Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Jim Vile's approaches for AIs

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beroun View Post
    Hallo All,

    ...

    There is one caveat, for AI to fly in, the mountain cannot be too close to the runway which I am afraid at UGAM is. The approach can still be made using my tutorial for self flying but AI would not digest the tight turn.

    ...
    Cheers
    Peter
    My approaches at UGAM do work for AI.
    You have to use AI aircraft with appropriate FDEs (LET 410, DH Dash 8-100, C-160 Transall, Beech Kingair 350 etc.)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Yes, Guenther's AI approaches to UGAM do work correctly for lighter/smaller AI planes but can anyone come up with a good technical reason why those same AI approach routes do not work for e.g. an AI Airbus-319 or an AI B-737 ? After all these AI planes (should) at least theoretically, follow the same approach routes, the only differences possibly being their weights and/or approach speeds. But, if these weights and/or speeds would somehow make the difference, then one would expect them to at least crash somewhere near UGAM instead of making one or more "Go arounds" at relatively high altitudes, followed by flying off into the blue yonder and finally disappearing. As if they just do not want to land at UGAM at all,

    Looking forward to any answers.

    Hans

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    3,002

    Default

    What if you alter the (cruise_lift_scaler) that might make them climb more of a steeper angle?

    Worth a try

    Col.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hey Guys,

    I think I have found the reason why certain AI planes do not want to, or cannot land at e.g. UGAM and/or at VQPR. It's not that I would really want Boeings, Airbusses, etc. to land there but in my mind it's purely a technical "issue".

    My theory:

    AI planes can in practice approach the initial auto-approach beam from any direction but the angle at which they do this can be such that especially the faster ones, then cannot make the necessary tight turn(s) in order to "capture" the beam but instead, fly through it without the necessary "capture". The result is that for these AI planes the default approach is then performed and which consequently results in them not being able to land, etc. Because of this, any visually correct approach/landing through mountain valleys by any type of AI plane, remains unpredictable.

    It's in fact the same for Peter's well written tutorial in which he bases his AI approachs to LYTV on the possibilities within the ADE program.

    Comments. Anyone ?

    Greetings

    Hans

  5. #35

    Default

    Sounds logical, although I have never seen such behavior with my mix of AI. But mine is an unusual mix.
    Tom Gibson

    CalClassic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.com

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    381

    Default LYTV tutorial

    Peter,

    I hope you are still following this thread because I have sent you a PM.

    Greetings

    Hans

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Problem with Jim Vile's KATL AFCAD
    By jcmjjc in forum FSX
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 07:49 PM
  2. KATL AFCAD by Jim Vile runway 28
    By FSDKT in forum FS2004
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 05:55 PM
  3. How get UK charts from AIS.ORG???
    By Vonduck1 in forum FS2004
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-19-2005, 05:43 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-01-2005, 01:39 PM
  5. Problems registering at www.ais.org.uk
    By slingshotpro in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-30-2004, 01:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •