Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clipper Ocean Spray

AI Controller 1.4 (SID, Jet Route, STAR and Final Approach) (New) Beta

Recommended Posts

In non-enhanced mode, the AI have to get clearance to land and intercept a FSX-generated IAF.  Some AI get this clearance quickly, some don't.  That's why you some some land right away and others not.  If there are no custom finals or the old autogen finals, the AI will be released back to FSX control unless you have a holding (for clearance) option enabled.  The best way to prevent it (besides using enhanced mode) is to have custom finals/autogens available for the landing runway and the force land options enabled, that way the AI won't bother trying to intercept some imaginary IAF generated by FSX.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I just noticed that problem (for non-enhanced mode), thanks for bringing it to my attention.  There was also a problem with the heartbeat check being set too low (non-enhanced mode) causing AI to disappear from AIMonitor and re-appear.  Fix on the way.  If you're really interested in non-enhanced mode, you might want to go back to ver. 1.3B (that last version before enhanced mode was added), which was pretty stable and didn't seem to have too many bugs.  There's also increased documentation  regarding tweaking non-enhanced mode parameters.

 

 

 

There's a new hotfix coming, should be available soon.

 

Hi Roland,

 

Thanks for this, sorry I havent replied sooner, was still testing this extensively as well as the new hotfix release. I think I figured out a bit better the AI Separation, though some additional feaures would be nice (for example, some AIs following the same STARs get assigned the same altitude while in real life they would be assigned 1000 below or above so as to pevent potentil conflict).

 

I am actually using and trying all features but since I cannot seem to make AI taxi work I had to temporarily mae without the feature. The thing is if for this reason I dont want AI taxi im forced to disable custom approach (one not working with the other due to fsx limitations of AI not landing without clearance, i guess you got rid of the options to kill AI if they land without fsx clearance). Anyway with each new release I try full features, the last one is slightly better for me, limiting AI taxi speed to 10 knots as was suggested to me by toegl, but still my AI do not park where supposed, and often point their nose left to right while taxiing. If I play with one or two options to tweak this it becomes difficult to really understand what does what, any chance you can provide your customised options?

 

Regarding IAF intercept, just for the records since I guess this won be used again, I noticed that when AI reach the last STAR waypoint at the right altitude, most of the time they will land correctly. If they are too high they will circle at east once. With latest release, even though i do have custom approach in the folder, they are not read if enhanced mode is off.

 

 

Besides this, with full new version, I noticed the following:

1) Sometimes AI on jet routes get wrong altitude assignement (odd instead of even and vice versa), specially happens above FL380 or below FL290.

2) I noticed on parallel runways operations, that AI approaching a STAR for 25L for example, get put in a hold because of loss of separation (while there are no AIs ahead at all, except for the ones landing on 25R)

3) Would be nice if holding could stop when separation is regained (and not just through a decreasing timer based on number of AI. I do play with landing rates for this purpose)

 

Some thoughts for the future of AI taxi landing and take off:

-I tweaked the taxi graph to disfavor some taxiways for ai landing, I hope when AI take off comes in, the same disfavored taxiways will not apply and there will be a two-way system to tweak the taxi graph settings so that the landing taxiways are not disfavored for take off.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Roland, thanks for the tips.

 

I did as you suggested and the situation remains the same, the bulk of landing aircraft are under the control of FSX, not AI Controller, whereas aircraft flying STARs are controlled by AI Controller.

 

On the occasions where an AI Controller-controlled aircraft was making an enhanced autogen approach at EGLL, it was to 27L, which I have set up in my Afcad as a take-off only runway, so the AI planes were going around.

 

I used AI Controller to force landings on 27R, but this seems to only work with FSX-controlled planes taking landing preference from the Afcad. Perhaps in a future version, AI Controller could read runway preferences from the Afcad before needing to force over-ride?

 

I hope this information is useful to you. On the plus side, I have never had issues with departing AI aircraft being identified and being assigned SIDs and upper airway routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Great data, much appreciated.  You're right...the snipped portions look the same.  The explanation probably has something to do with another part of the file(s)...could you send those two aircraft.cfg files to my support email address in the readme?  I'm sure I'll find the problem then.

 

The output data format is is:  title, atc_airline, atc_id, ui_type, atc_parking_type, wing_span, empty_weight, brake_scalar, and atc_parking_code list.

 

 

 

Got it...

