hjwalter

Hey there Luis,

AFCAD data for default airports/airfields is normally stored in default APnnnnnn.bgl files. Please tell me/us why you would need separate and therefore duplicate copies of such already existing default AFCAD data entities.

Looking forward to your reaction because even I could be missing something here.

Regards

Hans

I forgot to mention that not all aircraft.cfg files have a [Flight Tuning] section but in such cases it remains possible to copy/paste such a complete section from any other plane's aircraft.cfg file and to then initially begin testing with all values set at 1.0 before editing any of them.

Hans

In your C337's aircraft.cfg file there's a section named [Flight Tuning] and within that you can edit among others, all your C337's steering sensitivities. "1.0" is standard and e.g. "0.5" is less sensitive, while e.g. "1.5" makes it more sensitive.

However, after editing anything, don't forget to save the CFG file and to then re-select the same plane from the FS9 drop down menu. Only then will your edits have become fully active. You can also terminate FS9 and re-start but that's the far more tedious way round.

Good luck and regards.

Hans

AI aircraft always stand, e.g. while parked, on the underlying default airport's apron and not on any visible addon or third party airport's apron. It's for this reason that any addon airport's visible aprons, runways, etc. MUST be at exactly the same elevation as the underlying default airport. Any difference will either cause your AI aircraft's wheels to sink into the visible apron/runway or will float above them.

A "flatten" BGL file at the addon or third party airport's elevation will correct this but editing the default airport's APnnnnnn.bgl file is also possible.

However, I would try Tom's suggestion first.

Regards

Hans

hi,

this is NOT the REAL solution to fix this problem !!

 

It is RATHER a Pre-REQUISITE to fix this problem which is ........ the following ...

 

By the way IF you do NOT state for which Piper you need the solution to make it work in FS2004 AI environment than

every advice is meaningless.

 

The MS Piper CUB does NOT work in FS2004 AI.

 

Period.

 

Sincerely

 

g. Kirschstein

I had another good look at my FS9 yellow painted problem (now solved) AI Piper Cub's technical details and it did in fact turn out to be an AI version of the default MS flyable one. However, my AI version now behaves completely as it should, as it's flyable counterpart has always done. It's even great fun to fly in formation with the AI one but does take some practice.

Regards

Hans

Christian.

Chuck's solution was not really "As Real As It Gets" but it certainly worked in my FS9 and that's the most important, especially when it concerns eye candy type AI aircraft during their "driving" along sharp cornered taxiways on juicy little addon airfields. However, for the flyable versions of the same light aircraft it remains a totally different matter and you then actually need to keep them on the taxiway center lines yourself, with or without differential brakes and/or effective rudders, as Keith correctly describes.

Anyway, I'm happy that you have also found a solution for the same problem in FSX, albeit a different one. However, your solution could also influence your AI aircraft's flight characteristics.

Are you sure your AI aircraft still flies correctly ? To test this you could take off and fly (in formation) behind it until it lands correctly at it's "flight planned" destination airfield. I've done this myself on a number of occasions but only when certain AI aircraft, strangely enough, did not arrive at their destination airfields because.e.g. they crashed somewhere along their routes and for different reasons.

Regards

Hans

Hey there napamule2,

You hit the nail (or my AI Piper Cub) right on it's head. I even needed to move it's tail wheel position forward to -10 but also it's height to -2.55. It now at least "drives" itself correctly and without needing the help of any AI wingmen.

Now for my AI Tiger Moth which I expect to be able to correct in the same way.

Thanks.

Hans

Thanks guys for your reactions.

I already had the feeling that the problem I described would be more or less structural, so I'm now looking for a couple of AI wingmen positioned at strategic points at sharp taxiway corners !!! LOL.

I guess that for the airfield in question the only real solution will be to replace both AI tail draggers by tricycle gear AIs.

Thanks again.

Hans

Hi all,

Two of my AI tail draggers, a Piper Cub and a Tiger Moth, don't seem to be able to make some of the tighter turns on taxiways on their way to the runway. They turn far too wide, eventually do make it to the runway start positions, followed by correct take offs, etc ... but ... only after taxiing straight through some of the addon airfield's gas pumps and it's cafe/restaurant. Not very realistic looking, to say the least.

