21 replies to this topic

[CMOS]

Brand new to attempting to modify aircraft... was wondering if anyone could instruct me in a method for changing the flaps setting for an aircraft I have set up as AI.  The F-111 I use takes off with flaps fully retracted but lands with the proper flop setting.

Thank you.

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 5 2006, 08:16 PM, said:

Brand new to attempting to modify aircraft... was wondering if anyone could instruct me in a method for changing the flaps setting for an aircraft I have set up as AI.  The F-111 I use takes off with flaps fully retracted but lands with the proper flop setting.

It's not the aircraft you have to modify .... it's the AI engine in FS9.  For some reason, Microsoft made the AI engine to do no-flap take-offs.  You don't notice it on commercial airliners and GA aircraft, but on a swing-wing like the Aardvark, it's VERY noticeable.

[CMOS]

sarge, on Oct 5 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

It's not the aircraft you have to modify .... it's the AI engine in FS9.  For some reason, Microsoft made the AI engine to do no-flap take-offs.  You don't notice it on commercial airliners and GA aircraft, but on a swing-wing like the Aardvark, it's VERY noticeable.

After studying all the planes taking off I finally realized that very fact.  Been using the program for about a year and never really noticed it.

As stated, not really a problem on somthing like a 737 but on the swing-wing F-111 variants it looks very wrong.  

Thanks for the reply Sarge... I was actually looking at the F-111 for your KPSM release;  I added some AI 135A and 111 flights to and from Pease when I noticed the lack of flaps.  

Flying over some of the 509th AREFS




Flying past the alert aircraft while a KC-135A taxies


Taxiing after the mission

[IBtheSarge]

Glad you like Pease (it's in rework to take advantage of FSX's use of .dds textures).  Plattsburgh (FB-111's) is in work for both FS9 and FSX, as is Loring (B-52's).

Which F-111 are you using for AI?  The best one I've found is in the RAAF AI package on AUSSIM.COM.AU .... very framerate friendly, but you'd have to do repaints for the 380th and 509th BW(M).

[CMOS]

I checked out AUSSIM.COM.AU awhile back for the F/B-111(after visiting your web page) but only found repaints of Alphasims F-111.  I instead opted for Mike Stones F-111C(basically same as FB-111A) and simply modified the color scheme to match(at least attempt) that of the 509th.  I wouldn't call it frame rate friendly but it doesn't kill my system either... although I haven't and don't plan on filling the base.  I only keep about 6 "FB-111A" and 4 to 5 KC-135A at the base at any one time.  

I tried repaints for both the 509th BW(M) and 509th AREFS... although not nearly perfect they work for me.  

Showing off the SAC Shield


Showing off the 509th BW(M) Shield


The Mobile Gas Station


I'm looking forward to the KPSM re-release in an updated form!

I know you did some repaints for KLIZ, did you do any for KPSM?

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 7 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

I'm looking forward to the KPSM re-release in an updated form!

I know you did some repaints for KLIZ, did you do any for KPSM?

Thanks; the re-release of KPSM will (1) be even more framerate friendly for both FS9 and FSX, (2) the Mole Hole will be more accurately textured, (3) the "wonder arches" will have a smoother design and better texturing, and (4) there will be repaints for the Oz F-111 and Rok Dolenec's KC-135R.  (Rok's tanker is about the most framerate friendly version I've found, after removing all of the interior texture files.  I use his R model because that was the last version flown by the active squadron and is still being flown by the reserve squadron.)

The Oz F-111 AI model is by Dave Friswell and is inside the comprehensive RAAF AI v1.1 package (don't forget to get the patch file, too; they're listed in the library back-to-back).  I do use Mike's EF-111 Raven model, minus the interior texture files.  If you're mixing FB's with EF's, there were only three Ravens in the mix (to the best of my memory).

[CMOS]

I do use Rok Dolenec's KC-135 model; I use the A model though in an attempt to capture the appearance of the mid 80's.  It is very frame friendly, especially compared to some other A models out there.  

