The website and forum will be intermittently unavailable while we're making some security updates.
File uploads to the download hangar are also disabled until further notice.

101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post all questions and problems with official MAIW Packages for FS9 in this forum. Each package has a dedicated thread for support.
User avatar
Greg
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 4043
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 19:56
Version: MSFS
Location: Belgium

101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post by Greg »

Post support related comments for this package in this thread. The Package Manager will look into your problem as soon as possible.

NOTE 1: Keep this thread clean and post ONLY support related comments here. For all other discussions about this package, please reply to the release announcement.

NOTE 2: We will only provide support for bugs in our packages, not for conflicts with other addons in a user's highly modified simulator setup.

NOTE 3: Support for FSX users will not be offered in this thread. Instead FSX community support can be had from other users by posting questions in our "Unofficial Flight Simulator X Forums".
User avatar
Greg
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 4043
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 19:56
Version: MSFS
Location: Belgium

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by Greg »

Because this is the first package release with the new forum structure, I'm going to stress on this again:

Keep this thread clean and post ONLY support related comments here! I know you want to tell us how awesome our new model is, but please do so in the announcement topic. :mrgreen:
swp53
Captain
Captain
Posts: 358
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 07:49
Version: FSX
Location: Abertillery,South Wales. UK

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by swp53 »

Hi Guys, Three questions regarding the new model aircraft cfg and textures.
1. The suffix Heavy being used "atc_heavy=1" I have never heard the KC-135's based at Mildenhall here in the U.K. use heavy after the callsign? Surely theis should be "atc_heavy=0" I realise the KC-135 can operate at a maximum gross takeoff weight of 322,500 pounds and aircraft with a gross takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or higher should use Heavy as a suffix but perhaps this is more commonly used with the KC-135's in the States?

2. The temperature at which contrails may appear -37 degrees? Aircraft climbing out from Heathrow start to contrail overhead my location at around 25,000ft ASL. Todays temps at 24,000ft range from -26 to -31 over the entire U.K. Surely -27 is a more realistic figure for contrails to appear which is what most AI aircraft are set at.

3. I thought it had been decided to use mipped textures in new packages? The engine covers are mipped but the main aircarft texture is not?

Regards, Steve
Past Beta Tester
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by MIKE JG »

1. The suffix Heavy being used "atc_heavy=1" I have never heard the KC-135's based at Mildenhall here in the U.K. use heavy after the callsign? Surely theis should be "atc_heavy=0" I realise the KC-135 can operate at a maximum gross takeoff weight of 322,500 pounds and aircraft with a gross takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or higher should use Heavy as a suffix but perhaps this is more commonly used with the KC-135's in the States?
Yes it is more commonly used here in the US, especially at a mixed use airport like Bangor. I heard this used with a KC-135 just last week on one of the approach frequencies. At a base like Mildenhall where everything is essentially a heavy, I don't doubt that they don't use the "heavy" suffix to their callsigns. It's easy for you to change if you like but for this package, I though it more appropriate to include it.
2. The temperature at which contrails may appear -37 degrees? Aircraft climbing out from Heathrow start to contrail overhead my location at around 25,000ft ASL. Todays temps at 24,000ft range from -26 to -31 over the entire U.K. Surely -27 is a more realistic figure for contrails to appear which is what most AI aircraft are set at.
I disagree. Using -27*C, this model was making a contrail at FL220 during the summer for heavens sake! That is definitely not realistic based on my real world experience. It is very rare that the jet that I fly at work or any other jets I see, to be making contrails below FL250 any time of the year, winter or summer. In the winter time maybe on certain days, but normally I only see contrail in the 30's which is why the temp is set lower. Modern high bypass engines mix a lot of cool air in with the exhaust. This keeps the contrails up to a higher altitude than the older model engines. All the AI jets in my sim make contrails way too low so I decided to fix that on this model. Again it's a simple change if you want to make it something different.
3. I thought it had been decided to use mipped textures in new packages? The engine covers are mipped but the main aircarft texture is not?
It was and these textures should be. Mark is going to pull his hair out. He's already done hundreds of repaints for this model. Hopefully they have mip maps but if not......... :smt119

We'll get some new textures made up today at some point. Although I think Mark was headed to RIAT today so it may have to be tomorrow. I'd like Mark to make new textures from the original files to keep the quality as high as possible.

