AI Flight Plans

[DanKH]

Very good and informative post, thank you for that .

 

[samcaine]

Thanks very much to all those who have added their knowledge to this. I had absolutely no idea how complicated the new FSX requirements are. I still have an awful lot to learn, but with this information I see light at the end of the tunnel.

It goes some way to explaining why I have suffered so many problems with FSX crashing, which I always suspected is caused by 'corrupt' traffic bgls. I've never liked the use of the @ in FS9 flightplans and I wonder if this might be the root cause of this as I've copied all my FS9 traffic files across.

It looks like I'll need to begin work in new files as well as new airfields I'm having to put all things FS on hold for a period whilst I go through my 18 monthly real world flight standards tests.

 

[BASys]

AI Turn-Around Times

Hi Folks

45 mimute turn around not honored which could also be why AI Planes will not come out of Pre Clearence mode due to timing issues

Jim -
ISTR that turn around time is now 8 minutes in FSX.

HTH
ATB
Paul

 

[jvile]

ISTR that turn around time is now 8 minutes in FSX.

Paul

Explain please.

I was still under the impression TDBB reqiured a minimum 45 min. turn around (see below) or errors would occur. Did I miss something in the updated SDK's?


"The TrafficDatabaseBuilder enforces a minimum aircraft turnaround time of 45 minutes."

 

[Mace]

can the aircraft fly over enroute terrrain,

About Enroute Terrain Checks

And for all of you, I have noticed that "enroute terrain" seems to encompass a large grid square around the routing. That means if there is high terrain anywhere *near* the route---not necessarily ON the route--the TDBB compiler will automatically raise the FL (flight level) in your plan to a min safe altitude.

As an example, I compiled some plans in Panama, and while the routing itself went over the coastline (sea level ground), there was high enough terrain nearby (8,000 foot peaks) that the compiler raised the route automatically.

That is a limitation of TDBB--it does not allow you to over-ride any of these checks. That is a good thing for batch/mass compilation that Microsoft had to do, as it reduces terrain contact errors for AI--but it is bad if you want the ultimate in flexibility and customization, which a lot of us want.

 

[Mace]

Hi Folks



Jim -
ISTR that turn around time is now 8 minutes in FSX.

HTH
ATB
Paul

I think the turnaround time is still 45 minutes.

Perhaps something has changed?

I hope so because 45 minutes causes me many, many problems in route flexibility. Many real-world small airlines run shuttle flights with very quick turnaround times.

These cannot be realisitically implemented in FS due to the 45 minute requirement.

Please let me know if something has changed. 8 minutes would be great!

 

[BASys]

hi Folks

Jim -
You didn't miss anything in the SDK.

TrafficDatabaseBuilder compilation may enforce the 45 min,
but other tools and r/t may not.

Awaiting permission to quote, I will get back to you.
The info was related to an AI choppers query.

However there is possibly a very faint clue in the SDK -

If the circuitEndTime is less than ten minutes before the departure time of the next leg,
the aircraft will not park
but will fly circuits until the next departure time
and then fly on to the next destination.

Maybe have a play and see what happens.

HTH
ATB
Paul

 

[rfields]

One really big change in TDBB for FSX was that for many 'errors' it will still compile the flight plan. It will report the error, but that does not stop the traffic .BGL file creation.

Even on Microsoft's part - the 45 minute is a ballpark figure of what a turnaround of an aircraft could take in FS. The only hard limit was refusing to compile flight plans into traffic files in FS2004 and FS2002.

For some airports - as little as 15 minutes will work fine. For some 45 is a bare minimum and even then AI aircraft sometimes don't make it to the parking spot before then next leg is scheduled to start.

 

[BASys]

Hi Folks

re: Turn-Around Times
Original question to MS -

Having read the Traffic Toolbox.html doc,
I note that the FSX minimum aircraft turnaround-time is still 45 minutes,
(as per previous FS versions of Traffic Database).

ISTR in TTools this could be much lower.

For AI chopper traffic,
especially at offshore platforms/vessels,
(actually for choppers operating at any non-airport facility),
this 45 min is excessively long.

IRL this could be as little as 1 min.

Can this 45 min turnaround-time be reduced please,
or at least have an optional override switch added.

Currently (we) use the @ to force the correct arrival time,
can this option be included please.

Any work-around suggestions appreciated.

Response from MS's J. Brian Smith, (quoted with permission).

The traffic database builder tool still expects that
aircraft will spend a half-hour on the ground between trip legs,
but the run-time application does not enforce this.

Traffic databases created with other tools will work just fine.