It's not possible to edit the taxiway turns themselves, e.g. via the airfield's Afcad/ADE file, because they are all part of the airfield's ground scenery.

I've been editing both (contact point) turning angles, ranging between 40 and 180 degrees, but to no avail. I even tried editing their differential braking entries but alas, still no go. The problem seems structural.

Ideas and/or solutions anyone ?

Regards and I thank you in advance.

Hans

I assume you are referring to a complete third party operational static carrier scenery object but in my experience such complex scenery objects normally consist of many (textured) bits and pieces, which are all "glued" together in 3D geographical positions by more than one (program) BGL file. Because of this it's almost impossible to re-position such complete objects and which can theoretically only be done by re-positioning all it's "bits and pieces" separately. You can compare such a huge task to re-positioning a complete third party airport with all it's separate buildings, scenery objects, etc.

As far as my FS9 knowledge goes, I do not know of any operational carriers for FS9, which have been set up (programmed) in such a way that they can be re-positioned in any simple way.

There are however, a number of static carriers and other naval vessels to be found in the different FS sites, e.g those for random positioning via the RWY12 and the Abacus EZ programs, but these are only extremely basic so called "library" scenery objects, mostly used for "filling up" empty naval bases, harbors, etc. and are definitely not meant for viewing from close up, let alone for being operational in any way.

Hope this helps.

Hans

nbata1234,

Another way of getting rid of the default buildings in the sea near PHJH is to install the Hawaiien coast line scenery. Search in the library for a file named: hwcstln.zip

Take care though and read the installation instructions carefully because some of the Fs2004 default files need to be de-activated and they all look very much alike so that mistakes can easily be made.

Regards

Hans

Gregory,

With or without UT-USA being active, your PHJH airfield and surrounding scenery remains a true work of art.

Regards

Hans

Thanks Tom,

I've tried ADE a few times and I must admit that it can handle a lot more than my far older and simpler Afcad program can but it's also much more "fiddly" and patience consuming. Not only that but an Afcad file contains pure Airport Facility Data, while an ADE file can also contain scenery objects, excludes, taxiway signs, etc. etc. and as you say, even approaches.

Handy and compact yes but keeping all those different functions in separate file categories, maintained by their own dedicated programs, also has it's merits.

Thanks again for the reminder.

Hans

nbata1234,

Greg beat me to it and I can now, after (test-)installing his PHJH airfield, also confirm his statements about you not having UT-USA installed. I don't have this commercial product either and was therefore obliged to create 7 exclude files in order to get rid of the default buildings in the sea. However, I will not be posting these files as I regard this as being something for Greg himself.

Regards

Hans

I've just downloaded this scenery myself and will (test-)install it tomorrow to see if I can recreate your problems. I will let you know my findings via this thread.

Remark: Exclude files can be very different, ranging from between a single (default) object to be excluded, to (very) large areas containing many such objects. However, the sizes of such exclude files are all the same and therefore do not depict the number of objects being excluded.

Hans

You should realize that just by making nice looking, juicy and complete airfields, it is not the way to "attract" AI traffic. You actually need to create AI flight plans which include your new airfields and in this respect in addition to what Tom advises, I would also like to recommend a freeware program named "Traffic Tools" (TTools) for making such flight plans. Take your pick.

Another thing: Normally new and so called "addon airfield sceneries", are automatically installed "on top of" existing default airfield sceneries via their Afcad or ADE files. This is necessary so that underlying default approaches, ATC, vectoring, and many other processes, remain intact and active for such new airfields.

If however, your new airfields have no underlying default versions, it's best to make only VFR AI flight plans because in such cases there are no default approaches, nor any ATC vectoring. However, you can also create such approaches yourself by using another freeware program called "Approach Creator".

FS9 has many default AI flight plans, which are initially only active between default airports/airfields so, if your new airfields have no underlying default versions, you will never see any default AI traffic there.

