Sign in to follow this  
martinlest2

ATC is NOT 'as real as it gets'! :-(

Recommended Posts

Hi. Just wondered of anyone has any advice as to how to get ATC back working properly. I use Oncourse PFE, but this is probably not a PFE issue per se... things are no better if I don't connect PFE to my sim.

Firstly (this is by the by), is there any setting I can change within FS9 to get AI a/c to 'see' and respond to my user a/c sooner? Planes taxiing towards me do often (though by no means always) stop if I clearly have right of way, but mostly too late and my wings nearly always slice through their fuselage.

Secondly, this being my main question, why does ATC allow me to enter the runway when a/c are still occupying it? And why does it allow two a/c to land almost on top of each other?

ATC.jpg

I use AISeparation and AISMooth together (and I think I am using the 'recommended' settings for both), but juggling these (or not using them at all) doesn't seem to help, so any input would be appreciated.

Thanks,

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Speeding up atc and ai talk with editvoicepack helps also. Faster responses.

Less traffic of course helps also a lot.

And, I use a modified atc.dll what doesnt constantly yell to anyone about climbing 100 feet, wat

will saturate the radio, and thus atc.

You can find it at calclassic.com forums here: http://calclassic.proboards.com/thread/4931/propliner-atc

Works well for modern flying too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I did use that dll file and it was fine.. an improvement. No CTDs. But I use 3rd. party ATC (PFE) - the editvoicepack is redundant with 3rd. party software like PFE and RC4.

 

Nevertheless, I don't think it is PFE that is actually programming the AI a/c, that is still done by FS9 and the bgl files. I have asked this question on the PFE forums too, but I think it is probably an FS9 question - possibly with AISeparation and AISmooth.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple explanation is that FS9/FSX are games - marketed for the game market.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading that many moons ago - I'll read it again and check my settings, though I can't see that any settings would allow two a/c to land within five seconds of each other!

 

Thanks for the heads up!


You say it's a 'game' Gerry (I was talking about FS9 BTW, not FSX), but what's in a word? To most simmers it's more than that, as you must be aware. And even if you have more of 'a life' than the rest of us (?) and it is just a game to you, why not even so make it as real as you can? It's a large part of the challenge and fascination. Many of these issues are tweakable and often fixable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft developed FS9 (and all the version) as games - with all their limitations. By all means enhance FS9 by add-ons to improvement it. Don't blame Microsoft for not including all add-ons people wanted.in the base price. It wouldn't have sold at that prices and we'd have had nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Games" (in bold type). Yes, we all know what Games are! Where has anyone blamed Microsoft for anything here??? Not sure where your comments are coming from, but you clearly have your own agenda here. I am not commenting on this line of 'reasoning' any more, it doesn't stem from anything posted here and is quite pointless..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this be a problem with your afcad file (or multiple afcad files)? I don't have a proof for this idea, it's just an idea. What scenery do you use? Or does it happen in several sceneries?

 

I never saw such a behaviour neither with the default ATC nor with the modified version Johan has kindly pointed to (and that I also use for years now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that both of the alternative ATC programmes do sit on top of the default one (in fact, the default is chatting away in the background with the sound off) which means the traffic is still being generated in the standard manner.

 

Like Geyer, I have never seen behaviour like that double landing and concur witrh the idea that FS thinks there are two separate airports one above the other so i would certainly check for duplicate AFDs with perhaps different airport co-ordinates or maybe an airport with an updated ICAO code.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. It happens at various airports, but I'll double check for multiple AFCADs. Seems unlikely though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for everyone's reference, here are Dave Sheffield's AI Smooth & AI Separation compatibility settings:

 

AI Smooth:

Distance of AI aircraft to landing aircraft: 5.000000

Distance of user aircraft to landing aircraft: 5.000000

Heading range for intercept: 1

Global approach fix distance: 0.000000

Minimum Separation time: 1

User plane response: Ticked

Show ATC message: Unticked

Landing release altitude: 3.000000

Min. centerline distance: 0.000000

Reduce speed on approach: Unticked

Speak ATC Messages: Unticked

Control Batchsize, Poll Interval, Command Delay: Unchanged

 

AI Separation:

Min Separation: 6

Desired Separation: 8

Refresh rate: 5

Heading difference: 20

No move zone: 6

Reduced separation zone start: 35

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also check for overlapping ai traffic files (duplicate schedules). This might happen with an ai all-inclusive package with individual add-on ai chedules such as World of AI. Think two renderings of the same ai with simultaneous arrivals causing heavy traffic.

 

For ai take-off clashes where parallel runways exist or there are opposing runway entries try scattering the flow by opening some taxi links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I'm going to be "THAT" guy this time around, and recommend VATSIM.

 

Truly, there is nothing like it, and no AI program is ever going to come close to flying with real pilots and controllers.

 

Flew out of Heathrow this evening, must have AT LEAST 50 other human controlled aircraft and went through 1 delivery controller, two ground controllers, one tower controller, followed by departure during which I changed ATC frequencies 6 times in 5 minutes, speaking to every level of controller on my departure. Then one to Bremen Radar, Prague Radar (x2), two approach controllers, tower and ground.

 

All the ATC coverage and procedures were SPOT ON, which is usually the case in the UK and Europe (and not bad in the US - some US areas are as good as Europe as well).

 

Anyway, there it is.  Been on VATSIM for close to 10 years and my biggest mistake was not flying online sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled at your response. How is VATSIM going to solve AI traffic landing on runways simultaneously? If you are telling the OP to turn AI traffic off he can do that without using VATSIM.

