An AFCAD Guru?

falcon409

falcon409

Moderator
Staff member
No, I'm not one and that's what I'm looking for, lol. I'm trying to figure out why, out of about 26 F-16's attached to the 301st/457th, only 7 or 8 show up. Here's what I did: Installed the MAIW package (AFCAD and AI) that included NAS Ft Worth. This included F-16's, F-18's, C-130's, and C-40's. When I looked at the results, I saw that their AFCAD (I'm speaking now of the physical layout) runway, taxiways, parking ramps, even location of the tower were off by quite a bit. I scrapped the lot of it, but not before saving the parking properties for each of the aircraft so that I could go back and insert them exactly as they were. Currently the runway is connected to the taxiways and the ramp and parking spaces are connected to the taxiways. I have F-18's parking where they should although half of them show up despite the abundance of spots allocated to them. I have C-40's that park where they should except for the one that seems to want to park down with the big boys on the F-16 ramp and I have one row of F-16's, even though there are 26 AI including the two "D" models we have. I don't understand why the F-16's refuse to show on the other spots and why that one C-40 insists on parking with them even though the parking code is for the F-16's. Can anyone suggest anything that might give me something else to look at that might lead me in the right direction here? Thanks!
 
Are you still using the MAIW Traffic file, their flightplans are well research'd, maybe the missing ac are just flying somewhere else, unfortunatly, thats the only thing i can think off, you've raised some intresting questions that i'd like to know the ansewr myself, had same problems getting my ai to behave in the Singapore scenery ive just uploaded.
cheers ian
 
Well Ian, mine turned out to be relatively simple and something I rarely consider. . .the "Traffic Density" slider was set too low. Normally I would have it turned off completely as I'm not much on AI traffic, but FS9 has become my "Military Flight" Sim and I failed to check the slider in all this. It was set at 40% which I would think should be fine, but it took moving it to 80% to get the results you see in the images. I still have the two C-40's that insist on parking where they don't belong despite the code being for F-16's and I have to download the C-130 package I need to get the 181st Airlift going, but the ramp is ready and waiting.
 
Do the C-40s have correct parking spots (radius, code) available on their regular tarmac?
 
Bjoern, I just copied what MAIW originally set up for that aircraft. I may enlarge the radius some to see if that lures them back home, lol:salute:
 
Not a guru either but I've learned a lot by making AFCADS and watching AI behavior. There are several causes for things not looking like they ought to. I flip between Afcad2 and ADE9 as each has something to offer but ADE9 has the final say because it can do a few more things. Both come with very helpful manuals and are worth downloading and reading even you have no desire to make airports. As mentioned, AI radius (editable in Afcad2 and reported in meters), parking codes and AI % are three such things to check. Some other considerations are

* too many parking spots. Especially MAIW in their desire to be detailed can provide too many for FS to deal with, at least those labeled for specific parking spots. For example, when I installed MAIW's Nellis, like you it looked like many AI were missing. When I checked the AFCAD in ADE9 it had too many labeled parking spots and failed ADE9s fault finder tool so several had to be re-designated as generic in order for the AFCAD to compile. I still can't say if that issue actually prohibited AI from loading but it seemed that more did though they were spread around the field more.

* mis-matched ATC parking code or type. Check the AI cfg for agreement with the parking information in the AFCAD though I've never seen a problem with MAIW packages on this point.

* missing airports or airports without proper parking spots. If a traffic file has AI going to these kinds of locations the flow may be disrupted and A/C will either not appear, not take off, or not land.

* multiple AFCADS. It's worth a search to see if there is a conflicting AFCAD lurking somewhere. Searching Afcad2 file/open airport/from all scenery should show every AFCAD on the sim for that airport.

* AI do fly. I once or twice nearly gave up on a problem until the light went on and I figured the missing AI were in the air somewhere, and they were. Doh!

* taxiway errors. A missing link or taxiway that isolates a parking spot will still allow an AI to load into it, but it is stuck there and can disappear at any time. Conversely, that spot is also not available for inbound AI to taxi to and what usually happens is the AI will fly to touchdown then will shortly vanish. Nellis had several 'orphaned' parking spots.

* mis-labeled AI. I don't expect this is an issue with the MAIW packages but a single typo can make an AI be missed.

This is not comprehensive but are the things I regularly check when there are problems.

I will try to DL this package and see what turns up.
 
aeromed202 said:
Not a guru either but I've learned a lot by making AFCADS and watching AI behavior. There are several causes for things not looking like they ought to. I flip between Afcad2 and ADE9 as each has something to offer but ADE9 has the final say because it can do a few more things. Both come with very helpful manuals and are worth downloading and reading even you have no desire to make airports. As mentioned, AI radius (editable in Afcad2 and reported in meters), parking codes and AI % are three such things to check. Some other considerations are

* too many parking spots. Especially MAIW in their desire to be detailed can provide too many for FS to deal with, at least those labeled for specific parking spots. For example, when I installed MAIW's Nellis, like you it looked like many AI were missing. When I checked the AFCAD in ADE9 it had too many labeled parking spots and failed ADE9s fault finder tool so several had to be re-designated as generic in order for the AFCAD to compile. I still can't say if that issue actually prohibited AI from loading but it seemed that more did though they were spread around the field more.

