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.
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.)
I find it harsh but fair. The second paragraph reads:
"Firms like Jeppesen have offerings in this space, but Scikit-decide, together with a narrow- and wide-body fuel consumption model built by a professor at the Delft University of Technology and wind data from NOAA, offer an open source solution."
So this is being positioned as an open source alternative to commercial offerings, which clearly it is not. If instead he made the limitations clear from the outset, that this is just a demonstration of what he/the tools are capable of and that this is not in any way intended for real-world use, it would put the rest of the article into better context.
I also don't see how Scikit-decide being developed by Airbus gives OP any domain authority. I use open source tools from all sorts of commercial ventures, and know nothing about how they themselves use them, or what for.
buildsjets · · focus · HN ↗
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.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS" rel="nofollow">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 · · focus · HN ↗
(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.)
scoot · · focus · HN ↗
"Firms like Jeppesen have offerings in this space, but Scikit-decide, together with a narrow- and wide-body fuel consumption model built by a professor at the Delft University of Technology and wind data from NOAA, offer an open source solution."
So this is being positioned as an open source alternative to commercial offerings, which clearly it is not. If instead he made the limitations clear from the outset, that this is just a demonstration of what he/the tools are capable of and that this is not in any way intended for real-world use, it would put the rest of the article into better context.
I also don't see how Scikit-decide being developed by Airbus gives OP any domain authority. I use open source tools from all sorts of commercial ventures, and know nothing about how they themselves use them, or what for.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
aaron695 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]