On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:21:58AM +0100, Ashish Gulhati wrote: > Of-course, you wouldn't actually want to implement flying car > traffic this way. I'm just trying to illustrate using familiar metaphors > how having freedom of movement in 3D makes it easier to design > systems to avoid collisions.
The problem with with current traffic dispatching is that they're defining 1d lanes in a 3d space, artificially concentrating traffic within narrow virtual channels. This is good for central traffic coordination, but is prone to catastrophic failures due to human error. A flock approach would create an autonomous traffic control node on board of every aircraft. The aircraft is equipped with a survival instinct, which is weeding out the set of flight trajectories which would lead to collisions in near future (mostly, Newtonian mechanics), and with bidirectional communication to nearby such nodes (other aircraft and on-ground nodes). The user interface to it needs to be very limited (most of helicopter crashes are pilot error), such as setting destination, adding wishes to a route, and some limited in-flight interaction by means a 6DOF input device. Of course you also need a manual override, but logged and notified, so abuse (not an emergency) can be penalized. > In a real system, it'd be far better to ditch the 2D-oriented view > entirely and let the cars go where they liked, with collision > avoidance kicking in automatically when two or more craft get too > close to each other. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