* mis-matched ATC parking code or type. Check the AI cfg for agreement with the parking information in the AFCAD though I've never seen a problem with MAIW packages on this point.

* missing airports or airports without proper parking spots. If a traffic file has AI going to these kinds of locations the flow may be disrupted and A/C will either not appear, not take off, or not land.

* multiple AFCADS. It's worth a search to see if there is a conflicting AFCAD lurking somewhere. Searching Afcad2 file/open airport/from all scenery should show every AFCAD on the sim for that airport.

* AI do fly. I once or twice nearly gave up on a problem until the light went on and I figured the missing AI were in the air somewhere, and they were. Doh!

* taxiway errors. A missing link or taxiway that isolates a parking spot will still allow an AI to load into it, but it is stuck there and can disappear at any time. Conversely, that spot is also not available for inbound AI to taxi to and what usually happens is the AI will fly to touchdown then will shortly vanish. Nellis had several 'orphaned' parking spots.

* mis-labeled AI. I don't expect this is an issue with the MAIW packages but a single typo can make an AI be missed.

This is not comprehensive but are the things I regularly check when there are problems.

I will try to DL this package and see what turns up.
Click to expand...
Good info....I now have a very different problem (I seem to weed out one and get it corrected only to have a new one pop up, lol). In watching the F-16 ramp, when a four-ship departs, those four aircraft back up from the spots, turn and then begin the taxi to the runway rather than pulling forward to the center line and taxiing out as they should. I've looked at the one for Nellis and the one for Cannon and while their jets don't park the same way Carswell does, they are still taxiing into a spot and then taxiing forward for the taxi to the runway. I don't yet see anything in my setup that differs from what they have, yet there is obviously something there I don't see.
 
falcon409 said:
Good info....I now have a very different problem (I seem to weed out one and get it corrected only to have a new one pop up, lol). In watching the F-16 ramp, when a four-ship departs, those four aircraft back up from the spots, turn and then begin the taxi to the runway rather than pulling forward to the center line and taxiing out as they should. I've looked at the one for Nellis and the one for Cannon and while their jets don't park the same way Carswell does, they are still taxiing into a spot and then taxiing forward for the taxi to the runway. I don't yet see anything in my setup that differs from what they have, yet there is obviously something there I don't see.
Click to expand...

If you download one of John Young's AI aircraft (Victor/Vulcan/Lightning/Canberra, etc.) and read his documentation, you'll see that he explains this - and what can be done about it.

Dave
 
Thanks Dave, was hoping I was going to find the cure, but unfortunately his remedy is what I have already done. As the AFCAD image shows, the aircraft enter the shelters and park nose in towards the center of the ramp. When they launch, they taxi fwd to the center line, down the middle towards the hangar then turn to exit towards the respective runways. His method of inhibiting the pushback is to place the exit link in the direction of travel and I've done that.:isadizzy:
 
With a suggestion from someone on the AFX Forums, I downloaded a PDF file that explains what the author refers to as the "Drive Through" technique for ensuring aircraft do what I'm attempting. Taking a line from the original movie JAWS. . . ."We're gonna need a bigger boat", lol.
Basically what it requires is to set up an arrival network and a departure network, allowing the aircraft to arrive and taxi to it's required spot on one set of taxi links and then depart forward and out to the runways on another set eliminating the "push back effect". Yep. . . .this should be fun, lol.
 
It is something of a problem. Depending on how they arrive at a parking spot, AI will not always orient the way it is wanted. And as far as I can tell, taxiing is more of a logic algorithm than anything else, meaning a taxiing AI will be expected to take the shortest path and not necessarily the way a real aircraft will as dictated by ground control. In display this means that if a person wants AI to taxi a particular path the AI may have to be forced to do so using closed or limiting pathways. And I have found that when AI back out instead of pull forward or just do something that looks odd, it typically is only doing what it sees as the simplest way, and as I suggested must be forced into doing something different. Now I see some more ideas I'll have to check on too. What this all amounts to is that an AFCAD can be made to exactly represent a real airport, but then the AI have to be watched to see how they behave and it's not always pretty.
 
OK I finally was able to DL the MAIW South West ANG package that has KNFW but I don't recognize the parking image from the start of this thread. Do I have the right one?
 
aeromed202 said:
OK I finally was able to DL the MAIW South West ANG package that has KNFW but I don't recognize the parking image from the start of this thread. Do I have the right one?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in that first post, I trashed what they had as it was not correct. Everything shown in the images I've posted throughout the thread is what I've done from scratch.
 
So as I said, not a guru. This thread had me revisiting the desire to get some Buff traffic around Edwards, Nellis and parts of Nevada. I don't have it in front of me but there is a relatively simple B-52 I started to use for AI and had some troubles. Apparently AI aircraft can't be configured the same as "flyable" and I found I had to drastically alter numbers like MOIs and control surfaces to get the thing to behave. What I still can't figure out is why they do broad lazy eights on approach and land strangely almost perpendicular to the runway, it's not pretty. I still think there is an errant AFCAD or other directional device confusing the pilot but I just can't figure it out, yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top