bib974

Hi Roland, Good news! What triggers these patterns? Coming from a certain anglr. Do you recomlend then to route ai towards a wpt where theu could start this pattern automatically (if realistic) On a recent flight, i noticed some ai on approach freezing to 0kiats on final. I use custom final. Do you see what coukd cause this? Thanks very much!

Hi Roland, I am reverting to you again with my question regarding the AI behaviour after it exits the last point of the star. Here in the new airport I am designing, the VOR approach makes the AI overfly the VOR on terrain 5so they overfly the airport at 4000ft) then descend on a heading before turning right to align with the runway. I am not sure it is doable with the final approach system of the program, so I wrote the approach as a prolongation of the STAR: http://www.philskies.net/library/Charts/New/RPVM.pdf See on this link the VOR rwy 04. I created two dummy waypoints for the descent to 1500 and the turn to the right to align. The thing is they do align (mos of the times with correct altitude and speed) but then circle a wpt called FS04 in FSX (which seems to be a kind of FAF here), regain some altitude, realign again and then land. It also happens sometimes to aircraft on another STAR coming in as a straight in approach. Do you have any recommendations on how to write that type of approach? (With and without using the final to see the difference. Here I dont see how they could first overfly the FSX algorythm generated IAF before commencing the approach over MCT). Thank you. Best Regards, Renaud

Hi All, Sorry I have not been able to spend too much time on this lately. However, I did test the latest version this afternoon and was pretty impressed. I am not sure if it is because it has been a long time or not bu the latest version seems to work much better that some before. The Ai Separation looked better. I did notice some weird behaviours but not as much as in the previsous versions. The one thing that surprised me at the very begining is that it took a while for the arriving aircraft to show up (using FlightSim Commander), much longer than when tester before some time ago. I also noticed one aircraft reaching the last waypoint of a STAR and go in a holding pattern (no mention of the command in the programm window) while there was no other aircraft in front . I might have missed some thing here I havent started using final approaches again yet, as even with very precise coordinates for waypoints, some behaviors were still erratic. Still, more and more wonderful program! Thank you BR

Hi Roland and everyone, Now.that the.forum is.back online, is there any news about the latest version? Ir is it already online in the library? Looking forward to it! Thanks BR

That's a good start too me! I wish I could say the same for FSX Style a mystery for me where this area is and how it is defined

Indeed, I will have to check again for the stored autogen approach. I do have the latest version but not sure to have tried it yet for a long enough time. FlyTweety, for LOWI you may try to position the Iaf if and faf fix for the approach somewhere more appropriate using ADEX. To go back to autogen approach, i still have issues once an autogen approch is recorded and stored. Many AI planes will fly the final towards the airpot flying right and left in wide.turns, doing this again on the airport ground. Am I the only one to have that? Thank youbfor your help Edited for typos du to smartphone typing

I noticed that sometimes autogen approach are saved in the autogen cached.folder in aisidstar folder. Might be a good start fir further.customization. Is it so intended Roland? However it seems that the file gets deleted once the program exits. I couldnt see the file at all times either when running the program. Couldbyou shed some liggt on this? Thank you!

Hi Roland, Sorry i havent been able to revert yet but thank you for the time spent in your replies ever since. I have continued tedting and tweaking your great program and actually started using autogen approach and design my own. Looks promising for now. One issue I had with autogen approach is the Ai plane flying right and left and right and let from glide slope intercept to touchdown. Dont know if it is a bad tweak on my side, will keep testing and look into it. I have some other remarks i would like to share for.future updates as well, will write you an email. For your question about autogen final approach speed, i did think tobhave read somewhere it was for separation purpose. Im in favor of slowing the ai from 160kias on long final to 140 before touch, although customizable speeds depending on aircraft category/type would be more realistic. Thanks for all! BR

