AITM V1.1 Beta Update released

[Thomas Molitor 0]

>Btw, just an idea for future improvement, Could you make >another option to Shuffler, so that we can specify if >certain airlines only able to make domestic flights? Or I >can specify certain intl/domestic flightplan can only use >certain airports? ( I have 2 overlays for my hometown >airport, 1 for domestic flights, and another for >international flights), 1 biggest national flag carrier uses >both domestic and international terminal, but another >airlines just use another terminal according their >nationality. (1 terminal = 1 runway). Also it would be nice >to see an option for probability to use heavy jets on short >flightplan (ie: 400-800 miles). If you want heavy jets to fly short flights you will need to adjust the "AITM_AC.CFG" range values for heavy aircraft. Then they will fly also short flights. I'll see what I can do to add a paramater so that airlines can only fly domestic flights.>However, I 1 small question that bugged me all the time, I >tried to use AITM Beta (latest fix) and compared it with >AIShuffler v0.7 it seems when I use AIShuffler, I will see >much more variety intl airlines in my airport, but if I use >AITM, I won't see many intl airlines although I did add lots >of intl flightplan to my airport. >My question is, is this related to AITM Shuffler logic? >could we specify which method we want to use? In AIShuffler, >I can select shuffler random logic, whether I want to use >random distributed or evenly distributed airlines for intl >flightplan. Why AITM seems to remove several intl flightplan >from my hometown airport. The airlines you see after shuffling with AITM really depends on your installed aircraft and how you configure AITM. AITM only removes flights if there are no airlines/aircraft. You should also check the flight level of your flights. Many plans use unrealistic levels, e.g. FL250 for a distance of 50nm. >geographically, my hometown is actually almost in the middle >of country, it took about 500 miles to go to singapore, and >it is make sense if there are huge domestic flights, but my >town is capital city! must be alot of intl airlines too. >However I tried this logic in EHAM amsterdam, and it looks >beautiful (lots of intl airlines), because holland is not as >big as indonesia. so lots of intl airlines generated from >AITM. So if EHAM works for you, you should check the destination countries for your hometown flights. I think you don't have the needed aircraft/airlines in those destinations. RegardsThomas

[Guest]

--Truncated-->If you want heavy jets to fly short flights you will need to >adjust the "AITM_AC.CFG" range values for heavy aircraft. >Then they will fly also short flights. I'll see what I can >do to add a paramater so that airlines can only fly domestic >flights. >--Truncated--But If I change the range for heavies, won't heavies fly shorter too? and which class will make long range instead?--Truncated-->The airlines you see after shuffling with AITM really >depends on your installed aircraft and how you configure >AITM. AITM only removes flights if there are no >airlines/aircraft. You should also check the flight level of >your flights. Many plans use unrealistic levels, e.g. FL250 >for a distance of 50nm. >Not sure about this, but I think it still make sense if B737 fly to radius 150nm - 300nm with Above FL250. Because I once read on a newspaper a B737 having engine failure at FL330 during an 1 hr short hop. however, for your info, I use exactly the same flightplan & aircraft.txt for AIShuffler, and it made significant changes for variety of intl airlines. --Truncated-->So if EHAM works for you, you should check the destination >countries for your hometown flights. I think you don't have >the needed aircraft/airlines in those destinations. >>Regards >>Thomas I far as I remember, I did have several route for WIII-EHAM (fictional only), I have Garuda & KLM (B737 & B747), but when I compared the debug file (from AITM) and report changes (from AIShuffler), it looks that most of intl flightplan missing when using AITM. I hardly see any KLM most of the time in WIII and Garuda in EHAM. I will do much further testing to test what is the problem actually for this one, tomorrow. Anyway, above all it's just some of my idea for improvement of AITM. And I'm grateful to you , because AITM have some tools that AIShuffler don't. Thanks Thomas!

[Thomas Molitor 0]

>But If I change the range for heavies, won't heavies fly >shorter too? and which class will make long range instead? You only need to adjust the aircraft and not the complete class. Example:Original747,491,280,320,3000,7325,11000,HARD,47,CARGO,100New747,491,280,320,400,7325,11000,HARD,47,CARGO,100Now all 747 will start flying at 400nm. Might be unrealistic, but that's what you wanted. >Not sure about this, but I think it still make sense if B737 >fly to radius 150nm - 300nm with Above FL250. Because I once >read on a newspaper a B737 having engine failure at FL330 >during an 1 hr short hop. >however, for your info, I use exactly the same flightplan & >aircraft.txt for AIShuffler, and it made significant changes >for variety of intl airlines. Then again feel free to adjust the aircraft config as you need it. That's why I let the configure it. ;)And again don't compare AIShuffler with AITM. They work totaly different. So you always get different results. If you don't like the AITM results then use AIShuffler instead.>I far as I remember, I did have several route for WIII-EHAM >(fictional only), I have Garuda & KLM (B737 & B747), but >when I compared the debug file (from AITM) and report >changes (from AIShuffler), it looks that most of intl >flightplan missing when using AITM. I hardly see any KLM >most of the time in WIII and Garuda in EHAM. I will do much >further testing to test what is the problem actually for >this one, tomorrow. Anyway, above all it's just some of my >idea for improvement of AITM. And I'm grateful to you , >because AITM have some tools that AIShuffler don't. Thanks What do you mean with missing? Are they removed or what?CheersThomas