Otherwise until then, you can add the mip maps on your own with DXTBmp. However I think you lose quality every time you compress a file with that program.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
redskin727
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Apr 2009, 19:39
Version: FS9
Location: Indiana KBMG

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by redskin727 »

Hello, I just installed the 101st ARW package and I have no apron areas showing. I deleted my original AF2_KBGR file before installing as per instructions, and it is activated properly in FS2004. I can see all the buildings and KC-135's but no taxiways or aprons. Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by MIKE JG »

Have you run ScanAFD to see if you have any other BGR files that might be interfering?

Sounds like there's another file interfering.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
LEBTowerGuy

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by LEBTowerGuy »

do you have Nick Blacks Bangor?
User avatar
Stewart Pearson
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 3179
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 22:11
Version: FS9
Location: Rhynd, Perthshire, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by Stewart Pearson »

swp53 wrote:Hi Guys, Three questions regarding the new model aircraft cfg and textures.
1. The suffix Heavy being used "atc_heavy=1" I have never heard the KC-135's based at Mildenhall here in the U.K. use heavy after the callsign? Surely theis should be "atc_heavy=0" I realise the KC-135 can operate at a maximum gross takeoff weight of 322,500 pounds and aircraft with a gross takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or higher should use Heavy as a suffix but perhaps this is more commonly used with the KC-135's in the States?
Steve,

I think that the gross weight is not the only parameter that's used to determine the "heavy" suffix. It also relates to wake turbulence generated I believe.
Stew

"There is an art … to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by MIKE JG »

"Heavy" aircraft have to be separated by a minimum of 5NM from other aircraft during the approach segment. Normally it's just 3NM between aircraft in the same weight category.

It's kinda BS because they will snug us in our little Citation, right up behind a 737-900 which is damm near as big as a 757 is. My worst wake turbulence encounters have been behind the large 737 series, not the bigger guys.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by MIKE JG »

New version is up that has the main aircraft textures mip mapped.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
redskin727
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 Apr 2009, 19:39
Version: FS9
Location: Indiana KBMG

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by redskin727 »

Thanks for your input guys, It turns out I forgot to remove a previous Bangor installation from
the scenery library within FS. :oops: All looks great now.
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by MIKE JG »

redskin727 wrote:Thanks for your input guys, It turns out I forgot to remove a previous Bangor installation from
the scenery library within FS. :oops: All looks great now.
No worries. That is usually the case when something like you were experiencing happens.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
User avatar
petebramley
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 1529
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 16:05
Version: P3D
Location: EGBG

Re: 101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post by petebramley »

I believe there is a small error in the aircraft.cfg:

If you look at the "[General]" section the lead [ is missing

it does not stop the A/C showing and is easily corrected but if you are using
Traffic explorer then the aircraft type will show as ?


Regards
Pete B
Retired and busier than ever !!
User avatar
MIKE JG
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 10976
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 02:25
Version: MSFS

Re: 101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post by MIKE JG »

Good catch on that one Pete.

New version being uploaded right now.
-Mike G.

Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.

Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
User avatar
Tom C
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Oct 2007, 22:33
Version: FS9
Location: Here, for the moment!

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by Tom C »

MIKE JG wrote:New version is up that has the main aircraft textures mip mapped.
Slowly getting my Mil AI back to life after multiple re-installs due to several issues.
Starting with this one as it can cover some lovely short flights around the NY, Maine, NE area.

Saw this topic and have to wonder from some other posts here, as I don't use the mipped textures (at lease, not yet honestly don'e understand the whole concept), I now have to run through all new (?) files by you guys to bring them back to non mipped textures.

