If you use the 'real' runway/taxiway layout eg as obtained from OSM then you
have several 'fast' exits and other more right angle turns from a given runway.
With a minimal route for the aircraft - a "from" runway, stop at stand, then a
"to" runway, I find you need a couple of specific "via" edges to get realistic
routing.
However with this and an 'aircraft' landing at ~110kt sumo is quite happy to
slam on the brakes to meet an exit closer to the target terminal - I found you
needed to set taxiway 'priorities' to ensure the aircraft didn't do this and
didn't zigzag across what is really a one way system.
Having set those for one landing/takeoff direction I found they just didn't
work when you changed direction. Doubtless much fiddling might get it to work
but I didn't think it worth the effort, given that in reality different traffic
rules come into play when the runway reverses. ie a different net file seemed
fine. (all you're doing is amending priorities and closing/opening a couple of
connections)
Obviously if you use traci to act as 'ground control' and 'tower' then you
don't need different files.
Cherrs
Div
-------- Original Message --------
On 13 May 2024, 18:24, wrote:
> Dear Div,
>
> do you have an idea why this is not possible? I have always thought that
> reversing the direction of a runway is just a matter of different routing of
> my airplanes. I have never tried that in practice, though.
>
> Jan
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2024, at 12:00 PM, The div via sumo-user wrote:
>
>> One more caveat wrt change of runway direction:
>> Heathrow for example uses one runway for landing, one for takeoff and
>> switches these round in the middle of the day. This can be handled easily by
>> using different routes. However I found that change of direction from eg 27R
>> to 09L, because the wind direction has changed, could only be modelled by
>> use of different network files. This is because different exits/entries/
>> taxiways come into play. Whilst being very specific about routes could
>> handle this it offers no real 'modelling'
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On 13 May 2024, 10:39, The div via sumo-user < [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi, I have question about the new vClasses "aircraft".
>>> Are there plans to add air traffic? Or what it is generally good for?
>>>
>>> I've used sumo to model airports and some drone activities (just out of
>>> interest) - my observations:
>>> a) Modelling airport ground movements and multi-modal traffic (passenger,
>>> bus, rail, cargo, catering, etc) works well today, with the caveat that
>>> aircraft tug/pushback behaviour isn't really practical - you can do it at
>>> airports with small numbers of stands but at larger airports it's just too
>>> messy.
>>>
>>> b) if you're not using traci to behave as ground control/tower control
>>> modelling spaced takeoff/landing needs some fudging and won't be correct.
>>>
>>> c)it works because in larger airfields ground movements of all traffic,
>>> including aircraft, follow strict routes, even across the apron - so you
>>> can set up roads/railways mapping these routes. Modelling smaller fields
>>> with free movement across the apron won't work.
>>>
>>> d) passenger loading/unloading times on transit buses/tube lines/aircraft
>>> has to be set to unrealistic values because load/unload is at a single
>>> point. I haven't yet tried the doors features of v20 that may fix this.
>>>
>>> e) I looked at airway modelling and decided it wasn't really sensible/could
>>> not envisage a use case that would model anything that excel wouldn't:
>>> i) distances are huge relative to road distances - meaning you have a long
>>> duration simulation for a single vehicle travelling hundreds of miles
>>> ii) airway transit is about changing flight level - you need to handle this
>>> to get climb/descent timings right
>>> iii) using the gui, even just to check behaviour, simply doesn't work on
>>> this scale.
>>>
>>> f) if you assume that eventually drones will be subject to similar airway
>>> restrictions as aircraft to avoid collisions then it should be feasible to
>>> model them using sumo vehicles - because the range of 'flight levels'
>>> available and distances travelled will be relatively small.
>>>
>>> g) if you assume that drone traffic will be uncontrolled and reliant on
>>> collision avoidance, then using sumo vehicles won't be practical because
>>> drones will try to travel in straight lines between launch and destination.
>>> (ie there won't be a road network)
>>>
>>> h) I have had reasonable success modelling this latter style of drone
>>> behaviour using a sumo poi to model a drone and traci to manage flight.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Div
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sumo-user mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
_______________________________________________
sumo-user mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
