AI Traffic Will Not Appear if VFR is Assigned in the Flightplan

I have searched online for this issue over the years and read quite a number of threads and yet I cannot get AI planes to appear if I switch from IFR to VFR in its flightplan.

Before someone asks, weather isn't a factor.

And before someone else asks, air and cfg files are original.

I wondered if the country matters. I read somewhere a long time ago that many countries never allow VFR in the real world. To test this, I set up a FP between two US airports just now and set the FP to VFR. No luck. Shows up under IFR, tho.

I also wondered if terrain could be a factor. For instance, if the flight path takes the plane over a mountain range and I have the flight level set too low, would this be a problem if the FP has the VFR tag and, thus, prevent the flight from taking place? I wondered about this because for a different AI plane, I had the FL set too low (oops) and with the FP set to IFR, ATC had the plane change altitudes.

So, based on what the ATC told the plane to climb to, I increased the FL by quite a bit, by three or four thousand feet more than it needed to be. Just to be safe. Changed the FP to VFR and nada. Plane disappeared the next time I started FS.

So then I tried switching to the AI only Piper Cherokee. Still no luck.

I have searched online for this issue over the years and read quite a number of threads and yet I cannot get AI planes to appear if I switch from IFR to VFR in its flightplan.

 

Before someone asks, weather isn't a factor.

 

And before someone else asks, air and cfg files are original.

 

I wondered if the country matters. I read somewhere a long time ago that many countries never allow VFR in the real world. To test this, I set up a FP between two US airports just now and set the FP to VFR. No luck. Shows up under IFR, tho.

 

I also wondered if terrain could be a factor. For instance, if the flight path takes the plane over a mountain range and I have the flight level set too low, would this be a problem if the FP has the VFR tag and, thus, prevent the flight from taking place? I wondered about this because for a different AI plane, I had the FL set too low (oops) and with the FP set to IFR, ATC had the plane change altitudes.

 

So, based on what the ATC told the plane to climb to, I increased the FL by quite a bit, by three or four thousand feet more than it needed to be. Just to be safe. Changed the FP to VFR and nada. Plane disappeared the next time I started FS.

 

So then I tried switching to the AI only Piper Cherokee. Still no luck.

Fortunately, I can block that pointless and irritating video.

You may be assured that FS2004 is not discriminatory by country. Nor is it bothered about assigned altitudes - ATC will simply ask AI to climb if there is a mountain in the way.

Firstly, have you tried reinstating the default AI to see if it is active.

Secondly, make sure your traffic setting slider is at 100%

Thirdly, if you have Traffic Toolbox installed, check Tools > Traffic Toolbox > Settings: make sure General Aviation and IFR & VFR are both selected.

There are a lot of possibilities to consider here, many of which cannot be answered without more knowledge of your setup and configuration. A sample single flightplan would be useful.

John

I have not had this issue of VFR not showing but for some reason my VFR fly to the destination airfield then veer off on approach and carry-on flying, they never turn back, they just fly off to neverland.

Also I noticed with VFR if you have for example set the altitude in you flight plan to 6000ft and the aircraft comes to a mountain of say 10000ft it crashes into it.

With IFR with the same flight plan ATC will tell the aircraft to climb to avoid the mountain and descend when clear, which is a nice touch.

Going back to your problem John above may have hit it on the head, please get back to us with if it works or not.

Col

Is that large, distracting video needed?

Fortunately, I can block that pointless and irritating video.

Other forums I'm a member of have no issue with those sorts of things. In fact, I got the idea from others.

But noted.

Going back to your problem John above may have hit it on the head, please get back to us with if it works or not.

 

Col

Thirdly, if you have Traffic Toolbox installed, check Tools > Traffic Toolbox > Settings: make sure General Aviation and IFR & VFR are both selected.

That did it. Thanks! Now I just have to make sure the plane lands at its destination and doesn't "veer off on approach and carry-on flying".

But how messed up is it that if I didn't have TTb, I'd never be able to create a VFR flight plan?

