ford_friendly

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"

Nice plane Bert, but it's way short on the range I need.

Yeah, thanks. I've watched the Flysimware videos and they look nice. I think that I probably wouldn't be disappointed buying the plane based on those videos. But, I haven't seen anything nearly equivalent for the Flight1 C441 so that's why I asked if anyone has compared them.

I'm looking at buying a payware Cessna 441 for FSX use. The two packages I am aware of right now are from Flight1 and Flysimware. Are there others? I've read reviews of both of the above offerings here and elsewhere as "stand alone" reviews and both seem to be well-modelled and appropriately priced. However, I haven't seen any direct comparisons between the two packages. Has anyone flown both and what are your opinions on them?

With the self-imposed restriction of flying a non-tubeliner and not landing or refueling in Russia, distance makes crossing the Pacific a bit of a b****. I'm also looking at a non-jet, again, just becuz'. There're just not many refueling points within range on certain possible legs - I'm assuming/hoping for a 2200 mile range for a twin engine turbo-prop based on 'Net research and restricting myself to a FSX/FS9 "standard" aircraft - not something specially modified as has been done in the real world and not flying with unlimited fuel as a computer program allows. If you think that's not the case, please, enlighten me - that's the whole point of this thread, actually. To find a plane and route combination that meets my "absurd" criteria - then I might try virtually flying it just to prove it can be done. The difficult and somewhat obvious route legs I have looked at include (but all fall into the realm of being range difficult to impossible given my restrictions): 1. Sapporo/Northern Hokkaido to Alaska (if I allowed myself to land/refuel in Petropavlosk, this would be the easiest route) 2. Hawaii-California/Central America/South America (the "straightest"/most direct route, but there's no margin for safety fuel-wise in any twin engine turboprop I have researched and most can't make the range, period) 3. Australia/New Zealand-French Polynesia-Easter Island-South America (same problem as #2, that last leg is just a few hundred miles too long/has no margin for safety) Heck, I've even looked at Philipines-Midway/Wake-Hawaii and then North or South somewhere before trying to reach the American continents. No obvious solution arises, at least to me. I looked at Amelia Earhart's planned route. She was going to fly Hawaii to Oakland/'Frisco. But her Lockheed Electra was a highly modified for long-range aircraft - something FSX doesn't allow for unless one checks the unlimited fuel option in the Realism Settings. FWIW, that C172 cross-Pacific set of videos shows the guy had modified his plane with a large, in-cabin fuel tank. See the previous paragraph for why I won't/can't do that. I'm trying to do it with a "stock" aircraft within the limits of FSX So, you think that this is easy? I'm not insulted at all. But, Please, enlighten me. I would love to be shown something easy about this that I have overlooked. I may have set myself a challenge that cannot be met - I hope not. But it's possible that I have. You guys, as a whole, probably know more things about planes, ranges and routing than I will ever know. There's my challenge for you. --- --- --- Edited to add: I am currently looking at trying to use a Cessna C441. Fingers crossed.

Okay, with time on my hands and dreams of Powerball winnings making garbage of the darkness between my ears, I started to do a "round the world flight planning" thought exercise and have run into a problem. First, I don't fly tubeliners - ever. If I did, this would not be a difficult mental puzzle; it would be a relatively simple process. Second, I have figured out multiple routes 3/4 of the way round the world from various starting points in a turboprop. My problem comes down to crossing the Pacific. Even if I route myself northward Hong Kong-Japan-Aleutians-Canada, I have trouble making the distance because I can't match a long-range aircraft with a route across the Pacific (shades of Amelia Earhart?) that still allows a 30 minute fuel consumption safety margin. I have placed upon myself a restriction of not allowing any landing or refueling in Russia (just cuz'/shades of Cold War politics applied to today [just cuz', like I said]). This pretty much rules out the above-mentioned "Northern route". I could be over-looking a long-range plane that would make it from Northern Japan to the western Aleutians. If I try going south, I run into the Hawaii-(continental North/South) America long haul gap. Again, I run into the problem of making it with any fuel left, if I make it at all. Either way, the closest I have come to solving this problem, so far, is still about 200 miles short. So, can anyone suggest a turboprop aircraft and flight route combination that makes it across the Pacific without landing in Russia and still has a 30 minute margin for fuel?

I posted this over on another forum and am curious about the response I might get here.... Assume for the sake of argument you win the $1.5 billon Powerball. How would that affect your Flight Simming experience? Would you quit simming in favor of real life flying? If you didn't quit simming, what flight sim system/program would you move to or stick with? Would you build, buy construct the ultimate flight sim system/cockpit? If so, what aircraft would it be? What hardware would you buy to run the new system? There are obviously other, related questions. Take this and run with it if you care to. --- My own answers: I'd both continue simming with FSX and go for my PPL. I'm pretty sure I'd eventually move to P3D but don't know enough about it technically to say when that would be - or exactly why. (I do think P3D still has a ways to go addons-wise.) Obviously, I'd get the latest, greatest bestest PC money could buy - again, I don't have a clue what that actually is, but money can buy a lot of pc power and the tech nerd expertise to advise me about what that "latest, greatest" system would be. I'd buy a new house and set aside a room, possibly two, for 2 cockpit builds - one probably for a Turboprop twin and the other for my real-life dream luxury purchase, a T-38 (or better yet, an F-20 Tigershark). A few thousand or whatever for a motion-enabled simulator for these planes would be worth the micro-pittance this would represent of my newly acquired, hard to get my head around it, massive financial worth. And just for fun, I'd try to hire a group of the best freeware scenery developers to create some awesome packages for my favorite areas - not necessarily airports per se, but places I like to fly in/see as well as some airports that I think deserve attention. Then I'd upload those sceneries here and elsewhere for the community to share. Just a few off the wall thoughts as I dream about the lottery I likely won't win tonight - but, one can dream, right?

"to back out or retreat from a position or undertaking"

Oh, you recognized that too, eh?

I'm going to guess that you have a registry entry for simconnect that hasn't been deleted. Try regedit. Just a guess.

Well, I got lucky. My ex-sister-in-law's storage unit had a box of old stuff that I had forgotten about, including some 7 year old software and discs. So, I have saved myself at least a few hours of time to download gigs of environment and scenery packages a second time. Now the (somewhat rhetorical) question is where to start (re-)installing them into my sim - real-life locally and then mmove further and further out, or some sort of systematic state-by-state process. And of course, that doesn't deal with the ai-traffic question - which packages and what density settings? When I simmed before, I was into the military ai stuff big time. My interest in that stuff is still there, but not nearly so much, at least for now. But air base installs are easier to "track" because there ae relatively few in comparison to all the civilian airports. Where to start? Decisions, decisions. Could have worse problems, for sure.

Thanks.