With AI Smooth is this with User Plane Response checked On? Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

All I can add is that if Jim were to tell me the Moon was made of Green Cheese, I would believe him.

Thanks for passing along your research, which caused me to give AI Separation another try. I flew into an busy traffic area on approach and I admit, the program did a good job sorting through the mess. Judging by just the amount of user settings, the AI SEP algorithm seems simpler than the AI SMOOTH algorithm. Also, the straightline "slewing" of the AI aircraft backwards out of the way seems positively brute force compared to AI SMOOTH. Perhaps the "keep it simple" approach works best at extremely busy airports however.It's really interesting how both of these utilities came out about the same time in 2005. Several years later, threads still pop up debating the merits of the two.

>Thanks for passing along your research, which caused me to>give AI Separation another try. I flew into an busy traffic>area on approach and I admit, the program did a good job>sorting through the mess. >>Judging by just the amount of user settings, the AI SEP>algorithm seems simpler than the AI SMOOTH algorithm. Also,>the straightline "slewing" of the AI aircraft backwards out of>the way seems positively brute force compared to AI SMOOTH. >Perhaps the "keep it simple" approach works best at extremely>busy airports however.>>It's really interesting how both of these utilities came out>about the same time in 2005. Several years later, threads>still pop up debating the merits of the two. >>From a AI engine/ATC code behavior stand point a backslew on final is better then a circuit slew at 15000 ft. 40 miles from a airport. This is because ATC Approach was the last ATC command sent to the AI Plane prior to a circuit slew.A backslew on final is after the last approach command and before the FAF trigger point for Tower to clear the plane for landing. This gives the AI Plane if it goes missed a better chance of re-establishing with the departure approach code.One of the drawbacks to backslew on final is if the Country is very small and the AI Plane backs out of the Country Boundary. Once a AI enters the Country boundary and then for some reasons is vectored back out of it or slews out it cannot return and continue the approach. The AI Plane either goes on to its next destination (based on FP) or pops up at the Stand. AI Seperation and AI Smooth were in beta for months and those of us that tested also compared them to the AI seperation system that the default FS9 uses.As stated earlier each seperation utility has its pro's and con's and the User decides what works best for them.

I run AI Smooth 1.12 and I've been seeing a lot of slewing lately -- at least 1 every other flight. A lot meaning more than I saw with v1.11, which never seemed to slew.I don't have AI Separation installed -- Has anyone else seen AI Smooth exhibit this behavior at all?

Using AI Smooth and receiving permission from ATC to "Taxi into position and Hold" at KBOS 33L, I was granted permission to take off. ATC alerted me to both landing AC on 4L and departing AC on 4R, both of which intersect 33L. Had I elected to take off at the moment ATC gave me permission, I would have come awfully close to a collision with AI AC on both 4L & 4R. Had I waited much longer, I had an arriving AC on 33L which probably would have been given a "go around".Question: Is either AI Smooth or AI Separation able to control this sort of activity so ATC gives me the correct (and safe) instructions to converging AC, or would I have to consider Radar Control to accomplish this?ThanksChris

I don't think either program was ever meant to "control" AI -- I know that AI Smooth is meant to simply vector AI off as you make an approach and create fewer go arounds for the user. And that it dies well.Radar Control? Do you mean Radar Contact? If you mean the latter, Radar Contact is designed to "freeze" AI traffic after you're cleared to land or cleared to take off. Be advised there is no ground control with RC, so you have to watch cross traffic while taxiing, but most of the time the situation you describe is eliminated. I say "most of the time" because AI traffic is still goverened by each airline's flight plan and scheduling an depending on how much you run with, you may still find conflicts -- just like real life. In any event I highly, HIGHLY recommend Radar CONTACT. I held off buying it for a long time because I was intimidated but when i was finally ready, it did not disappoint. I can't fly withuot it.If you're NOT referring to Radar Contact, never mine. :-)

Just to clarify:RC v4 freezes ground AI after you contact tower in the last few miles of final. It was intended to prevent landing runway encroachment by ground AI.

Yes, I meant Radar Contact. Sorry for the misnomer, and thanks for your info. I guess I'll just have to keep a keen eye when taking off on crossing runways. I have considered RC4 but wonder if it is just a little too much for the casual flyer.

>>I have considered RC4 but wonder if it is just a little too much for the casual flyer.No -- IMHO. Not at all, unless you're exclusively GA. Then, in that case yes probably. :-)

RC4 is definitely a "must-have" for me. I fly almost 98% IFR flight plans and another big plus is the way it handles the AI situation. I've had only one commanded go-around from RC on approach in over 2 years. It was unexpected therefore "fun". Flying into KEWR or KORD works well in RC4. The limitation at busy airports with RC4 is the already mentioned ground traffic, and also one still finds the massive backups for takeoff with numerous go-arounds for the AI. It seems to me all that is needed is some tweaking of the internal FS AI engine. A major disappointment for me was that this was ignored in FSX. AI adds so much realism to the sim experience. Mike

One advantage of RC is that if you are in error you will get nagged but it will not cancel your IFR unless you request it.It depends how casual you are. If you are fairly frequentin IFR flying enough to learn and retain the techniques, and you are patient, then RC might fit you. Click on my tag below to take you to their web site. You'll see a section on who Radar Contact is suited for. You can download the big .pdf manual from the documentation page which by itself contains tutorial material so you can judge if you are prepared for the IFR environment. You will also find a features comparative table to view there between the earliest versions and the current version.

Mike:"The limitation at busy airports with RC4 is the already mentioned ground traffic, and also one still finds the massive backups for takeoff with numerous go-arounds for the AI."I've often wondered when opening FS at your selected airport (I have over 200 WOAI airlines), I get an immediatge rush (5 to 10 or more) of AI taxing to the active(s). AI must be on a retroactive clock!Ronzie:I will download the manual and give it a read. 90% of my flying is commercial so perhaps RC4 is something I could handle.ThanksChris

>I've often wondered when opening FS at your selected airport>(I have over 200 WOAI airlines), I get an immediatge rush (5>to 10 or more) of AI taxing to the active(s). AI must be on a>retroactive clock!:-lol , yeah, it's kinda funny, I just did a KORD-KATL, as soon as I started at KORD, there was this frenzy of departure. It settles down in 10-15 minutes though.

Don't want to sound like a shill, but RC4 is the BOMB.Like you, I initially resisted RC4's price, being a "casual" flyer. However, after becoming disgusted with FS's IFR protocol. If you fly IFR even part-time, it's worth the price. You get realistic handoffs, so that you can maintain a smooth ascent. You are not always vectored to an ILS approach just because. You can request full published instrument approaches instead of just relying on ATC vectors. Realistic descent profiles. And, it's nice to hand-off comms and controls to "otto" for a break on long flights. I am notoriously cheap, and FS Passengers and RC4 are the ONLY payware I have.