Like many others here, I really like FS9 but when I run into problems or am tweaking airports, it's amazing to me how many things I have to fix or the sloppiness that becomes apparent when you look closely at things. And then, of course, are the major problems that MS never bothered to fix.

Col,

AI aircraft not landing at their flight VFR planned destination airfields but instead flying off into the blue yonder, is caused by high ground getting in the way of their "straight in" approaches, something which I can confirm after intensive testing a few years ago.

I was able to see such approaches taking place by parking a radar equipted jet fighter next to the runways at such airfields and then waiting untill I could see the approaching AIs from 40 Nm away. The radar image also included their altitudes, speeds and flight numbers.

The AIs all made their initial approaches correctly every time but after clearing the high ground, they were evidently no longer able to descend steep enough for correct landings, which were consequently aborted. Such aborts were followed by (partial) new approachs but in the end they all just flew away untill disappearing off the radar screen,

My solution for most of these irregularities was to change the wind direction at these airfields and in such a way that the AIs approached the opposite ends of the runways ...... if ...... there was no high ground getting in the way there as well. In one case my last resort was even to install flattens to reduce the offending high grounds, e.g. in Nepal and in Switzerland.

AIs flying IFR do not have this problem but instead they just fly straight through any high ground getting in their way.

Regards

Hans

Hans,

Great info. Enjoyed the description of your problem solving- very dedicated!

That did it. Thanks! Now I just have to make sure the plane lands at its destination and doesn't "veer off on approach and carry-on flying".

 

But how messed up is it that if I didn't have TTb, I'd never be able to create a VFR flight plan?

They shouldn't veer off, except with missed approaches. They really don't like being chased by user planes. If you use Traffic Toolbox to watch them, they should land correctly (although a few badly configured add-ons touch down so hard that they dematerialise).

It isn't messed up. You may have previously accidentally changed the setting (it isn't the default) with a slip of the mouse in Traffic Toolbox, these things are easily done. Or maybe some other add-on that I don't know of had changed the settings.

Anyway, glad to hear all is well now.

John

They shouldn't veer off, except with missed approaches.

I was facetiously referring to Col's previous post. But I didn't have any problems. The plane came in and landed, just as it's supposed to.

Something I found really interesting and did not expect is that the VFR AI plane requested transition through Bravo airspace. I don't know why I didn't expect that, even though I probably should have, but I thought that was pretty cool. Also, as a test, I purposely set it's altitude to one that is lower than a mountain range that crosses its FP. The plane increased altitude, continued along until it was safe, and then descended back to its assigned altitude. Très cool, no?

It isn't messed up.

It most assuredly is. As you pointed out "it isn't the default" setting. As we know, having the Traffic Toolbox module isn't necessary to create a flight plan for AI planes. And I've created dozens of them and then compiled them using Traffic Tools, but always as IFR FPs since I couldn't make VFRs work. But TTool's help section tells you nothing about making sure that the "IFR and VFR" box is checked in Traffic Toolbox's settings. So if it isn't the default setting in TTbox and you only follow TTool's instructions for creating a FP, how can you know that you need to change that setting? Indeed, if you didn't even have TTbox, it would be impossible for you to ever see an AI plane with a VFR FP because FS itself doesn't have a setting for that.

Now tell me that's not messed up.

It's just another thing in a long list of screw ups with MicroSoft software. And this is with its best performing, most stable flight simulator.

Thankfully, there are people like you who have the experience to point people in the right direction when something isn't happening the way we expect them to. Indeed, you're the one who commented on someone's post about not being able to taxi in the DC-3. I took a look at your zip file and made the appropriate change in the aircraft.cfg file and voilà, no more problems!

And just so you know, I'm not a newbie when it comes to PCs. I've been using them for nearly 40 years. Back in the DOS days, I created startup menus and sub-menus, since each individual software required different hardware settings. It was a steep learning curve but I read the DOS manual and was able to create stable environments for all my simulators and games.

