Do AI aircraft need "Gear Warnings" ?

Hi All,

The above is just one of the questions I run up against when compacting my very many aircraft.cfg files. I'm initially removing e.g. all non functional texts, all zeroes except one after each decimal point and all unnecessary spaces wherever I can find them. All this to reduce file sizes and hopefully to give my CPU a little less load, especially for the AI engine when handling my 986 very active AI planes all over the world.

O.K. the first thing in this respect is to remove any panel and sound folders but after that I'm now systematically going through all my AI aircraft.cfg files in which I sometimes even find "Force Feed Back", "Gear Warning" and other questionable entries which are in fact only meant for flyable planes. "Scrape points", above and beyond the (mostly first three) "Contact Point" entries for the gear tyres also seem questionable and some AI aircraft.cfgs even have more than ten of them.

With all this I can only assume that the AI engine will disregard anything in any AI aircraft.cfg file which it regards as non functional for AI planes but the basic FS9 does in fact use the same flyable planes as AI, which then automatically means that the same communal aircraft.cfg files are used for both. Since then (about ten years ago) I've split up these flyable/AI planes and have installed all my other real AI planes, for which I now expect to be able to gain a total of between 35 - 40% reduction in AI aircraft.cfg file sizes.

However, the big question remains: What are the minimum requirements in any AI plane's aircraft.cfg file for the AI engine to possibly perform more efficiently.

Eagerly awaiting any comments while I try some tests on a selection of my AI planes.

Hans

I've only recently returned to FS but many years ago I did something very similar, I went through a lot of the CFG's and took out stuff that I thought was not needed as you have or are doing.

I have lost track of a lot of it but it is slowly coming back so I will watch this thread.

A lot of ai aircraft models share many textures for different airlines etc so that model is the prime piece, it may not use some of those textures if it is flying in certain parts of the world but the model itself is still there so reducing what isn't needed I suppose will help.

Not sure how much benefit there might be in removing lines from the aircraft.cfg, in terms of space saving.

The files are tiny, maybe 10kb, so you could theoretically save maybe 10MB of disk space over your entire aircraft complement - in reality far less. This amount of disk space may have been relevant in 1995, but surely no more... and CPU time reading that is completely negligible.

More relevant might be what those lines are calling; so converting all those lovely 32-bit repaint textures to DXT3 is a good start.

(Then, checking to see if the alpha channel is OK to take away many of those nasty stutters.)

If converting flyables to AI, remove all "inside" textures such as VC.

To answer the question:

Leave the model's parameters intact, your time will more profitably be spent elsewhere.

Going back on my last reply on this, it probably is right that taking out those line now won't make much difference as already mentioned above like it did years ago, that was when I did it.

I remember on a forum where one guy got upset when I said I had removed the VC from a certain aircraft, he said it was an insult to the person who made it, I tried to explain I was using the aircraft as an ai and I was removing stuff that didn't count, he wouldn't accept it and told me to find another AC, when I said there wasn't another model of that AC he then said well do without it an use something else.

On this subject I also remember a guy I used to talk to over the net who had a program that automatically took out stuff in flyable aircraft to make them more like ai, I don't think it did anything about the LODS but I may be mistaken.

Going back on my last reply on this, it probably is right that taking out those line now won't make much difference as already mentioned above like it did years ago, that was when I did it.

I remember on a forum where one guy got upset when I said I had removed the VC from a certain aircraft, he said it was an insult to the person who made it, I tried to explain I was using the aircraft as an ai and I was removing stuff that didn't count, he wouldn't accept it and told me to find another AC, when I said there wasn't another model of that AC he then said well do without it an use something else.

On this subject I also remember a guy I used to talk to over the net who had a program that automatically took out stuff in flyable aircraft to make them more like ai, I don't think it did anything about the LODS but I may be mistaken.

Wing_Z

Yes, I agree with you completely and I have already done all the things that you mention but I didn't include those in my initial post primarily to reduce it's length.

I also believe that there could be another (potential) issue involved as follows:

When flying along in any flyable plane it seems logical that there is some kind of invisible "AI activation circle" with a radius of at least 50 Nm, flying along with you. As soon as the edge of this circle passes over any airport, the AI planes there will be activated in accordence with their flight plans so that, if you would be landing there yourself, all AI planes will already be visibly active by the time you arrive. This circle also activates and de-activates other AI planes in the air around you.

These sudden AI activations are most certainly one of the causes of stutters which evidently also in your mind, can be minimized by using mipped and alpha channeled DXT3 textures for all AI planes (and possibly even for ground scenery textures as well). To this I would then like to add the use of minimally sized AI aircraft.cfg files, primarily to prevent the unneccesary reading and/or processing of irrelavent CFG data during these unpredictable activations.

