Autogen addition?

[BaronKen 144]

Here's an idea for an autogen addition that if feasible I sure would like to see...Although I'd like to have at least some aircraft A.I., I just can't add any without upsetting the delicate balance I've achieved on my system between frame rate and the graphics I want to see, so I just have to set my AI traffic to 0%. I would be satisfied just to see static aircraft populate the airports at some of the gates and on the tarmac to at least give the illusion "something is going on". I've added some static a/c at my home airports as a scenery add on file, but doing that at all of the airports I might want to fly into just isn't feasible. I don't know how some of you might feel about it because having moving AI populate the flightsim world is a great addition to FS, but for those with let's say challenged systems right now having the ability to 'choose' between regular airline and ga AI aircraft *or* turning on autogen aircraft to populate airports would be a nice alternative. Phil, is it even possible?Thanks

[Guest Redvan]

i love the idea. I'd use it for sure!

[yellowjack 28]

I agree. If static scenery aircraft were placed at parking spots and topped up with true AI aircraft we would have less crowded skies (better performance) but still approach a major airport without that deserted look. It is definitely an add-on opportunity.John

[TonyB 1]

I don't think static models would give you much frame rate benefit over efficiently designed AI aircraft like those from Aardvark. I am in the process of replacing my Ultimate Traffic models with ones from Aardvark, CDAI and others with great results. I now have airports populated with real AI aircraft that have a relatively minor impact on frame-rate.Tony

[BaronKen 144]

But that's just it: I can't afford *any* further frame hit by adding some AI traffic. Since I already have autogen implemented in amounts (trees and buildings) that please me, adding 10-20 or so static *autogen* aircraft is not going to add much of anything to my autogen total, thus no further FPS hit. The scenery file I've added to my *home* airports have added quite a few static aircraft to my scenery, and the file is only 2kb in size. I'm thinking this is a very viable alternative to dynamic AI aircraft traffic, and just wondering if this is possible to do.

[TonyB 1]

Yes, you have autogen already, but each unique texture and model takes more effort and memory to display. Anything in the scene, be it autogen, buildings or aircraft take processor power to render. It seems to me that 10-20 static autogen aircraft would take comparable processor power to the same number of AI aircraft, if they are going to look half-way decent. They still need to be rendered and drawn into the scene. You could use a program like Flight1's Instant Scenery to place some static aircraft at the airports you frequent now without waiting for Microsoft or some other entity to come up with an option. It's quick and easy, as the commercial might go. :)Tony

[Bell417 0]

>You could use a program like Flight1's Instant Scenery to>place some static aircraft at the airports you frequent now>without waiting for Microsoft or some other entity to come up>with an option. It's quick and easy, as the commercial might>go.You could do that or, if you bought the deluxe version, you could use the Object Placement Tool that comes with the SDK. I tried Instant Scenery and found it to be almost identical to the Object Placement Tool. I Hope this is helpful!

[yellowjack 28]

I disagree, althought the models themselves wouldn't be an extra load, FSX has to continuously track every aircraft's flightplan. By having static aircraft at airfields that don't have flight plans attached then the total flightplans at any airfield that have to be tracked would be reduced. Traffic landing and taking off would also be reduced meaning fewer go arounds or taxi way snafus.I use the TDBB to generate my AI flights and even at 95% slider setting there are very few gates being used at a large airport. The traffic load to fill all those gates would be enormous.John