 

After tinkering about 2 hours it is pretty clear:

 

It´s about the position of the [flightsim.x] entrys.

The converter is only able to read the values, when there´s only the [flightsim.0] at the end of the aircraft.cfg.

 

As soon as there´s more than one [flightsim.x] entry, they MUST be located at the beginning of the aircraft.cfg!

First i thought, it is sufficient to be infront of the [General] section, but a test pointed out that, if [General] itself is located anywhere in the cfg and the [flightsim.x] entries direct infront, only the toebreak entry was readed.

 

So in short terms, either i have to move thousands of entries in my configs or you will find a way to read all entries independetly from their position :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The output data format is is: title, atc_airline, atc_id, ui_type, atc_parking_type, wing_span, empty_weight, brake_scalar, and atc_parking_code list.

 

Just found, that my AI aircraft.cfg contain no "brake_scalar". The AIC-decompiler reads instead of this "toe_brakes_scale = 0.001". That means "brake_scalar=0.001" is at my  "AI_cfg_data.txt".

Is 0.001 a right value for "brake_scalar", or do I have to edit that,  or should I add a "brake_scalar" to my AI aircraft.cfg ?

 

Edit : May be that's the cause, why some aircraft overshoot the runway.

 

Thanks

Dietmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roland,

 

I just investigated this MSVCR120.dll error a little closer and found two culprits in my Converted Navigraph SIDSTAR data with AIRAC1503......Canada and Indonesia....

 

Now I i converted the AIRAC1503 twice with aiconv.exe v1.4.1.1 (AIController 14BHF3) and got the same result in both cases.... something in the CANADA and INDONESIA data set causes this error - but I dought ist the locale setting, because I changed that inbetween from US to German (Austria).... and the results stayed the same....

 

What is funny is that if I set Depature and Approach Paths to either Canada or Indonesia - with a following Force Update of RW and Taxi data - the decompiler does finish with success - but as soon as I start AIController - I receive the MSVCR120.dll error. 

 

However - I can run AIController with the rest of the World (except Canada and Indonesia) at once without error...... so its definately a problem with those two SIDSTAR data sets....

 

I also tested with a set of older converted files Navigraph from AIRAC1502, which I converted with aiconv.exe v1.4.0.1 (AIController 14A)....

however - I don't get the error with this set of SIDSTAR files..... if that helps pin down the cause...

 

So at the moment I can run AIController with the whole world enabled (for test purposes of course) - only for Canada and Indonesia I have the older AIRAC 1502 which I converted with aiconv.exe v1.4.0.1

 

Could you take a closer look at that I"m sure you"ll identify the cause of this issue...

 

kind regards

Richi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 0.001 a right value for "brake_scalar", or do I have to edit that, or should I add a "brake_scalar" to my AI aircraft.cfg ?

 

 May be that's the cause, why some aircraft overshoot the runway.

Just found the answer for myself : Yes, I have to edit the brake_scalar. At my AIA 727-200 and 737-200, I've changed it from 0.001 to 0.801, and it seems to work well at a first look.. And yes, that was the cause of overshooting the runway.

(Sorry for the passengers, they can't no longer take a sight-seeing tour through the city of Düsseldorf  :Just Kidding:  )

 

However, may be, I could help as a workaround, to solve this for someone, who has also the same issue,

 

Best Regards

Dietmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found the answer for myself : Yes, I have to edit the brake_scalar. At my AIA 727-200 and 737-200, I've changed it from 0.001 to 0.801, and it seems to work well at a first look.. And yes, that was the cause of overshooting the runway.

(Sorry for the passengers, they can't no longer take a sight-seeing tour through the city of Düsseldorf  :Just Kidding:  )

 

However, may be, I could help as a workaround, to solve this for someone, who has also the same issue,

 

Best Regards

Dietmar

 

I experienced the same.

 

I was not sure if i changed the toe_break_scalar to that value myself  but when you had the same 0.001 value, it must be a default setting of a certain add on.

Anyway, vaues between 0,8-0.9 should be fine for a lot of the common AI-Models. Obviously AIController is interpreting the numbers slightly different, before i had a lot of Traffic running at 0,55, but now that seems to be to less.

 

 

However, AIController still frequently fails to assign a matching gate. In my case, i also use Aerosoft EDDL, AIController very often assign the gates 1-8 to the Jets, but that are small 8 Meter (26 ft) diameter GA parking spots. ( by the way, i edited ALL my aircraft.cfg to fill the "AI_cfg_data.txt" correct).

