DirkDP Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 Hi, Guenther, In the meantime I've seen some YouTube movies about real Airbus 319 approaches/routes through the mountain valleys to both runway ends at Paro and to my great surprise, these can also be more or less followed correctly when approaching the FS9 depiction of this airport, but then again, once the aircraft has entered the initial valley, it's pilot really needs to know the way to the airport. IRL, I think only Drukair pilots are allowed to land at Paro. About FS9, depending on the mesh, stock or realistic (e.g. FSGlobal), the scenery could look very different. Regards, DDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgschnell Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Rwy 33 at VQPR is possible for some AI aircrafts (ATR45, LET 410), the A319 is not able (till now). If somebody wants to test my approach, send me a PN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColR1948 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Do AI aircraft use this if put in the aircraft.cfg?: [GPWS] max_warning_height=0 sink_rate_fpm=-1500 excessive_sink_rate_fpm=-2000 climbout_sink_rate_fpm=-100 flap_and_gear_sink_rate_fpm=-100 Obviously the figures can be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgschnell Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) I dont know [GPWS] section in my FS9, sorry :confused: I suppose it is for panel gauges and AI dont need them Edited June 20, 2021 by hgschnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beroun Posted June 21, 2021 Share Posted June 21, 2021 Hallo All, I have compiled a detailed tutorial on how (using ADE) to alter approaches to avoid mountain areas. In the tutorial, I have used Tivat LYTV approach as an example but the principle can be used at any airport. I now have these (turn) approaches at many Austrian and Swiss Alps airports and in Colorado with AI executing these correctly. 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. The tutorial is nine page word document with pictures, so I cannot implant it here but maybe I will try to place it to the files library. If approved, it would show up in "Bendl" search, got few items there already. Cheers Peter Peter Bendl ex. British Airways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgschnell Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjwalter Posted June 22, 2021 Author Share Posted June 22, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColR1948 Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 What if you alter the (cruise_lift_scaler) that might make them climb more of a steeper angle? Worth a try Col. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjwalter Posted June 24, 2021 Author Share Posted June 24, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgibson_new Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjwalter Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share Posted June 29, 2021 Peter, I hope you are still following this thread because I have sent you a PM. Greetings Hans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now