Further comments are welcome.

Hans

Yes I've noticed that, also if you pass over or near an add-on airport with lots of graphics you can get a stutter, so yes when the PC is loading those graphics it can cause a lag unless of course you have a decent PC with lots of power and memory etc.

I played around with my sliders a bit to reduce some of it.

I'm hoping in the near future to get myself a bit of an upgrade and get a decent PC that can handle all this.

ColR1948

Your specific problem is a separate issue and can cause more severe stuttering at much closer distances. It's for this reason that all addon scenery textures should at least be mipped and alpha channeled. This technique will see to it that such scenery textures are gradually displayed in greater detail (from invisible) as they get closer to your flyable plane, a method for minimizing the specific type of stuttering that you mention.

Hans

Hans, I looked at my AI list and wondered if someone might have modified these (and other model-related) lines you speak of. No-one has, not even Mike McIntyre who has put some serious work into the behaviour of military AI.

Here's what I have done in the past, when assessing the suitability of a model for AI use:

I have a dummy airport far away from anything else, onto which I drop 200 iterations of the model under discussion. The flightplans have them depart every minute, do a touch 'n go, and come back and park.

Believe me, you very quickly see the effect on the sim, of a small tweak to the AI aircraft, when multiplied by 200!

Perhaps you could answer your own question by removing line after line from the .cfg files, and seeing if there is any beneficial effect!

Wing_Z

In the meantime I've been doing extensive testing by (temporarily) removing aircraft.cfg sections from a selection of my AI GA and passenger jets. I followed them in suitable flyable planes from their take off to wherever their existing flight plans took them, preferably on the shorter routes. I did not see anything unusual whatever I had deleted.

1. "Contact_points" section. Scrape points which only seem necessary for displaying crashes for those of you who like seeing explosions, fire, etc. It seems that the type of explosion and/or fire is triggered by which part of the plane hits the ground first, via those scrape points.

I've had my crash detection system switched off for as long as I've had FS9 and therefore do not need any scrape points. However, the contact points for all gear wheels (usually the first three) must remain in place.

2. Deleting the sections "Keyboard_response", "Gear_warning_system", "direction_indicators", "attitude_indicators", "Turn_indicators" and "stall_warnings" had no visible effect on the AI planes which I was following ...... BUT ...... to my great surprise I only saw afterwards that these sections had somehow been automatically replaced by new ones !! The best thinh is therefore to leave these alone.

3. "Flight_tuning" section. No visible effect with or without this section.

Well, that's as far as I got for the moment with testing this specific potential problem and I found no beneficial frame rate effects which for me is beginning to confirm that what you said in your first reaction, is correct.

Most important however, is that only textures together with their related AI models which are specifically designed for AI planes, should only be used and that using flyable planes with their far more "exotic" textures as AI, will in fact seriously lower frame rates.

Hans

Ha Ha,

I get a kick of these 'mods' to AI by simmers. Did I ever do it? No. But I did 'think' about it. Hey, you never know. Still it is a 'kick' to see others 'worry' about such things as scrape points, flight tuning, stall warnings, etc entries in cfg.

The only thing I know is that you won't get any 'effect' until you are heading toward an airport (and it is loading) or the AI 'pops' into view. But this only applies to complicated scenery (airports) and models which were converted (with 'flyable' textures) to be AI. I don't have any of those. So I don't worry about mips or dxt3.

There is no benefit to removing cfg sections or eliminating any 'spaces' between sections, as far as I can tell. I re-do layout of sections to my own preferences and put a '//' between sections (ie: no spaces) and add 3 zeros to all values (other than '1' or '0' for true/false) as a way to best assure there are no ',' instead of '.' in cnt points section (which I can then 'align' where all lines have same measure (ie: 'x.000, x.000, etc). I thought I was a fanatic (anal?) about it, but now can't let it go and have to 'fix' the layout on all my downloads. It's the first thing I do. I also comment out (with '//') the scrapes when I am working on cnt pt positions (to eliminate any effect it might have on how ac sits on ground). Sometimes I forget to remove the '//' for scrapes and have many AC with no scrapes (as I also have always remove 'crash detection') and that has no effect one way or another. You could write a book on formating and 'fixing' the aircraft cfg, what sections are vital, which should be added, and which don't make any difference. But not everybody would even know what you are talking about, and the rest would just not care. Very interesting subject. Hope you can touch type, to include numbers, or else you would go nuts hunting-n-pecking to edit config file.

And YES, the air file WILL write any sections the sim deems 'vital', but the air file does not always get it right, so be sure you 'proof read' the values (ie: compare to a default or working model). I have commented out sections I 'questioned' to see what the air file would write to cfg, and have even changed air files to get a '2nd opinion'. Just make sure you don't get a tail dragger air file if it's a tri gear ac or it will mess things up. Games. Just playing games is what we are (REALLY) doing. But hey, it's fun.

Chuck B

Napamule

Seeing as we are on this subject this is worth a read:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx

I do the same thing as Napamule. My Aircraft.cfg files always wind up moved around to MY format, same for the x.000 etc. It's just how I do it, but it lets me trouble shoot things more quickly. Same for .air files and Panel.cfg's.

My lovely wife claims I spend more time "fine tuning" airplanes than flying them. Maybe I do, who knows? But I have fun, and as I always say: It's a GAME! If you're not having fun with it, then why bother? That's probably why I'll never join a VA or Airforce or anything. It becomes a job at that point, and I'm outta there...

Pat☺

Quote:

ColR1948

'Seeing as we are on this subject this is worth a read:'

Well, I have been reading this (100 times?) since FS98. But, this 'read' does not include ALL you should know, or learned from experience, and from others. IOW you are too late, and a 'dollar short'.

Pat

'...becomes a job at that point...'

My sentiments exactly. I tried online 'Hops' back when, and I don't need to join a VA or even go online to fly 'hops' (which I do as part of tweaking cfg and air files). All I HAVE to do is get 6 hrs sleep in between sessions or my brain starts to hurt (hehe).

Here is an example of what most simmers don't have and thus have to put up with 'too low', 'flaps', or the obnoxious 'pull UP' voice warnings. This section (provided by our friend Rob Barendgret) eliminates that:

[GPWS]

//This Disables the 'don't sink', 'too low-flaps', etc call outs

//Courtesy of & Thanks to Rob Barendgret.

max_warning_height=0

sink_rate_fpm=-9999

excessive_sink_rate_fpm=-9999

climbout_sink_rate_fpm=-9999

flap_and_gear_sink_rate_fpm=-9999

Live and learn.

Chuck B

Napamule

...I followed them in suitable flyable planes from their take off to wherever their existing flight plans took them...

Just out of curiosity, if you lower the ai toe brake scaler in the cfg, will it lengthen the ai ground roll on landing?

Only if the AI pilot has rudder pedals.

So, no, it will not make any difference.

peace,

the Bean

After all my sometimes very tedious testing I've now (also) come to the conclusion that apart from the "vital" ones, (partially) deleting certain AI plane CFG sections, has very little or no effect on the speed at which AI CFG data gets processed, whenever that may be necessary. However, I must still assume in a very general sence that a compacted smaller file will be processed faster than one which contains a lot of unnecessary ballast in whatever form.

By deleting "unneccessary" spaces I didn't mean those between the CFG lines, I meant the ones within the lines themselves.

I followed some very different AIs to see how they would react to my CFG edits during their VFR flights (via TTools) and saw nothing out of the ordinary. I flew in formation with them and even landed right next to them, or in any case very close behind. No (visible) problems whatsoever.

Never knew that toe brake scalars in any AI's CFG file would only work on AIs when rudder pedal hardware is connected. Well, I do in fact have rudder pedals and my toe brake scalars are always at least "1.0", especially for civil jets which after landing, should vacate the runways at congested airports as fast as possible so as to minimise go arounds for following AIs. Wherever possible I aim for the first available turnoffs.

But that this only works with connected rudder pedals, is completely new to me.

Messing around with these kinds of technical things being "Fun" ? Nope, I prefer to think that it keeps me off the streets !!! LOL.

Hans

Never knew that toe brake scalars in any AI's CFG file would only work on AIs when rudder pedal hardware is connected. Well, I do in fact have rudder pedals...

But that this only works with connected rudder pedals, is completely new to me.

Where did you get this from???

Me thinks you need to reread what I said...

Only if the AI pilot has rudder pedals.

So, no, it will not make any difference.

peace,

the Bean

Hang on, I'm a little confused. If I pick a flyable aircraft, reducing the toe brake scaler increase the landing roll being that the brakes now are less effective. I don't have rudder pedals.

So why then doing the same adjustment doesn't effect the ai aircraft? And why is rudder pedals needed for ai if they aren't needed for a regular flyable aircraft?

The AI flight is essentially an 'Instant Replay' as the flight was 'flown' by MS coders, and is included as part of the Sim Engine (ie: you can't change any of the 'characteristics' as they are hard coded). The Sim Cfg only give the Sim a 'check point' to 'bounce' to/from code lines to code lines (script) as needed. Such as having to go around when an airplane is on runway. How does it know? It knows. So it does it.

The Bean was being sarcastic, and not serious, about any (rudder pedals) by any (AI pilot) which do not exist. Ha. Gotcha.

Chuck B

Napamule