After reading your post, I was able to track down the F-111 by Friswell... for some reason it wasn't showing up when I would use their search function but it did show up when I searched for  " RAAF AI v1.1" in Google.  Haven't tinkered with it yet so not sure if I will use it over Stone's F-111C.  

Not sure what you mean by mixing FBs and EFs... could you elaborate?

Thanks.

[CMOS]

Hey Sarge, forgot to ask... why did you include this hangar... it's not really at PAFB(which I am sure you know).

Unknown Hangar

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 8 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean by mixing FBs and EFs... could you elaborate?

Both the 380th and the 509th had FB-111A's as the primary unit-assigned-aircraft, and two or three EF-111's in the operational mix.  Depending on the size of the strike package, one or more of the EF's would lead the way and jam/suppress the enemy radars and radar-guided SAMs/AAA, opening a corridor for the FB's to ingress the target.  If you're using Mike's F-111 and EF-111, I wouldn't do flightplans for more than 3 EF-111's per Bombardment Wing.

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 8 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

Hey Sarge, forgot to ask... why did you include this hangar... it's not really at PAFB(which I am sure you know).

  That's the one on the north side of the north ramp extension?  Opposite that hangar are parking spots for UH-60's.  The hangar is designed so four Blackhawks can enter the hangar and park, with the blades fully deployed.  It was an accomodation for simmer's who are rotorheads instead of fixed wing flyers.  

[CMOS]

Thanks for the reply Sarge... I kind of figured that hangar was for helos but wondered.  I never really noticed it until I remember 135s were backed up against that spot and would do water runs.  Obviously wouldn't be done into the hangar!  

I don't remember hearing of any Ravens at Pease or Plattsburgh.  Were they assigned to those wings or TDY from CC and MO?  I know when deployed the Ravens would lead the way but during daily sorties stateside they operated from same bases?

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 8 2006, 10:42 PM, said:

Thanks for the reply Sarge... I kind of figured that hangar was for helos but wondered.  I never really noticed it until I remember 135s were backed up against that spot and would do water runs.  Obviously wouldn't be done into the hangar! 

I don't remember hearing of any Ravens at Pease or Plattsburgh.  Were they assigned to those wings or TDY from CC and MO?  I know when deployed the Ravens would lead the way but during daily sorties stateside they operated from same bases?

I think Pease's Ravens were out of Cannon; Plattsburgh was supported by Mt Home (if my memory is correct; it might not be).  There was a set rotation schedule with up to three available at any given time.  As mission packages and OpOrds came down, one or more would deploy with the strike package and the Raven home-base would fly replacements in for the one(s) assigned to the strike.  My time at Hq SAC was 15 years ago, and a lot of the coordinating was done "on the fly" as the SITREPs were updated.  The time between a SITREP and a FRAG order was anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes.  The last Raven stood down in 1998 when the upgraded A-6 Prowler took over the duties.

As for the hangar, one of my Beta testers was a rotorhead and complained about there being no parking spots for his PAVE LOW.  So I added the spots and threw in the hangar as a bonus.  

Edited by sarge, 09 October 2006 - 01:41 AM.

[CMOS]

sarge, on Oct 9 2006, 01:36 AM, said:

I think Pease's Ravens were out of Cannon; Plattsburgh was supported by Mt Home (if my memory is correct; it might not be).  There was a set rotation schedule with up to three available at any given time.  As mission packages and OpOrds came down, one or more would deploy with the strike package and the Raven home-base would fly replacements in for the one(s) assigned to the strike.  My time at Hq SAC was 15 years ago, and a lot of the coordinating was done "on the fly" as the SITREPs were updated.  The time between a SITREP and a FRAG order was anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes.  The last Raven stood down in 1998 when the upgraded A-6 Prowler took over the duties.

As for the hangar, one of my Beta testers was a rotorhead and complained about there being no parking spots for his PAVE LOW.  So I added the spots and threw in the hangar as a bonus.   

