Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums
Mike...

TrafficLook feature suggestion

Recommended Posts

Hello Pete,

I make good use out of TrafficLook to test my Afcads, especially to verify runway usage. I'm currently checking KDFW and as you'll probably know, there's a lot of AI there. That much even, that I realized TrafficLook needed a new feature. An airport filter of some sort. When in ground mode, I usually only want to see departing traffic and in airborne mode arrival traffic, for a specific airport. It would be great if I could supply a filter to TrafficLook, KDFW in this case, that would only display From traffic for KDFW in Ground mode (From = KDFW) and To traffic for KDFW in Airborne mode (To = KDFW). That would allow me to then sort KDFW departure and arrival traffic in various ways for monitoring purposes, without traffic cluttering the list that I'm not interested in.

I hope you understand what I want to accomplish. Would this be easy to implement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I make good use out of TrafficLook to test my Afcads, especially to verify runway usage. I'm currently checking KDFW and as you'll probably know, there's a lot of AI there. That much even, that I realized TrafficLook needed a new feature. An airport filter of some sort. When in ground mode, I usually only want to see departing traffic and in airborne mode arrival traffic, for a specific airport. It would be great if I could supply a filter to TrafficLook, KDFW in this case, that would only display From traffic for KDFW in Ground mode (From = KDFW) and To traffic for KDFW in Airborne mode (To = KDFW). That would allow me to then sort KDFW departure and arrival traffic in various ways for monitoring purposes, without traffic cluttering the list that I'm not interested in

As TrafficLook was only intended as a test program and demonstration, and provided as a freebie, I do not anticipate doing any development on it -- especially as there are payware alternatives which do the job already. I use trafficboard (Super TrafficBoard on FSX in fact).

Regards

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no use for an FSX addon as FS9 user.

;)

I do use Traffic View Board, as inflight entertainment, but it doesn't mention runways at all, so it's no good as a testing tool. I know of no other alternatives that'll do exactly what I want them to do. I'd love to learn about them though! TrafficLook is really as real close as it gets, safe for a basic airport filter.

I had already thought of the implementation as well. For example, under the "Ground" section of the ini file, there's "From=13,50" on my end. The filter would simply be enabled by a third value, so "From=13,50,KDFW" would show only flights departing from KDFW, in ground mode. No third value, no filter. Four entries would be filter compatible, Airborne From and To and Ground From and To. No GUI changes would be needed as I and I assume other serious testers check Afcads one airport at a time, so an ini edit would be a perfect way to enable and disable a filter.

I don't suppose you are willing to reconsider? If the above would be an ordeal to implement, I'd understand, but I have a feeling that it isn't, though what do I know about programming... and that is part of the problem.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had already thought of the implementation as well. For example, under the "Ground" section of the ini file, there's "From=13,50" on my end. The filter would simply be enabled by a third value, so "From=13,50,KDFW" would show only flights departing from KDFW, in ground mode. No third value, no filter. Four entries would be filter compatible, Airborne From and To and Ground From and To. No GUI changes would be needed as I and I assume other serious testers check Afcads one airport at a time, so an ini edit would be a perfect way to enable and disable a filter.

I don't suppose you are willing to reconsider? If the above would be an ordeal to implement, I'd understand, but I have a feeling that it isn't, though what do I know about programming... and that is part of the problem.

I'll put it on my list to look at in my next 'idle' moment. No promises.

Regards

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I make good use out of TrafficLook to test my Afcads, especially to verify runway usage. I'm currently checking KDFW and as you'll probably know, there's a lot of AI there. That much even, that I realized TrafficLook needed a new feature. An airport filter of some sort. When in ground mode, I usually only want to see departing traffic and in airborne mode arrival traffic, for a specific airport. It would be great if I could supply a filter to TrafficLook, KDFW in this case, that would only display From traffic for KDFW in Ground mode (From = KDFW) and To traffic for KDFW in Airborne mode (To = KDFW). That would allow me to then sort KDFW departure and arrival traffic in various ways for monitoring purposes, without traffic cluttering the list that I'm not interested in.

Okay. Please try version 1.551 of TrafficLook, now available in the Download Links sub-forum.

Regards

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pete, it seems to work fine, but, and I don't mean to sound ungrateful, it doesn't differentiate between From/Departure and To/Arrival traffic. In Ground mode for example, it shows AI departing from but also arriving at (KDFW in my test). I can sort the From column to group the KDFW departures, but as soon as I sort say the Rwy column, KDFW departures are no longer grouped and it becomes a lot harder to discern the info relevant to me. Especially at bigger airports, it's madness. That's why I was specific about From and To ("Four entries would be filter compatible, Airborne From and To and Ground From and To.").

I don't suppose in addition to the general filter "Airport=KDFW", which does serve its purpose (for example in the NYC area), you could add specific filters covering those four. Like GroundFromAirport, GroundToAirport, AirborneFromAirport, and AirborneToAirport. Obviously, it wouldn't be a good idea to use both Ground or both Airborne filters (or a combination?) at the same time with the same ICAO code, although, AI that does touch and go's would still show up I think.

In my example of KDFW, I would set GroundFromAirport=KDFW and AirborneToAirport=KDFW in a test. Alternatively, I'd use GroundToAirport=KDFW, the least used would problably be AirborneFromAirport.

I hope I explained it well.

And a happy new year by the way.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pete, it seems to work fine, but, and I don't mean to sound ungrateful, it doesn't differentiate between From/Departure and To/Arrival traffic.

Sorry, but I didn't think you wanted any differentiation, just a filter for the airport. It was actually a little more code to do both!

I don't suppose in addition to the general filter "Airport=KDFW", which does serve its purpose (for example in the NYC area), you could add specific filters covering those four. Like GroundFromAirport, GroundToAirport, AirborneFromAirport, and AirborneToAirport. Obviously, it wouldn't be a good idea to use both Ground or both Airborne filters (or a combination?) at the same time with the same ICAO code, although, AI that does touch and go's would still show up I think.

...

In my example of KDFW, I would set GroundFromAirport=KDFW and AirborneToAirport=KDFW in a test. Alternatively, I'd use GroundToAirport=KDFW, the least used would problably be AirborneFromAirport.

Obviously I completely misunderstood your wishes and that all you wanted was to eliminate traffic that wasn't related to the airport you were working on. I thought your suggested implementation was only done that way because you though it was easier -- which it wasn't. Your suggestion revolved around the formatting tables which are processed en bloc, for column positioning and can't come into selecting.

Ask me again in a few weeks. I only did it in some spare time yesterday and it turned out to be no fun at all. I really haven't the patience or desire to plough back into that old code yet again in the near future.

:-(

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.