ford_friendly

Really detailed review. Only problem I had with it was the repetitive, nearly continuous, carping about not it living up to or conforming with the author's personal design preferences in terms of texture types. What stands out as "good review technique" to me is the reviewer pointing out Aerosoft's inconsistency in the use of texture types on various buildings/structures throughout the scenery - from "flat" here to "nearly photorealistic" there. Additionally, I agree that the lack of airport ground vehicles, baggage carts, personnel, etc. seems a bit odd given the price of the package. Thumbs up for the review overall.😀

To clarify for you, rogwen, you're assuming too much and/or misreading/not reading what has been done. Period. At one point a few years ago, my FS9 system had an "AI mission/flightplan" for some anti-submarine warfare aircraft installed and working which simulated a box pattern search for a submarine over open ocean and included no less than 15 waypoints between 2 "actual" airports. I took the basics from a thread on the MAIW forums and modified it for my own use. Worked just fine. It involved minimizing the lengths and widths of runways placed at an arbitrary altitude above the open ocean (if I remember correctly), eliminating parking spots period (that is, the waypoints were runway-only afcads, again, if I remember correctly), and "accepting" that there were going to be "missed approaches" at numerous waypoints - but the AI aircraft "flew" the box search pattern as expected within the limits of the FS9 system (missed approaches did involve lowered landing gear, but that's a system limitation that didn't seem to be able to be worked around. Maybe someone has found a way to work around that since then.). - Do I remember exactly which package that was in or who actually posted about accomplishing that? Nope. I think one guy posted about something he was playing around with on his own system (the gist was he didn't like just having pointless ASW missions to nowhere and back), got some feedback from forum members. expanded on his idea, posted a flightplan or two illustrating what he was trying/doing, and then 3 or 4 of the more experienced MAIW guys all started playing around and posting about it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the specific guys - Reggie may have contributed, or not. I don't think he was a regular MAIW contributor, but he was really respected and when he wrote something, people listened to him. Jim Vile was more active but equally respected, IIRC. But I don't think they were the most active or key players in this ASW/waypoint box search thread I'm thinking of. - Was it referenced in the MAIW forums? Absolutely or I wouldn't have known or heard of it. - Can I point to the specific thread/post that talked about this? Nope. It's been at least 4 years since I really lurked/participated in their forums. I've had a major head injury since then, my memory isn't perfect and my AI flightplanning interests have changed. I do know the use of multiple waypoints in AI flightplanning has been extensively explored and discussed on the MAIW forums and elsewhere - I followed the discussions closely because it interested me at the time. If it still interested me, I'd go read every MAIW thread and post from the beginning of the forums until I found something relevant, note the names of people participating in the thread, the specific terms they are using and then conduct searches on those terms and posts by those people until I'd exhausted the subject. Then again I'd probably just go experiment for myself out in the middle of the ocean; it's faster and more satisfying for me Experimenting in the middle of the ocean minimizes the variables you have to deal with (like possible interations with other AI, for example) until you know exactly what IS and isn't happening and what IS or isn't possible. Set one view to follow the AI aircraft, another to be at a waypoint, etc. Actually WATCH and see what the AI aircraft is doing - climbing appropriately, turning appropriately, actually landing or doing a touch and go/a missed approach at each waypoint? Does the horizontal distance between waypoints make a difference? Do altitude differences make a difference - how about any connection between horizontal AND vertical differences combined? Start with the easy stuff then systematically vary the appropriate aspects of the problem. Don't make things more difficult than necessary, just be thorough and systematic. If it works over the middle of the ocean, it should work in non-flat areas - all other things being equal - within the limits of the FS9/FSX system itself. I rarely take anyone else's word for what can and can't be done in FS9/FSX. (Too many times one guy says something can't be done and then someone else has found a work-around or a real solution.) That's just me. Shrug. I don't know what else to say - probably nothing you're gonna think is helpful. So, I'll quit posting in this thread now. Edited to add: After forcing myself to prove to myself that my memory was NOT faulty, here's a quote from a post talking about the exact type of systematic testing involved with testing waypoints... Took me about 5 minutes to find this on MAIW...The same thread also talked about invisible runways. FWIW: it's from way back in 2008. And now, I AM done with this thread.

Of course it takes more than one waypoint to fly down a valley that isn't straight. Isn't that just logical? You get the plane to be/arrive at a desired/entrance altitude with the first waypoint, then alter its direction and desired altitude with the second and subsequent waypoints. Sorry, but this seems obvious to me. It will probably take some trial and error to make it work near perfectly - and maybe it never will be "perfect", but I am sure it can be made to work within the constraints of the FSx system. Can't help you with undelivered mail. I know "Reggie" was very active when I last used his stuff (a few years ago) and I also know that at least 3 MAIW guys were doing some fairly complex flyby stuff with "airshows" involving not just waypoints but also AI flightplan timing. As I said, MAIW has lots of posts on their forums as well as numerous flightplans in some of their packages that use waypoints. When I was really into military AI in FS9, I installed 90% of what they published and had no problems with 99% of that. I was also able to convert/install most of their stuff into FSX at the time. Unfortunately, that system and I no longer co-exist (it died, I got other interests and I quit simming for years). Apparently, if you want to take advantage of their experience and knowledge now, you're just going to have to dig it out of their packages and forums. You get what you pay for.

I guess I'll repeat myself. MAIW uses waypoints routinely. Dunno how to be more clear. A search on their web forums returned 378 hits for posts containing the word "waypoints". Go here, register for free and look through/post on their forums.... They don't bite and are usually very helpful.