Interesting... the interoperability between bases flying similar air frames.  

Very kind of you to add the spots for the helo nuts.   I might try and add a Pavehawk there, call it TDY from 106th maybe.  It will kill the frames though, I think.

Thanks for the replies, Sarge.  

[CMOS]

Hey Sarge, since I got ya here

Since the AI won't take off with flaps, I wanted to do some TNG with the 111... however it never actually touches down just flies an approach and then flies a missed approach.  Is that normal?

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 9 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

sarge, on Oct 9 2006, 01:36 AM, said:

I think Pease's Ravens were out of Cannon; Plattsburgh was supported by Mt Home (if my memory is correct; it might not be).  There was a set rotation schedule with up to three available at any given time.  As mission packages and OpOrds came down, one or more would deploy with the strike package and the Raven home-base would fly replacements in for the one(s) assigned to the strike.  My time at Hq SAC was 15 years ago, and a lot of the coordinating was done "on the fly" as the SITREPs were updated.  The time between a SITREP and a FRAG order was anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes.  The last Raven stood down in 1998 when the upgraded A-6 Prowler took over the duties.

As for the hangar, one of my Beta testers was a rotorhead and complained about there being no parking spots for his PAVE LOW.  So I added the spots and threw in the hangar as a bonus.  

Interesting... the interoperability between bases flying similar air frames.  

Very kind of you to add the spots for the helo nuts.   I might try and add a Pavehawk there, call it TDY from 106th maybe.  It will kill the frames though, I think.

Thanks for the replies, Sarge.  

It WILL have an impact on your framerates; but, there's a way to minimize it.  Look in the texture folder for the bird and open each one of them, one by one (you may need DTXbmp to open the extended bitmaps).  If the texture is ONLY interior textures, delete it.  That will save a few system resources that can go towards performance.  If you're not comfortable doing that, copy-paste the texture folder and give it another name; then go into the aircraft.cfg file and change the texture= line to the name of the new folder you created.  Then make your modifications to the textures in that folder.

Oh, and if you want that spot reserved strickly for YOUR Pavehawk, go into the AFCAD directory.  You'll find a file in there named ParkingSpecs.txt .... open it in NotePad or WordPad.  Scroll down to the bottom where the default entry (MilH UH-60 Blackhawk Utility Helicopter,120,140,40,UH60,M004) is for the helicopter, highlight it, then right-click and select copy.  Scroll back up near the top, hit Enter at the end of one of the lines, then paste in that spot.  Now edit that line to read User Pavehawk,120,140,40,106P.  When you add the parking spot (or change one of the ones already there), select that entry for the spot.  Only a helo with the aircraft_parking_code=106P will be routed there by the sim's ATC.  Don't forget to change the aircraft.cfg file to show 106p as the parking code, too.

[CMOS]

sarge, on Oct 9 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

It WILL have an impact on your framerates; but, there's a way to minimize it.  Look in the texture folder for the bird and open each one of them, one by one (you may need DTXbmp to open the extended bitmaps).  If the texture is ONLY interior textures, delete it.  That will save a few system resources that can go towards performance.  If you're not comfortable doing that, copy-paste the texture folder and give it another name; then go into the aircraft.cfg file and change the texture= line to the name of the new folder you created.  Then make your modifications to the textures in that folder.

Oh, and if you want that spot reserved strickly for YOUR Pavehawk, go into the AFCAD directory.  You'll find a file in there named ParkingSpecs.txt .... open it in NotePad or WordPad.  Scroll down to the bottom where the default entry (MilH UH-60 Blackhawk Utility Helicopter,120,140,40,UH60,M004) is for the helicopter, highlight it, then right-click and select copy.  Scroll back up near the top, hit Enter at the end of one of the lines, then paste in that spot.  Now edit that line to read User Pavehawk,120,140,40,106P.  When you add the parking spot (or change one of the ones already there), select that entry for the spot.  Only a helo with the aircraft_parking_code=106P will be routed there by the sim's ATC.  Don't forget to change the aircraft.cfg file to show 106p as the parking code, too.