The code does still exect an 8 minute "taxi time"
to represent the time it takes to get out to the runway from parking.

This means if an aircraft initializes less than 8 minutes after its departure time,
it will get initialized at parking rather than in the air.

HTH
ATB
Paul

 

[Mace]

TrafficDatabaseBuilder compilation may enforce the 45 min,
but other tools and r/t may not.

Yes, but if we don't use TDBB, we are not generating a fully FSX-compliant traffic bgl file.

...and if we don't have a fully FSX-compliant traffic bgl, then the FS9 traffic bgl will cause all of the FSX ai traffic bgl aircraft to disappear. Not a problem if a user only has FS9 ai traffic. But a big problem if the user has both.

I guess what is needed is a tool that will generate a BGL file that will not chase away all of the FSX AI, and yet would avoid the 45 minute problem.

I think to do that, a complete understanding of the structure of an FSX vs. FS9 traffic bgl file would be necessary.

 

[DanKH]

I think to do that, a complete understanding of the structure of an FSX vs. FS9 traffic bgl file would be necessary.

Well not in my lifetime ...

 

[rfields]

what is needed is a tool that will generate a BGL file that will not chase away all of the FSX AI, and yet would avoid the 45 minute problem.

Peter is working on one. He has a strong advantage which Lee didn't have for FS2004 - the TDBB compiler so he can compare his files at the hex level to TDBB files.

Peter is also trying to preserve the TTools input format.

I can understand not wanting to lose the ship traffic - but we already have all the default aircraft traffic in TTools format.

http://www.flightsim2004-fanatics.com/uploads/DefaultGA/Def_GA_DL.htm

 

[Gypsy Baron]

Yes, but if we don't use TDBB, we are not generating a fully FSX-compliant traffic bgl file.

...and if we don't have a fully FSX-compliant traffic bgl, then the FS9 traffic bgl will cause all of the FSX ai traffic bgl aircraft to disappear. Not a problem if a user only has FS9 ai traffic. But a big problem if the user has both.

I guess what is needed is a tool that will generate a BGL file that will not chase away all of the FSX AI, and yet would avoid the 45 minute problem.

I think to do that, a complete understanding of the structure of an FSX vs. FS9 traffic bgl file would be necessary.

I've been using the conversion tool created by lc0277 and I do NOT lose
my default FSX traffic, be it aircraft or shipping.

After spending WAY too many hours trying to "satisfy" what I consider
to be an overly demanding set of criteia imposed by TDBB I said to hell
with it and reverted to using my TTools-created plans and lc0277's
conversion utility. This satisfys ALL of MY needs, and since the resultant
traffic is flying in MY virtual world, that is all that I need.

lc0277 has also created a nice little tool for creating FSX shipping
traffic, which I have also used to great success.

I don't sit around watching AI with a copy of the expected flightplan
and a stop watch. I'm in the cockpit of my chosen aircraft for the day
or hour. My contact with the AI is at the gates, taxiways and runways
of my departure and arrival airports, the ATC interactions enroute
along with the visual sightings, and the AI presence on the radar
display ( if any ) of my aircraft.

I find that all of these, MY, requirements are met fully with the
traffic BGL files created from TTools and converted to "FSX" format
with lc0277's tools. YMMV, and probably does if you are posting
in this thead

Paul

 

[Frankis]

Just adding my bit to this dicussion.
Aisort has the ability too make new Tdbb plans from scratch with the 45 min parking time included.

Regards Frank:

 

[Mace]

I've been using the conversion tool created by lc0277 and I do NOT lose
my default FSX traffic, be it aircraft or shipping.

I am under the impression that lc0277's tool uses TDBB to compile.

If it does, it would be subject to the 45 minute restriction and altitude-grid restrictions.

If it does not use TDBB, then lc0277 has found a way to compile a bgl file without the need of TDBB.

 

[Phantoms]

Jim, you stated that pattern is only used by AI VFR TNG. Isn't it also used by User Aircraft that request to remain in pattern (TNG) for ATC to instruct the pilot left traffic or right traffic when they are cleared TNG?

 

[jvile]

User Aircraft that request to remain in pattern (TNG) for ATC to instruct the pilot left traffic or right traffic when they are cleared TNG?

That is true but there must be a Tower Freq.

I should have specified at all the non Tower small GA airports then it is the LEFT RIGHT Pattern that controls AI turn behavior for a TNG.

Like you said, if the User Plane ask Ground/Tower for a TNG (stay in the pattern on startup) the Tower at the hold short node will clear you for the proper downwind as a closed traffic pattern.

At non tower airports the PIC must make the decision on which way to turn on downwind for the TNG.