## 4 Performance Analysis and Discussion
### Latency Measurement
Therefore, it is likely that the refresh rate constrained by BlueSky is causing such a phenomenon. Nonetheless, the overall time \(t_{total}\) remained in the acceptable region. Coupled with the 95% confidence interval, the system's robustness was, hence, substantiated. Thus, it is proven that the platform has promising performance in latency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Time** \\ **Setting** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Frequency** \\ **of Request** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Heavy Traffic**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Medium Traffic**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Light Traffic**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **t1,2** & **t2,3** & **ttotal** & **t1,2** & **t2,3** & **ttotal** & **t1,2** & **t2,3** & **ttotal** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Daytime} & 1 Hz & [15.8, 16.2] & [493, 521] & [509, 537] & [15.8, 16.2] & [468, 502] & [484, 518] & [15.7, 16.3] & [478, 516] & [494, 532] \\  & 6 Hz & [15.9, 16.1] & [84.9, 16.1] & [15.9, 16.1] & [85.9, 16.1] & [85.9, 16.2] & [102, 104] & [15.8, 16.2] & [86.6, 16.2] & [103, 105] \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & 1 Hz & [14.7, 15.3] & [500, 538] & [516, 16.2] & [508, 538] & [524, 554] & [14.8, 15.2] & [487, 513] & [502, 528] \\  & 6 Hz & [14.9, 15.1] & [86.5, 101, 105] & [14.8, 15.2] & [83.3, 15.2] & [86.7] & [98.0, 102] & [14.8, 15.2] & [85.9, 10.] & [101, 105] \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Descent and landing phase} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} 1 Hz \\ 16 Hz \\ 17.8, 18.2] \\ \end{tabular}  } & [15.8, 16.2] & [470, 500] & [486, 516] & [16.7, 17.3] & [473, 515] & [490, 532] & [16.7, 17.3] & [414, 466] & [431, 483] \\  & 6 Hz & [17.8, 18.2] & [86.8, 19.1] & [105, 109] & [16.9, 16.9] & [84.7, 102, 104] & [15.9, 16.1] & [85.9, 102, 104] \\ \hline \hline \multirow{7}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Night- \\ time \\ \end{tabular}  } & 1 Hz & [18.4, 19.6] & [484, 516] & [503, 535] & [15.7, 16.3] & [504, 534] & [521, 551] & [15.8, 16.2] & [481, 515] & [497, 531] \\  & 6 Hz & [14.9, 15.1] & [84.8, 87.2] & [101, 103] & [16.9, 17.1] & [86.9, 104] & [In addition to the 95% confidence interval of the latency KPIs, a desired real-time platform should also be stable, i.e., having consistent performance throughout similar settings. All the latency KPIs \(t_{1,2}\), \(t_{2,3}\), and \(t_{total}\) do not vary dramatically across different traffic loads, flight phases, and time settings at the same frequency of request. In particular, the maximum absolute differences between the highest and lowest values of the mean of \(t_{total}\) at 1 Hz and 6 Hz were 83 and 7 ms, respectively. This suggests that the real-time performance can likely be maintained throughout most scenarios, and the effect of the computational load on the server side does not significantly affect the data request. Therefore, as the platform performs similarly well in various possible scenarios that vary the server's computational load, the platform can be regarded as having a stable performance in real-time visualisation. Given the promising data for on-time performance (OTP), the platform was able to fulfil the requirements of an online platform, with the data being transmitted in real time/near-real time to provide up-to-date information for the ATCOs to perform proper decision making.