Dear Roland, As pomised a few weeks ago, I am reverting with some feedbacks on this promising programs. First on the SIDs, as most of us it seems, reading this forum, this part goes pretty smoothly. I had some problems with some AI plane on the ground, taxing to the runway and going straight out of the taxiway instead of making the turn towards the runway. I dont think your program controls AI on the ground yet (or is it some hidden code?) so it might be my AFCAD. A nice improvement, if feasible, would be turn when reaching a certain altitude (like at 3000'MSL, right turn to next waypoint) Second, on the Stars and approaches, where most of my concerns and issues still lie (in no specific order): 1) Would it be possible, if not already the case, to have an option to put AI on hold again for a limited number of times after release from a previous hold, if needed. I had the impressions that if the AI had hold before, it could be made to hold again at every waypoint after if the program deemed necessary. Would be interested to be able to disable that as it may not be too realistic. 2) SID or STAR altitude restrictions at or above or at or below or between (I note that you wrote in the readme it is not possible, but maybe someday it would be) 3) Option to disable final appraoch controlled by the program if no specific customized approach file was made, ie not use autogen approach but default FSX. (For now I tried to let your program focus only on the STAR part and disable all autogen approach, or I think I did by specifying 0 in the parameter). 4) I noticed that AI bank and remain in same bank position when acquired in slew mode by the program the first time. Some turns left are made with a bank to the right and vice versa, which is not too esthetic when following some AI. They tend to level the wings at some point but sometimes that weird bank attitude appears again. 5) AI climbing back up towards FL500 and above (I guess this is because I dont have a registered FSUPIC, but I thought that on go around they would follow fs default go around procedure, if set in the ini file) 6) Is it possible to input in the SID or STAR file different coordiantes format in the same file. I think it does work as the readme file says what are the accepted coordinqtes format, but just in case. 7) The most important to me, as I guess it is the main source of my issues: the distance from last waypoint of star to FSX IAF. How to efficiently place one or the other: 5nm in any directions, in the flying directions of the IAF? After exiting the star exit point, does the Ai directly head towards fsx IAF or to a certain heading like I seem to rember reading somewhere here? Could you elaborate a bit more on how the transition is made when passing back the AI planes to FSX after the star exit waypoint. On that regard, I had some plane completely disappear after this last waypoint. 8) Could you by the way elaborate a bit more on this 10 sec period of time:AIIAFDetectionDelay=10 (default) 9) 2 error code or note I had when running the program: error:24 sendid 101080 index 1 cbdata 24 reset altitude constant separation I hope this is useful to you and other users, I am constantly trying to improve my ini.file and SID STAR file for RPLL, some clarification on the above would be much useful. Thanks a lot! Best regards

Dear Roland, Wonderful!! Please give me some time to digest all that and I will give you more feedback on the program and the tweaks you offered. Again, many thanks!

Hi everyone, I must say, I sign up to AVISM forum almost specifically for this post. WOW! What a great utility we have now I found out about this program a few fays ago and have been reading through the entire topic before posting this. Only one remark I dare say here, more of my opinion actually, about this in the new features you exposed for version Q: When first reading this I first was really excited, because I thought you meant the AI landing roll would actually be lengthened. From what I have been reading on forums for years now, it seems that the general consensus would be that AI have the shortest landing roll so they can vacate the runway and avoid too many go-arounds for the following landing aircrafts. However, with the growth of programs like AI Smooth and AI Separation (and now yours!), the number of go arounds at busy airports was greatly reduced. it seems to me that AI users are now looking for realistic vacating of the runways. Rather than having the plane vacating via the first exists (more often than not one in a reverse directions, or not the one intended in real life) I prefer it to continue rolling to the appropriate rapid exit taxiway (which in the ned is not only more realistic but also better for the rest of the AI flow on the ground). You can see on many forums that people seek to tweak their AI FDEs to achieve this purpose (basically lengthening the landing roll-out, increase AI taxi speed on runway, sometimes ajusting the AI approach speed). It appears to me that this new feature of AISIDSTAR would work against this tweaks. Am I right to assume that? Therefore, if this feature could be made optional/activable like some other options in your great program, I guess that would serve many users too. I am even thinking that you could maybe implement the actual complete opposite option and allow the program to extend the AI landing roll after landing. This is my remark, although I have to admit that I haven't had the time to fully test your program, so all my apologies if this is not relevant. Just an idea however. On a different note, if I may offer a suggestion for your next round of new implementations: Could it be possible that, if go arounds occur, the AI would follow the Missed Approach procedure rather than a SID? Anyway congratulations on this great utility and thank you for bringing it to our FS, it's been much needed and appreciated. Best Regards Bib974