I've tinkered with AFCAD before so I'm comfortable changing things around in there.  I didn't know about the trick involving removing interior textures though... interesting.  If you remove the textures, what shows up?  Just plain white?

Would you mind clearing up another question involving AI traffic?

Since the AI won't take off with flaps, I wanted to do some TNG with the 111... however it never actually touches down just flies an approach until maybe 100 or 200 feet above  and then flies a missed approach. Is that normal?


Thanks again for all the help, Sarge.  

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 9 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

I've tinkered with AFCAD before so I'm comfortable changing things around in there.  I didn't know about the trick involving removing interior textures though... interesting.  If you remove the textures, what shows up?  Just plain white?

If you are using it as AI, it doesn't matter what shows up.    There's no one inside to view it.  If it's one YOU are flying, then you would leave the textures alone.  You can have both by simply creating another [fltsim.x] section in the aircraft.cfg file and pointing to the folder without the interior textures, and use THAT one for your AI.

CMOS, on Oct 9 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

Would you mind clearing up another question involving AI traffic?

Since the AI won't take off with flaps, I wanted to do some TNG with the 111... however it never actually touches down just flies an approach until maybe 100 or 200 feet above  and then flies a missed approach. Is that normal?

That's a peculiarity I've noticed before; I think it depends on how the .air file is set up for the bird.  Unless you're using a made-for-AI model, the .air file is not configured for automatic TNG; it's set up for a normal approach, landing, roll-out, taxi, and take-off.  The AI engine tries to correlate that with the flightplan that says TNG and comes up with a missed approach.  Same effect, just the wheels never touch the concrete.

Don't take that as gospel; I don't know that anyone has ever tried to figure it out before.  It's just the only explanation I've ever been able to come up with for it.

[CMOS]

Thanks for the replies, Sarge.  

When you mentioned removing the interior textures, for some reason I read it as they were interior textures that were visible from the outside... like being able to look into the cockpit.  

It kind of bugs me that the 111 doesn't touch down for the TNG so I will have to tinker around and either find another .air file for it or just sub another aircrafts .air in there.  

Thanks again, Sarge.

[IBtheSarge]

CMOS, on Oct 10 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

It kind of bugs me that the 111 doesn't touch down for the TNG so I will have to tinker around and either find another .air file for it or just sub another aircrafts .air in there.  

Try the .air file in the RAAF AI package that Dave made for his 'Vark; see if it works any better than the ALPHASIM .air file.  You can have them both in the main F-111 folder, as long as the AI one has a different name than the ALPHASIM one.  Just change the line sim= to the name of the AI .air file.

Edited by sarge, 11 October 2006 - 01:26 PM.

[CMOS]

Varied results... using Mike Stones F-111C(and it's correlating .air file) I tried TNG at 3 airports: PAEI, KSYR, and KPAM.  

At KPAM the aircraft lined up parallel to the runway and went missed approach every time until it switch to full stop landing at which point it landed on the imaginary parallel runway and disappeared.  

At KSYR and PAEI it lined up appropriately every approach but went missed everytime until it switched to full stop landing and landed without problem.

I then switched the RAAF AI F-111Cs .air file with Stones F-111C file and ran them all again.  

At both KPAM and KSYR it lined up appropriately for all approachs but went missed instead of TNG until landing at a full stop.

At PAEI it peformed proper TNGs without problem before landing at a full stop.

I also noticed that out of the 3 airports the only one that actually cleared them for a TNG landing instead of just landing was PAEI.  After noticing that, I lined up an F-15A I already knew performed proper TNGs at all 3 airports and had the same results as the RAAF AI F-111C .air file.  Only when the controller actually said TNG did the planes perform the TNG instead of going missed.  

I wonder what the determining criteria for clearing the aircraft for a proper TNG contains.

Edited by CMOS, 11 October 2006 - 06:39 PM.