| ▲ | buildsjets 2 hours ago | |
This is the perfect route planning software if you are the only aircraft in the sky, and fuel is your only cost. The commercial solutions exist because they consider not only the winds and fuel costs in their optimization, but also known previously cleared ATC routings, altitude restrictions whether they are charted or only documented by letter-of-agreement, expected delays due to historical congestion, pilot and cabin crew pay, crew duty time limits (your more fuel efficient route may take longer and require an entire second crew), contracted lease, finance, insurance, and maintenance rates as these are also frequently paid by the the hour, and airport arrival curfew times. And probably a few more things too. Also, you say nothing about incorporating ETOPS routing requirements into your application, and looking at the opentop source neither does it, therefore I assume this must mean this is the first time you have seen that acronym and therefore do not understand its criticality in determining aircraft routing. Might want to have your AI agent read this Wikipedia article, because your application generates many routes that are not legal to fly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS Should I even ask if this application routes around areas that have been declared active war zones by NOTAM? | ||
| ▲ | tgsovlerkhgsel 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
I find your comment unnecessarily harsh. I don't see a claim that the open source solution is better or a good solution for actual production use by airlines - it reads to me as a "here's how to use what's openly available" blog post. (Also, Scikit-decide seems to be on the Github account of Airbus, so I assume they have at least some basic knowledge of how aviation works.) | ||
| ▲ | ivraatiems an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
I don't like to be that guy, but this doesn't read as a particularly well thought-through experiment... I don't think it's as effective an advertisement for OP's consulting as they may have thought, because it suggests an inability to think within relevant context. The truth is that given the legal and ethical constraints available, routing is already relatively well-optimized in many places. (There are some places, like China's hybrid civilian-military airspace, where those constraints are extremely nasty and basically make the problem impossible to solve better than it is.) Aviation tries to solve the fuel consumption problem by designing planes to use less fuel, rather than by flying more optimal routes. There is a massive effort in aviation pretty much all the time to try to use less fuel, for every reason from cost to environmental impact to the relative accessibility of jet fuel now and into the future. It's the reason engines have gotten physically larger; it's a big part of why we don't use supersonic jets anymore as well. The efforts have been pretty sucessful: https://theicct.org/maximizing-aircraft-fuel-efficiency-desi... There's no hubris in identifying a problem, and fairly little in thinking you might be able to help solve it, but there's a good bit in imagining nobody else has done it. | ||