I must also assume that your new airfield Afcad or ADE files have no technical errors and have ample parking positions of the correct sizes in order to be able to cater for your (planned) AI aircraft.

Good luck and regards.

Hans

Bouncing is caused by steering your plane onto the runway at a too high speed, in fact while it's wings are still creating (too much) lift.

I would want to suggest that you begin by trying to level off just a few feet above the runway, cutting the throttle to idle and then letting your plane settle down by itself, while constantly keeping the nose up as high as possible during the whole touch down process. You in fact need to stall your plane with it's tires just above the runway surface and if you do this correctly, you can even make a perfect so called "three point landing".

Good luck.

Hans

There are so many beautifully flying, complete and problem free A-350 models/paints/panels available on the different flightsim sites, including this one, so why choose to convert an AI and risk the mostly unpredictable results ?

Hans

Brigadier,

I downloaded the file "KCAK_FS2004.zip" and tried to install it in my FS9 (Win7) .... but .... during the installation an error message already appeared saying something to the effect that "could not parse the file "KCAK_ade9_ade.bgl". Skipping this specific file was then the only option.

In the texture folder I also found some textures with strange and for me (15 years of technical FS9 experience) unknown extensions, which I deleted.

I then tried to open a flight at KCAK but the loading process stopped at around 5% and remained there for at least 5 minutes. Cancelling and deleting the whole airport was then for me the only remaining option.

Sorry about this but this specific version of the FS9 KCAK airport scenery is just too unpredictable and my advice is to delete and forget it, just like I was forced to do.

Hans

Waist gunner,

You've made me very inquisitive as to your "culprit" BGL file and it's related textures. I tried to find the FS9 KCRK airport but was not successful.

From where did you download it ? A link maybe ? What is the normal name of this airport ?

Regards

Hans

I would want to suggest that you re-install your KCRK scenery and to then embark onto the sometimes rather tedious trial and error method by deleting groups of KCRK BGL files to your recycle bin and by then trying to re-create your crash by flying into your crash area. If the crash re-occurs you then restore the whole group of deleted BGL files from your recycle bin and delete the next group, etc. ...... until the crash no longer occurs. You then restore single BGLs until your crash re-occurs.

Using this method you can at least isolate the culprit BGL file and possibly seek further help from there.

Good luck.

Hans

Are you sure you are flying FS2004 planes ?

I took a short look a the site that you mentioned but at first sight it seems that it's all for FSX only, even the name of the site suggests this.

Hans

Tom,

A flatten beneath the runway sounds logical but the runway itself then needs to be "hardened" above this freeway and on the constructed bridge. Is there any (simple) way of doing this ?

Hans

I still have this older version in my FS9 and I fly up and down the very well made and spectacular strip in a helicopter every so often just for fun but I've never been there myself and consequently have no idea about how outdated it is but it does remain very spectacular indeed. At a later date a few extra buildings were posted by someone and I immediately downloaded and added them but other than that, there seem to be no real updates for FS9, at least not that I know of.

Hans

Hi Col,

Concerning AI planes flying through mountains or not, your observations are most likely linked to the absence of extra third party mesh scenery in which the mesh mountains are visibly higher than the far more gradually undulating default hills/mountains. These visibly higher mesh mountains are not seen by ATC (or the AI engine) and which in many cases, will vector you in your flyable plane, straight towards some of those mesh peaks and will force you to take evasive action. On the other hand, AI planes following the same route will fly through them.

A very good developer named Jim Vile has even made special ILS approach routes for quite a number of airports around the world, for the specific purpose of getting AI and flyable planes to realistically dodge those higher mesh mountains during their approaches, instead of the AIs flying through them. E.g. Innsbruck in Austria and the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. I even made my own more simple one for the Caribbean St. Barths airport, where it was necessary for VFR flying AI planes to approach over high mesh ground immediately preceding the short runway, which even has a lagoon at it's other end. This airport is ranked as one of the most dangerous in the world but all my light aircraft AIs land and take off there without problems.

Hans