you have provided what you think works best most of the time. If you are satisfied with the logic, then I can totally respect that. More importantly, I appreciate the thoughtful and respectful response.

Craig   

[pracines]

I think this is a case where a programmer needs to ask themselves; ok, this happens in real life like this, so how do we make this happen in our simulator like this? i.e. If that 747 is there at a gate for 2 hours then that company 747 that just landed will have a space to park, because in real life that is the way it is. 

-Are there enough parking spaces?

-Do we have the proper scale? 

-What airlines use what gates?

-Is the time clock correct? right now its slow. Can it be synced to the PC clock speed for accuracy? It may not matter or this may be a key as to schedule issues when one controls traffic for double or triple shifts :-). Unsure how, but schedules have to do with time/speed/distance. If one or two of the factors are correct but 1 is off or any combo of discrepancy, then possibly unforeseen issues can arise....just a thought. 

-Ok lets make some over flow parking for contingencies - real airports have this, we should too. 

-Lets go further, if it gets backed up enough and spaces become even more limited what happens in real life? Well there are holding pads/pens, and then the consideration of adding more commands to allow for a very rare case.

-Then even dive in real deep - like a "check for updates" option, if there is a schedule update (and there should be something like minor quarterly updates), then that update needs to verify the airports can properly support the schedule changes, just like a real airport manager has to do; make necessary changes to gates or even entire terminals.

To be clear, I don't expect this to happen overnight or even in a service pack next year, but really these are the kinds of things that could have been implemented way before T!2011 was in alpha. Here we are in 2017; surly schedule/parking issues are a top priority, for they are at the core of what this simulation is all about.

This post is not designed to judge or criticize, but to encourage greater heights, and I do not mind growing pains. Yes all this is easier said than done, but there is no need to be afraid of good ole hard work, for it always pays off. 

[707FAN]

I noticed the gate problems back to Tower2011. I make my schedules from a download of a typical day taken from flight aware, massaged etc. & turned into a text file.

In 3D Pro I like to work JFK but with around 1100 movements a day it gets hard to manage at peak times. I have reduced the  movements to about 45 per hr. This is comfortable to work & I have time to watch the aircraft taxi & enjoy the scenery so as to speak. I culled some of the DAL & JBU flights by putting // in front of the text entry. This can easily be changed by just removing the // sign to put them back. As a side issue, it appears that most of the terminal occupancy problems have gone away as there are not so many flights to fight for space at the terminal. Unfortunately tower doesn't have the :"tow & stow" facility where long staying A/C can be moved to a parking area until the departure time approaches, then put back on to the terminal position a couple of hrs before departure. That would really make it interesting for the ground controller.

Something to think about

Kev M

[Nicolas]

15 minutes ago, 707FAN said:

I make my schedules from a download of a typical day taken from flight aware, massaged etc. & turned into a text file.

 

Hi Kev,

 

Have found flightaware to be unreliable .. better to use Flightradar24

[crbascott]

6 hours ago, Nicolas said:

Hi Kev,

 

Have found flightaware to be unreliable .. better to use Flightradar24

Interesting ... never thought the Flightradar24 layout was conducive to easily grabbing a days worth of flights as compared to FlightAware. Also, the callsigns all seem to be of the major carriers (i.e., no SkyWest Compass, Republic, Air Shuttle, etc.). I'd be curious to hear how you use Flightradar24 to build a schedule.    

[achilles1971]

8 hours ago, 707FAN said:

"Unfortunately tower doesn't have the :"tow & stow" facility where long staying A/C can be moved to a parking area until the departure time approaches, then put back on to the terminal position a couple of hrs before departure."

It was a requested feature for tower 3D

[FeelThere_Vic]

56 minutes ago, achilles1971 said:

It was a requested feature for tower 3D

..and it will be added onto the list of the next version of Tower as well. We hope it will make the feature list but please understand just because it's on the list or requested is not a guarantee it will make it.
T!3D has about 100 (visible or hidden) new functions compared to T!2011. 

[Nicolas]

20 hours ago, crbascott said:

Interesting ... never thought the Flightradar24 layout was conducive to easily grabbing a days worth of flights as compared to FlightAware. Also, the callsigns all seem to be of the major carriers (i.e., no SkyWest Compass, Republic, Air Shuttle, etc.). I'd be curious to hear how you use Flightradar24 to build a schedule.    

Hi,

Sorry but you have to have a gold or silver subscription.. then you can download schedules.. it also show you the partner airlines then.

But using flightaware is also not an option as way to many errors or flights not recorded.

 

Nicolas

[crbascott]

Thanks Nicolas - I actually do have a gold subscription. Is this the area you are talking about to download schedules? I'm not seeing a download feature, but it can probably be screen-scraped. However, I still don't see the partner airlines. I do see United Express, American Eagle, etc. but what is the actual airline operating the flight?