Have I read and understood that correctly?

Don't want to have a mixed bunch of files all over the place.
Understanding that I have all Civilian and GA files set as non mipped, probably thousands, I would rather keep a set format on my system.

Is it possible you guys could cater for those of us that have not gone down that route, or as I am guessing, am I asking too much :smt002
Regards.
Tom C.
User avatar
campbeme
MAIW Staff
MAIW Staff
Posts: 3293
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 11:58
Version: FSX

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by campbeme »

Tom C wrote:
MIKE JG wrote:New version is up that has the main aircraft textures mip mapped.
Slowly getting my Mil AI back to life after multiple re-installs due to several issues.
Starting with this one as it can cover some lovely short flights around the NY, Maine, NE area.

Saw this topic and have to wonder from some other posts here, as I don't use the mipped textures (at lease, not yet honestly don'e understand the whole concept), I now have to run through all new (?) files by you guys to bring them back to non mipped textures.

Have I read and understood that correctly?

Don't want to have a mixed bunch of files all over the place.
Understanding that I have all Civilian and GA files set as non mipped, probably thousands, I would rather keep a set format on my system.

Is it possible you guys could cater for those of us that have not gone down that route, or as I am guessing, am I asking too much :smt002
Greg,

We have a BAT file don't we?

Mark
Mark
User avatar
Tom C
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 11
Joined: 09 Oct 2007, 22:33
Version: FS9
Location: Here, for the moment!

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by Tom C »

campbeme wrote: Greg,
Who?
campbeme wrote: We have a BAT file don't we?
That's the thing Mark, I'm very slowly getting back into AI as I mentioned, probably missed 12-15 months with various issues, FS and real life.
Catching up is the hardest part for me.
Yes, I've been pottering around at AIG all that time, but other forums and sites have been off limits for that length of time.

I will search that out later.
Cheers.

Tom.
Regards.
Tom C.
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12113
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: 101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post by Firebird »

Steve,
We have been discussing this behind the scenes. It is not an error that was deliberate. It was not done to naff off FSX users but to fly as the fde author wanted it to fly. Part of an fde manipulation is the use of wingspan. if you are familiar with Jan Martin's work you may already be aware of this.

You are correct that it will fit in a space of 7m but if you alter the wingspan it will alter the characteristics of the aircraft, especially when altering it by that much. The author of the fde has only just become aware of this FSX usage of wingspan for parking as he is an FS9 user. Now he is aware of this feature he may be able to take this fact into account more in the future. However it was too late to completely rewrite it for this release.

Now you can try adjusting the wingspan more to your liking and see if the characteristics are acceptable to you. Let us know if the result causes you issues.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
Greg
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 4043
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 19:56
Version: MSFS
Location: Belgium

Re: 101st ARW package by John Stinstrom and Desmond Burrell

Post by Greg »

Tom C wrote:
campbeme wrote: Greg,
Who?
Me, Tom. Sad to see you don't remember me. :P
campbeme wrote: We have a BAT file don't we?
Indeed. See the attached zip with the bat file from Graham King to remove mipmaps from your paints (although I don't recommend removing them, it's your personal choice).

The included "no mip maps.mht" file will tell you how to use the bat file.
Attachments
maiw_nomipmap.zip
(30.36 KiB) Downloaded 42 times
SteveLewis
Cadet
Cadet
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 16:08
Version: FS9
Location: Gretna, NE

Re: 101st Air Refueling Wing Support Thread

Post by SteveLewis »

Didn't know that. I thought that there was just a typo in the wing span. I do use Jan's FDEs but wasn't aware about the flight characteristics regarding the wing span.

I was working on a FSX AFCAD since the stock FSX KBGR didn't have any MIL_CARGO parking. Guess I'll revise the wing span back to 45.8 ft. They still should park in the proper spot since I marked them as K135.

Steve
Post Reply