But I still need help, occasionally, even after all these years of tinkering with FS9. So, if I run into a problem in the future, I'm just going to start putting your name in the post title.

Thank you again, sir. Much appreciated.

If you use AIFP3 there is a tick box in that too for IFR or VFR, I find that a lot easier to use myself.

Also another tip if you do a TnG (touch and go), for exaample lets say you have it set to tng at 09:00 set the next time for it to stop to 4 mins after 09:04, you may find it will do two circuits then request to change and go back to it's destination.

Asl if AIFP make sure you uncheck the TNG tick box for the return flight unless of course you want to to do TNG's on return, my self I like it to just land.

Col.

I tried AIFP and another flight planner but ultimately grew dissatisfied with them. Neither is perfect and often caused more headaches. I just use Notepad (or Wordpad if the FP is simple).

I already have a good idea how long a flight will take using Great Circle Mapper. You just type in the ICAO codes (separated by a dash), change the units to nautical miles, the speed to knots, type in the ground speed, and press "enter". The distance and time are calculated for you.

If I want a plane to take off at a specific time, I generally leave the arrival time blank. TTools will calculate the arrival time based on the cruise speed in the aircraft.cfg file. The only problem is that when TTools calculates arrival time, that time is to the airport's airspace.

But if I want a plane to land at a specific time, I use the "@" tag and then subtract the time calculated by GCM to come up with the departure time, usually adding 5-10 minutes for clearance, taxiing, etc, depending on the size and traffic at the departure airport. TTools will then calculate the cruise speed needed to stay on schedule. FYI, when using a fixed arrival time, that actually specifies the arrival time at the gate, give or take a few minutes, not to the airspace.

Yes we all have our own favourite way and if it suits you then that is fine.

Going back further up the thread about VFR flying off, I have had them do that and no high ground in the way, they did it at every airport, so after that I just used IFR.

This may have been a glitch in my setup that caused the VFR to do that I don't know, I said earlier if high ground was in the way ATC always told the AI to fly higher to avoid then lower when clear, it always worked for me.

I use Traffic View Board to follow the AI plus you can hear the ATC talking to it if you click that button.

I've got helicopters and seaplanes as AI as well, when I first started with helicopters they flew like a cessna but now got them vertical take off which is more realistic. If you go on MAIW (Military AI Works) you can download some choppers there and they do vertical take off, plus they have lots of other AI aircraft for both FS9 and FSX, take a look.

Col.

I've got helicopters and seaplanes as AI as well, when I first started with helicopters they flew like a cessna but now got them vertical take off which is more realistic. If you go on MAIW (Military AI Works) you can download some choppers there and they do vertical take off, plus they have lots of other AI aircraft for both FS9 and FSX, take a look.

As you said, these are military aircraft. I'm not aware of civilian helicopters doing vertical take offs. Besides using Heli2009, but that's an other story. Anyway, with separate runways with a length of maximum 300 ft. you might get a quite acceptable traffic behaviour.

Bernard

Bernard I cheated on the Helicopters, I altered the CFG in the civil ones copied the Mil entries over.

As for the seaplanes I did my own afcads, got a few dotted about, I only use them for AI, but fun to watch.

Col.

Thanks for your interesting tip. I didn't thought about that. So I will give a try by modifying correspondingly the CFG files, what I had to do up to now anyway.

Bernard

Meanwhile I modified the CFG file of Paul Brsdshaw's Sikorsky CH-34. I copied the CFG entries of one of MAIW helicopters. But I got any change of take off behaviour.

Bernard

I normally do Bernard, did you use the air file as well, not sure if that might help.

I presume you followed it to the runway they take off vertical from there.

Try another it might just be that one but I'm sure I have the CH-34, Ill check but I'm still setting up again.

Col.

For test purposes I use the MAIW AH-64. I replaced the original 'NBAI_AH64_Apache_AI_ONLY' air file by the often used 'stemme_as_helicopter_1'. The aircraft does the same vertical take off. Therefore the air file has no impact on the behaviour.

Which are the civilian helis you have modified?

Bernard