On Wednesday 26 May 2004 23:21, David Megginson wrote: > I agree. Unfortunately, you will find that many SIDs consist of something > along the lines of > > - fly runway heading > - maintain 3,000 ft unless otherwise advised by ATC > - expect vectors on course > > Similarily, many STARs simply provide an altitude and a starting point, and > then state that the pilot should expect vectors to the runway. Neither > will be too useful for AI work, I'm afraid. > >
I hadn't really thought about that so much. However, while these SIDs and STARs wouldn't be very useful for AI traffic, they probably wouldn't be too problematic either. As long as there is an initial and a final waypoint, the "expect vectors" would then simply be the most direct route between these two. I'm currently again leaning more toward a "straight-in" "straight-out" take on AI traffic as the first step, because that would simplify automatic flight plan/waypoint generation by quite a bit. Then next, if we have the data available on approach and departure procedures, these could be used instead. Cheers, Durk _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