[Guest]

>>But If I change the range for heavies, won't heavies fly >>shorter too? and which class will make long range instead? >>You only need to adjust the aircraft and not the complete >class. Example: >>Original >747,491,280,320,3000,7325,11000,HARD,47,CARGO,100 >>New >747,491,280,320,400,7325,11000,HARD,47,CARGO,100 >>Now all 747 will start flying at 400nm. Might be >unrealistic, but that's what you wanted. >Quote:"Also it would be nice to see an option for probability to use heavy jets on short flightplan (ie: 400-800 miles)."Dear Thomas, Sorry for misleading you, please forgive me for my english (I'm not an english speaker nor use ESL in my country) :) , it is possible this could lead to misleading, because my unclear comments. :)Actually, what I am suggesting is (if possible, I wished :)), that, if there is another slider or editbox or whatever which user can customize the percentage of probability AITM will select heavies for a short flightplan. for example, I want to connect Kuala Lumpur and Singapore with 10% probability AITM will use 747 instead of 737. In the real life, I'm pretty sure there must be 747 fly a short distance (ie: min 400 nm) if both connecting cities have airports that support them and the passenger load is always high.>>And again don't compare AIShuffler with AITM. They work >totaly different. So you always get different results. If >you don't like the AITM results then use AIShuffler instead. >Ok,sorry if you feel that, I didn't mean to compare apple to apple between AIShuffler & AITM.>>I far as I remember, I did have several route for WIII-EHAM >>(fictional only), I have Garuda & KLM (B737 & B747), but >>when I compared the debug file (from AITM) and report >>changes (from AIShuffler), it looks that most of intl >>flightplan missing when using AITM. I hardly see any KLM >>most of the time in WIII and Garuda in EHAM. I will do much >>further testing to test what is the problem actually for >>this one, tomorrow. Anyway, above all it's just some of my >>idea for improvement of AITM. And I'm grateful to you , >>because AITM have some tools that AIShuffler don't. Thanks >>What do you mean with missing? Are they removed or what? That's what I'm gonna test it tonight, when I got home.Thanks Thomas for your great program & attention anyway!.

[Thomas Molitor 0]

>Actually, what I am suggesting is (if possible, I wished >:)), that, if there is another slider or editbox or whatever >which user can customize the percentage of probability AITM >will select heavies for a short flightplan. for example, I >want to connect Kuala Lumpur and Singapore with 10% >probability AITM will use 747 instead of 737. In the real >life, I'm pretty sure there must be 747 fly a short distance >(ie: min 400 nm) if both connecting cities have airports >that support them and the passenger load is always high. I think there is a big problem to configure that. The only thing that would be possible is to add a new parameter for the overall percentage of an aircraft. That means that you can configure 737 to fly 90% and 747 10%. But then you still need to configure the min. range of a 747 to same 737 value. This percentage value would also be used globaly and not only localy. I was planing to add this new parameter anyway. >>And again don't compare AIShuffler with AITM. They work >>totaly different. So you always get different results. If >>you don't like the AITM results then use AIShuffler instead. >>>Ok,sorry if you feel that, I didn't mean to compare apple to >apple between AIShuffler & AITM. It's okay. No problem. :)It's just a matter of choice which Shuffler you prefer. Some still prefer AIShuffler and some my AITM. But you should always keep in mind that they work differently.>Thanks Thomas for your great program & attention!. You're welcome! :)Thomas

[Guest Joshieca]

Great program Thomas...thanks for the window resizer in your last beta update. :)- joshPS: I know your working on adding cities to the list so that "hubs" can be created....any ETA on when me might see a beta for this?http://members.cox.net/joshieca/fstimeslink.gif

[Thomas Molitor 0]

This will be added to V1.2. So I can't say any specific date for it.Thomas

[Guest]

Kewl! Thomas....Once again massive respect! It just gets better.Rodders

[Guest Joshieca]

Yep, Thomas has done a great job with his software. It will be great once cities/airports are added. My hope is that there is some sort of simple tweak which could be done to the .cfg file. Maybe some like Delta,KATL,75...meaning I want 75% of the flights to and from KATL (Atlanta) to be DELTA airlines.Having the ability to sort airlines via continent, country, and then by airport code will be ultimate.Once again...great work Thomas. A+++++++++ :-sun1

[Thomas Molitor 0]

IT'S COMING! :) V1.2

[Guest jkramer51]

I like seeing the radius for the planes. My question is, if it has 47 for the 744 does that mean that the parking spot has to be 47 (154.20 ft)? Or can the parking space be 75% of the number. I noticed that the 777 for the PAI have 39. That seems small.John

[tgibson 11]

I found that the radius of the airplane (as set by AITM) has to be smaller than the radius of the parking spot (as set by AFCAD). No 75% stuff.Hope this helps,-- Tom GibsonCalifornia Classic Propliners: http://members.aol.com/tgfltsim/index.htmlAlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/alcohauler/home/alcohaul.htmlFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.com/ San Diego Model RR Museum: http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/Drop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Thomas Molitor 0]

You can set the radius to whatever value you want. It's only used for assigning the gates. The gate size should be bigger than the radius, so for the 744 you should use any value bigger than 154.20.Thomas

[Guest]

>>What do you mean with missing? Are they removed or what? >That's what I'm gonna test it tonight, when I got home. Hi Thomas, please check your email. :) Thanks.