 

We each have a choice on how we play the game, and it should work as designed. In the OP's case it seems it doesn't and we are trying to find out why.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, Vatsim has nothing to do with it. (altough Dave may like it, I dont. Flew it in the past when it was SATCO, but the PC's werent strong enough to enjoy it. And I hate seeing deserted airports like I am in the Langoliers movie, and then listen to 14 year old kids playing ATC)

 

The ATC.DLL needs FS9.1 update, and helps a lot. Together with AI Smooth it will solve your problems. ALSO, oversaturation of the radios due to way to many AI of course will always be problem number one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, sorry you're puzzled, certainly not my intent. I thought I clearly explained why in my post. If English isn't your first langsuge, then I apologize again - we're truly an international group of guys! If English is your first language then I'm sorry once again for not drawing the lines in between the dots.

 

Best wishes to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again... OK, I checked my AISeparation & AISmooth (v.1.20) settings and everything is as per the tutorial already, so I suppose I read it some years back, set things and have been running it that way ever since.

I have searched by FS installation for RJAA bgl files (that is where the screenshot was taken) and there is only one AFCAD. Older AFCADs I had already disabled to a bgx extension and put into a backup folder. I also cannot see any traffic.bgl files for RJAA, Ronzie, I just have my AI traffic programme and its own traffic bgl files. What I did notice is that, although I had removed it, the file traffic030528.bgl had crept back into my scenery/world/scenery folder. Could that explain things? I have removed it again!

Dave, I don't think the non-comprehension was a language issue :-) - more that your suggestion would not effect the AI problems I have. In fact, I have actually joined ivao (rather than VATSIM), and BA Virtual too.. but have done nothing about using either of them so far. I doubtless will when I get others issues sorted out!

One other oddity is that when FS9 crashes, as it is wont to do from time to time, the windows says FS9.0 has stopped working...' BUT, I definitely installed the 9.1 update. If I try to reinstall it, the programme tells me it is already installed and then quits. The menu bar (help/about) in FS also shows me FS9.1, and the properties box of the fs9.exe file shows version 9.1.0.40901, so why that splash screen shows 9.0 I have no idea.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LATER: Shock, horror!! :shok: In spite of what I wrote above, I went to the unpatch.bat file in the FS9/Backup folder and opened it in a text editor. Looking at some of the files listed there, I then compared the file dates of my FS9 installation with an out-of-the-box setup I use for testing (which is 100% sure FS9.1), and sure enough the dates in the latter are later than those in my full FS9 setup. Which means I am missing some, maybe all, apart from FS9.exe, of the files which FS9.1 should have installed. I don't know how that happened...

 

Well, that's outside the scope of this thread. I am going to open a new one, just to get advice on how to rectify this!   :Worried:

 

Edit: Not as bad as I thought, only two files were from FS9.0, including the important terrain.cfg file, all the others had the 01.09.2004 file date of FS9.1. Now I have overwritten those two files, I'll see if it makes a difference (it may well with the newer terrain. cfg file).

 

I can get back to my ATC issues after this little interlude!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Games" (in bold type). Yes, we all know what Games are! Where has anyone blamed Microsoft for anything here??? Not sure where your comments are coming from, but you clearly have your own agenda here. I am not commenting on this line of 'reasoning' any more, it doesn't stem from anything posted here and is quite pointless..

 

The title of the thead is ATC is NOT 'as real as it gets'! :-(.

 

That's because  Microsoft developed it as a game. That that's why add-on developers have enanced it to make a a simulation - if you must call it that.

 

The only agenda here is thoseis  who are terrified of being called a gamer - shock horror, we are simulators!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of the thead is ATC is NOT 'as real as it gets'! :-(.

 

That's because  Microsoft developed it as a game. That that's why add-on developers have enanced it to make a a simulation - if you must call it that.

 

The only agenda here is thoseis  who are terrified of being called a gamer - shock horror, we are simulators!!!

 

No, Gerry, that is not the point here.

 

The original poster has clearly reported some problems which are not common for FS9's stock ATC (imho) and which he tries to find a solution for.

 

I'm still convinced btw that it has do do something with add-on scenery or enhanced AI traffic. An active traffic030528.bgl file should not be the problem, as it only would add the stock AI traffic with - how were their name, Orbit, Landmark, Pacifica? - those MS generic liveries. But then ATC should handle them as just some more planes to land and take off.

 

But how did the file go back into the appropriate folder? - Perhaps the problem lays deeper within your operating system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Harald.. at the moment I have bigger problems with FS9 than the ATC! FS itself keeps crashing and after 2 weeks of trying to sort this out, I am no nearer to getting a reliably working FS9 installation! Anyone interested, here's the 'crie de coeur' I posted! I am going to try moving my FS2004/Backups fodler and reinstalling the FS9.1 patch. As I said in the thread below, I copied all the files manually, but it clearly hasn't helped. May be a registry problem...

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/479754-fs9-keeps-freezing-up-crashing-help-appreciated/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of the thread is ATC is NOT 'as real as it gets'! :-(.

 

Maybe, when we first flew FS2004 about 10 years ago, we were very happy with the realism then.

Time has gone by, & we have become a lot more sophisticated & demanding with our hobby, so, what was good for us 10 years ago, is not real enough for us now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you get sorted soon, Martin.

 

Once you are, you might wish to do as I do, take a full external backup of FS roughly monthly and it will then be easier to restore if the need arises. I also keep a clean zipped copy of a vanilla FS9.1 so if you do make a fresh install you may wish to take a backup at that point. That would give you an instant base for a future ground-up rebuild or add-on compatibility testing.

 

Its a shame this thread has suffered so many people diving in without reading your questions first but I guess retrospectively it was not the best subject line to use.

 

On the initial issue I am still with Geyer's thoughts. Perhaps not the time to be exploring this but if it can be pinned down to specific airports I would try putting them back to default to experiment.

 

John

 

PS - I don't know if you ever use "System Restore" on your computer but it can play havoc with games like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this