As gaputz said, MAIW has done a lot of work with waypoints, including using them to conduct "box searches". Um, they DO solve the problem if you make short and "invisible" runways and place them in the right spots. What happens is you force missed approach landings and the aircraft then continues on towards the next waypoint in the flight plan. It just takes a fair bit of planning, some judicious placement, and a bit of luck.

Imagine you're flying a C172 in the real world and suddenly notice an F-15 flying off your wingtip and rocking its wings. Um, why is he there and what do you do? I got a bit of a kick out of this article and the Official FAA pdf relating to it. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a19202/heres-how-f-15s-practice-intercept-procedures-for-the-super-bowl/ https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2015/media/Intercept-Procedures.pdf

Well, since you "don't need the guns/radar stuff so much", there's always the SR-71 (alphasim_sr71_free.zip) right here in the file library. It's a "a complete aircraft re-package of the Alphasim SR-71 freeware version."

That belt clip idea is probably the best one I've seen. Why didn't I think of that? :facepalm :excl:

What you describe is the one flaw in an otherwise great joystick in my opinion. I've owned 2 of them and one was more of a problem than the other. With that one, what I did was take some duct tape and literally tape the PS2 connector onto the base of the unit that had trouble staying connected. Not pretty, but it worked. The first time I did this the connector did not stay - seemed like the duct tape slipped. So I bent 2 large paper clips into 90 degrees and placed them on opposite sides of the PS2 connector, THEN taped that up tightly. Worked for a couple years before it loosened. Again, not "pretty", but it worked. Still does.

Ran across another site/link that might be of interest to anyone considering an around the globe flight using either FSX or FS9... This guy did and tells how and how interesting it was. Of particular interest to me was his Rules page. It shows that my own thinking is not too restrictive at all especially considering his choice of a DC3! http://kesaniemi.kapsi.fi/fs2004/

Sorry, I meant to include the link but my sieve of a brain let it slip through without including the link itself.... Here goes.... http://www.soloflights.org/comment_e.html

In case ya'll are curious, I found my plane and route combo... Yeah for me! Plane: payware Cessna 441, I'd probably go with the Flysimware version based on recommendations and online reviews. Cross-Pacific route: Memanbetsu Airport, North Central Hokkaido, Japan to Adak, Alaska ~1880 miles - then Adak, Alaska to Anchorage, Alaska ~1400 miles (following the island chain and routing over Kodiak means the only section without any bailout/emergency airport is the long over water stretch from Hokkaido to Shemya). Flying West to East has the advantage of flying with the winds most of the time instead of into headwinds. And I lived in the Aleutians for a couple years - the weather not only routinely sucks, it's VERY changeable. So, I like the safety margin flying in this direction provides. That solves the problem as getting to Hokkaido, Japan is relatively easy from anywhere in Asia/SE Asia and once in Alaska, well, there are literally thousands of routes to anywhere I start and end in the USA. Routing across the Atlantic is unbelievably easy in comparison. Three routes were/are historically used by aircraft that didn't/don't have the legs to make it in one go. Bailout points and emergency landing/repair points are much more abundant than in the Pacific. One route is New England/USA - Nova Scotia - Greenland/Iceland - Ireland - Continental Europe. This is basically the Lindbergh route though he flew non-stop. A second route is Florida, USA - Caribbean - Santa Luzia area,Brazil - (emergency airport -Vila dos Remedios island) - either Freetown, Sierra Leone or Monrovia, Liberia, African continent This Southern route was used a lot during WW2 to get USAAF aircraft to the European Theater from the USA. A third route, often used by seaplanes was Florida - Bermuda - Azores - either Spain or North Africa depending on the ultimate destination. But that route needs an aircraft with some serious legs too. So, the purely mental challenge has been completed. Now to decide if I am going to actually virtually fly this and, if so, I need to go find, download and install the appropriate afcads/sceneries in order to connect the pan-Pacific route to the Europe to SE Asia route. I figure it's going to take me another week to decide and start the process, not to mention I have to practice about 50 landings in a new-to-me airplane. Also, it's been a while since I considered myself truly competent in landing any FSwhatever aircraft (I've been away from simming for a couple years). Thanks for indulging my fantasy and helping me think this through. Added: Wouldn't you know, just after I typed the above, a friend sent me a link to this page which goes into detail about solo circumnavigating the globe by air. Lots of route and other good information. I mostly came to the same conclusions, but he's written it out in quite a bit of detail.

Thanks. I didn't know how to do that...

Very imaginative solutions you propose there. Lol. Not sure that I'll use them, but I have to admit that I like the creativity. (Not sure how I would "'move' them to the fuel tanks as required". I'll have to give that some thought.)

amalishkin - I meant nothing bad in my own response and took no insult at yours. As you said, things don't necessarily come across as intended in text. Your advise is on-target and I am actually at that point where I'm reaching the max range of the desirable aircraft (no jets/tubeliners, no regional commuters, no "classic" four prop airliners, that sort of thing). Ultimately, that means a modern, twin-engined turbo-prop that seats no more than 8-9 that is considered "stock" in FSX. The Cessna 441 looks like it just might work, but it's gonna take tight planning, good fuel management in flight and favorable weather conditions to cross the Pacific. Considering the other linked references and stories, all have/had modified planes with in-cabin auxiliary fuel tanks, something not available in FSX. It's that simple. Great stories and good inspiration, but not something I can directly use for this particular "problem". And one guy stopped and refueled in Russia violating one of my self-imposed restrictions. While I may have to modify that particular aspect at some point, I'd simply rather not. If it makes it harder to find a plane to accomplish the route planning/flight, then so be it. I just don't want to have to stop in Russia (though, believe it or not, I am a big Russophile in other aspects of life interests). If landing in Russia was not a restriction, I could do what this guy says "in a BE20... we have the ability to one hop from Shemya to Petropavlosk and then Sapporo, Japan"