Does anyone have any idea how to block/stop ground service vehicles using aircraft taxi network and use their assigned (vehicle) network?
They are everywhere!
Now he is coming back using the same route!
Now he is coming back using the same route!
1 Like
I haven’t tried this, but if you use TaxiwayPaths of type TAXI, do they only allow aircraft on them without vehicles? (I’m not sure if the difference between TAXI and PATH affects ground vehicles or if it’s merely cosmetic.)
The only difference between Taxi and Path is that TAXI draws the Apron according to the material and width specified. PATH does not draw the surface.
There has not been a solution for this since MSFS was released. VEHICLE can be chosen from the path type but if a vehicle path is not existent between point A and B, vehicles will use the paths instead.
That’s interesting, because when we submit airports to the World Hub, they don’t allow paths of type TAXI, as they say it will have some unintended consequences. So I always assumed there was some additional non-cosmetic difference.
The TAXI type doesn’t really draw the surfaces correctly. That’s probably why it’s not the preferred method. Plus it really doesn’t make a difference
1 Like
The moderator rejected someone whose airport contained that type of path. They wrote:
Change all taxiways set to “TAXI” to “PATH” or “VEHICLE” if its a vehicle specific road, this is because it can cause issues with the pathing AI,
So it sounded to me like it actually affects what follows those paths.
Probably they should study WED for X-Plane and try to apply some of the “good” things based on that knowledge.My personal thought is that SDK is nowhere near WED at the moment in terms of ease of use and diversity of available sources - unfortunately.
I’ve never worked on X-Plane stuff, so I have nothing to compare it to, but yeah, a lot of stuff seems unintuitive or takes a long time.
Vehicles are currently using all routes for path-finding but prefer vehicle networks. So if there is a way by using only vehicle they will use it, even if they have to take a very long way. Many Airports have service roads around the airfield, make sure to add them to your airports as well, this will allow the AI system to send vehicles everywhere at the airport without using non-vehicle routes.
So the issue you’re pointing out is that the developer chose “Taxi” paths for paths that were clearly for vehicles only. In which case the developer should have chosen vehicle path instead of Taxi (or Path). The fear being, of course, AI planes would drive on the vehicle path.
Per the SDK, the only difference between Path and Taxipath is that Taxipath draws the material. I agree that I prefer to use Paths, ESPECIALLY when the taxiway is across an apron. But, for improved appearance, I use paths everywhere, except for on the runway.
Per this thread, it’s always been true that vehicles travel on aircraft taxi paths. There’s been a wishlist to change this forever. And they say it’s being investigated. It’s likely this won’t change for 2020, unless it can be back implemented from 2024, if they address it all.
I believe that the intention was for an aircraft path, but my memory’s a little hazy at this point, as this was a couple months ago and it wasn’t my submission.
But it’s always been a question mark in my head as to why a World Hub moderator would tell someone to change all paths of type TAXI into either PATH or VEHICLE. They don’t want submissions with paths of type TAXI for some reason.
Ok, now I’m really confused, I thought you said they should turn paths that were obviously vehicle paths into vehicle paths from Taxi paths.
Taxi Path allows a material to be shown
Path is the same as Taxi, but with no material
Vehicle path is restricted for use by vehicles
Vehicles will drive on all paths. So it’s not a surprise vehicles drive on taxiways. For a very long time, the wishlist has said that “Vehicles driving on taxipaths” is being investigated, since, from day one, people have complained about vehicles randomly showing up where they are trying to taxi and blocking there way, given that ATC tells them to stop.
So, I agree, I have no idea why a WH Mod would tell anyone not to use Taxi paths. I don’t use it, because the materials and lines options don’t work well or consistently, and it’s much easier for me to use a combination of Path and aprons and lines to get exactly what I want. Maybe that’s what they meant, and it had nothing to do with vehicles?
I use vehicle paths where I can because I assume vehicles will be more likely to follow vehicle paths than Path paths.
(I left out Runway paths because they are only on runways, but, they work about the same as the others, and vehicles do drive on them sometimes I think (it’s been a while since I’ve paid attention))
Very interesting and complicated matter.
In short: vehicle will take any “road” whatever we may call it: vehicle, path, taxiway, apron etc…
The secret or the rule is that AI-Vehicles have only one principle: to take the shortest way from one point to the other. To be true, AIs do the same…
Back to FSX it was the same story.
I have designed airport diagrams with ADE (Airport Design Editor for MSFS) for LFPG (Paris Charles-de-Gaulle) and LFPO (Paris Orly) on “flightsim.to” and here is my feed-back.
The rule is simple but not that easy to do: aircrafts and AIVs shall not, should not, cannot, must not use the same network but two different ones. To prevent AIVs to use the aircraft network, in most cases there should not be a taxiway point (aka node in ADE) that is common to both networks. If there is a link created by a single node on both networks, then AIVs will take it and have a ride on aircraft taxiways, or, worse, on runways, jumping from one network to the other. It means that each vehicle taxipath crossing an apron/taxiway link should simply go through without connection, like if one network was beneath or above the other. The exception is the need to have a connection between the two networks at, and only there, behind parked aircrafts to allow AIVs to join parkings for their business. In all other circumstances AIVs network should never be linked via a single taxiway point/node.
The new thing is that in MSFS a “closed” taxi type was introduced. The good news are that AIVs do not care whether it’s closed, and that these “closed” taxiway are physically drawn. I say this because “vehicle” taxiway and “apron” ones are not drawn but “closed” taxiway yes. In most cases it doesn’t matter because the apron/vehicle links are usually inside aprons that are themselves drawn. But if we have a “closed” type then it is interesting to use it as soon as you are out of the aprons or taxiways structure, for example in grass. Now I believe that “closed” and “taxiway” would be the same scenario for AIVs…
When I started to work on my LFPG diagram improvement, I couldn’t understand why the designer(s) stacked two taxi links networks in the grass. I then realized that there was one “vehicle” taxi links network and, stack above, another “taxiway” links network. In this case the “vehicle” links were not necessary.
It belongs to airport diagram designers to respect this principle and AIVs incursions should be almost equal to zero.
Xavier
1 Like
Nope.
Yup. We’re on the same page about all of this stuff.
I don’t know. This is exactly what they wrote:
Change all taxiways set to “TAXI” to “PATH” or “VEHICLE” if its a vehicle specific road, this is because it can cause issues with the pathing AI,
I interpret this as, that type of path actually causes problems with aircraft or vehicles or something.
1 Like
Service Vehicles prefers “Vehicle Path” and will always use them if they are available. If Vehicle Paths are not defined, then the vehicles will use the taxiways. Road Paths are never used.
1 Like
I have vehicle paths all over the scenery but 90% of the traffic uses taxi paths.
can you take a screenshot of the Airport (In DevMode) and post it here?
What Scenery/Airfield is it?
Custom scenery for LTFM (airport is not included in base sim data).
)