 

A short time i thought, this only happend when AIController cannot find a matching Parking Code, but now i´m in doubt, recently a TUI also proceed to gate 2 though there are a Gate with TUI Code... I only missed if this have been free at time.

 

***edit***

Now i´m almost sure: When the matching Parking Code does not be located in the aircraft.cfg AND in the AFD at the first place (or it is absense), the aircraft receive a Gate randomly depending which is the smallest Number of the free Gates...

 

Nevertheless, slowly AIController starts to run fine, unless it still needs WAY more handcrafted work than expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as there´s more than one [flightsim.x] entry, they MUST be located at the beginning of the aircraft.cfg!

First i thought, it is sufficient to be infront of the [General] section, but a test pointed out that, if [General] itself is located anywhere in the cfg and the [flightsim.x] entries direct infront, only the toebreak entry was readed.

 

So in short terms, either i have to move thousands of entries in my configs or you will find a way to read all entries independetly from their position

 

Thanks, good work!  I'll definitely be able to fix that!

 

 

Just found, that my AI aircraft.cfg contain no "brake_scalar". The AIC-decompiler reads instead of this "toe_brakes_scale = 0.001". That means "brake_scalar=0.001" is at my  "AI_cfg_data.txt".

Is 0.001 a right value for "brake_scalar", or do I have to edit that,  or should I add a "brake_scalar" to my AI aircraft.cfg ?

 

Thanks, I need to add an out-of-range check, I just wonder what the min. and max. allowable value should be?  Thoughts anyone?  I'm leaning 0.5 - 1.

 

 

Now i´m almost sure: When the matching Parking Code does not be located in the aircraft.cfg AND in the AFD at the first place (or it is absense), the aircraft receive a Gate randomly depending which is the smallest Number of the free Gates...

 

The only deviation from the standard gate-selection I use is looking ahead three gates to find the best matching gate size.  For example, if a Delta regional jet lands, AIController searches for the first three unoccupied gates with a matching airline parking code meeting the minimum size requirement.   Then, it chooses the gate with the closest size match to the aircraft.  

 

I think I am going to remove this feature though, which I think is causing some of the issues you're seeing.  The downside is more chance an AI might end up parking in an oversized gate (e.g., regional AI in a heavy gate), but not that much more (the negatives outweigh the positives I think).

 

 

However, AIController still frequently fails to assign a matching gate. In my case, i also use Aerosoft EDDL, AIController very often assign the gates 1-8 to the Jets, but that are small 8 Meter (26 ft) diameter GA parking spots. ( by the way, i edited ALL my aircraft.cfg to fill the "AI_cfg_data.txt" correct).

 

That's odd.  The GA gates shouldn't even have airline codes.  Is AIController giving you a "first match" (airline code match) or "second match" (blank gate, but size is good).  A second match I could see that happening, but not a first match.  If you're getting a second match, but want a first match, then the airline parking codes (not airline callsigns) in the AI aircraft.cfg must match the airline parking codes assigned to the gates in the scenery (use ADE to view gates to see parking codes).

 

 

Now I i converted the AIRAC1503 twice with aiconv.exe v1.4.1.1 (AIController 14BHF3) and got the same result in both cases.... something in the CANADA and INDONESIA data set causes this error - but I dought ist the locale setting, because I changed that inbetween from US to German (Austria).... and the results stayed the same....

 

Thanks, very helpful!  I should be able to track down the bug with that info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wonder what the min. and max. allowable value should be? Thoughts anyone? I'm leaning 0.5 - 1.

 

 

I think too, that they should be in this range. It is probably dependent on the AI-model, some there was no need to change (0.7 - 1.00), others I've changed from 0.001 to 0.801 - 0.81. Strange is, that FSX-controlled aircrafts have no problems with with the value of 0.001.

 

 

However, AIController still frequently fails to assign a matching gate.

 

Same at me, First it worked well; DLH, LTU and BAW were taxiing to their assigned gates. But then there came two AZA and one IBE MD80, which all were taxiing to the GA, althogh there are enough assinged free gates available for them. I also noticed, that often aircrafts are taxiing to occupied gates, so that two aircraft parked in one another.

