Re: [Mratc-developers] Define some ATC specifications

[<aqu...@ya...>]

 --- Michael Ross <ht...@us...> wrote: 
> Let's define some ATC specifications:
> 
> If we plan around handling US air traffic volume, we should be
> able to handle volumes for any part of the world.  For the US, I
> think a good maximum for the number of flights in the air at one
> time is about 223,440.

How about multiply the number by 10 or 100?

> - planes should have an enroute horizontal separation of 5
> nautical miles
> - planes at 28,000 feet will head 0 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 28,750 feet will head 45 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 29,500 feet will head 90 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 30,250 feet will head 135 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 31,000 feet will head 180 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 31,750 feet will head 225 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 32,500 feet will head 270 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes at 33,250 feet will head 315 degrees, +/- 45 degrees
> - planes will choose the heading that matches most closely their
> desired heading and request permission to fly at that altitude
> or heading
> - at mach 0.85, 5 nautical miles can be traveled in 35.9 seconds
> - one fifth of that is 7.2 seconds.  Let's have a lookahead
> interval of 7.2 seconds.
> - planes take about 10 seconds to turn 90 degrees (maximum
> course adjustment within an altitude)
> - 35.9 seconds (time to travel 5 nautical miles) plus 10 seconds
> (time to turn 90 degrees) is 45.9 seconds.  45.9 seconds can be
> spanned by 8 7.2 second lookahead intervals.  Let's lookahead 8
> intervals, or 57 seconds into the future, 7.2 seconds at a time.
> - let's keep planes separated by 6 nautical miles.  This
> provides a soft boundary to watch for planes that might approach
> the 5 nautical mile separation limit during an ATC compute
> cycle.
> - ATC cycle time to evaluate all flights might be set at 7.2
> seconds for now.  Maybe we should do it more often, maybe less,
> maybe we just start a new cycle whenever we finish the last one.
> 
> Let me know of any feedback you have about these specifications.
> Are they realistic?  Do they need adjustment?  That's all for
> now.

I have one good news and one bad news:

The good news is I found a JVM optimized for extremely large-scale
applications: BEA's JRockit. And it supports lightweight threads (called "thin
threads").

The bad news is the lastest version of JRockit seems to have removed the
lightweight threads :D

I don't think it's good to use native threads or processes to emulate millions
of flights. Maybe we should really consider erlang seriously (but then we will
have to use emacs). Do you have a better solution?

=====
me = d2004xx = d2003xx = d2002xx


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com