 

 

Edit : I also noticed at my "AI_cfg_data.txt"., that some aircrafts have strange values behind the airline_code. For example :

 

ARNZ A320 TAP|TAP||A320|GATE|94.75|100792|0.885037|TAP

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

|||||30|80000|1|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Edit : I also noticed at my "AI_cfg_data.txt"., that some aircrafts have strange values behind the airline_code. For example :

 

Yes, I think the airline code issue might be related to the toe brake scalar issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am going to remove this feature though, which I think is causing some of the issues you're seeing. The downside is more chance an AI might end up parking in an oversized gate (e.g., regional AI in a heavy gate), but not that much more (the negatives outweigh the positives I think).

 

 

 

I would enjoy that too, it if the airline-code would get priority before parking-size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only deviation from the standard gate-selection I use is looking ahead three gates to find the best matching gate size.  For example, if a Delta regional jet lands, AIController searches for the first three unoccupied gates with a matching airline parking code meeting the minimum size requirement.   Then, it chooses the gate with the closest size match to the aircraft.  

 

I think I am going to remove this feature though, which I think is causing some of the issues you're seeing.  The downside is more chance an AI might end up parking in an oversized gate (e.g., regional AI in a heavy gate), but not that much more (the negatives outweigh the positives I think).

That's odd.  The GA gates shouldn't even have airline codes.  Is AIController giving you a "first match" (airline code match) or "second match" (blank gate, but size is good).  A second match I could see that happening, but not a first match.  If you're getting a second match, but want a first match, then the airline parking codes (not airline callsigns) in the AI aircraft.cfg must match the airline parking codes assigned to the gates in the scenery (use ADE to view gates to see parking codes).

 

 

I think, it is worth to investigte, why the minimum size requirement do not work. Basically i like the feature, in the past i hated it when small regional Jets and Props ocupiing the bigger gates.

As soon as AIController is respecting that a 112 ft Airbus don´t fit in a 28 feet Parking, it should be great.

There must be a tiny error, like the conversion bug (Meters to Feet). Please don´t remove the feature to fast...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again Roland:

The airport which AI Controller says its unable to assign approach and the aircraft just circles is  LATIN VFR Kingston, Jamaica. ICAO: MKJP

 

Later in that same session I tested out the other airport. Latin VFR Montego Bay ICAO: MKJS , and the aircraft flew a nice approach,much shorter than the default approaches.. was handed off to FSx and everything good there.

 

The approach runway headings for the airport giving problems match up to the runway headings. runway 12 (active in my case), and runway 30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried with default KMIA and it assigned final approaches without any problem, so it might be a LatinVFR scenery problem.

 

Tak (or anyone with LatinVFR KMIA scenery, could you go into ADE, import the LatinVFR airport .bgl file, list runways, and let me know what the runways state?  I keep getting reports regarding LatinVFR scenery (see below), there might be an incompatibility lurking (that could be easily fixed if I find out what the problem is) (I haven't bought the scenery).

 

 

The airport which AI Controller says its unable to assign approach and the aircraft just circles is  LATIN VFR Kingston, Jamaica. ICAO: MKJP

 

Chris, could you go into ADE, import the LatinVFR airport .bgl file, list runways, and let me know what the runways list states?  I keep getting reports regarding LatinVFR scenery (see above), there might be an incompatibility lurking (that could be easily fixed if I find out what the problem is) (I haven't bought the scenery).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tak (or anyone with LatinVFR KMIA scenery, could you go into ADE, import the LatinVFR airport .bgl file, list runways, and let me know what the runways state?  I keep getting reports regarding LatinVFR scenery (see below), there might be an incompatibility lurking (that could be easily fixed if I find out what the problem is) (I haven't bought the scenery).

 

 

 

Chris, could you go into ADE, import the LatinVFR airport .bgl file, list runways, and let me know what the runways list states?  I keep getting reports regarding LatinVFR scenery (see above), there might be an incompatibility lurking (that could be easily fixed if I find out what the problem is) (I haven't bought the scenery).

 

 

 

 

Roland, wondering aloud if the issue might be related to Jim Vile's crosswind runway technique being implemented in ADE for these problem airports, whereas "fake" runways are created in the AFD file within 7.9 degrees of existing runways to trick FSX  into making use of  the other runways for traffic?

 

I'm also wondering if you're able to scan Airport Facilitator X files because I've created one for KMSP and using enhanced mode, my landing AI get poofed - no gates available, unable to determine taxi routes.  I'll try with another AFCAD created with ADE and see if there's a difference.


Regards, Kendall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...