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.

Wattisham '91

Post all your own Military AI projects here from days gone by.
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12112
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Firebird »

I left Wattisham when 74 were working up in the States and the HAS complex was being built, so just after my time but it looks wonderful and evokes all sorts of memories, especially the cammo'd hangars.

I will shortly have two very detailed sceneries depicting flying bases I was stationed at, Coningsby and Wattisham. It is possible that Shawbury may also get done, but these two are fantastic.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

AndyG43 wrote:Speaking of which ...... Bruntingthorpe is now the home for the former Wattisham QRA hangar; is this scenery being built in library format, thus giving us the opportunity to dress up Brunters appropriately?
No the scenery is not in library format Andy. For something of this detail, you really need to build in large composite Gmax scenes sharing one large texture sheet. That minimises draw calls but it also enables common texture vertices to be welded. That's actually more important than the polygon count for good performance. The HAS's are placed as individual models, but all of the other buildings on each of the two sites, is one composite Gmax model. Stevo would have done the same for the Technical/Domestic Areas. You could fish the models out with ModelConvertorX, but they won't generally be much good for use elsewhere because of the large area they span. Stevo's QRA shed for Wattisham might just be a single model of that structure however because it's in an isolated position and there may not be much to amalgamate it with when he comes to do it.

John
AndyG43
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 65
Joined: 19 Jul 2010, 21:28
Version: FS9

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by AndyG43 »

Thanks for the answer John. I'll keep looking, maybe I'll find an alternative somewhere, but haven't so far.
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

I was wondering if one of the flight plan gurus could give me a bit of help please?

I have two AI Phantoms on alert at Wattisham (EGUW) that depart together using separate overlaid AFCADs. At the moment they only fly a circuit of Wattisham and return. What I would like to do is get them to a fly to a waypoint in the North Sea, do an overshoot or TNG and return to Wattisham to land. I have made the waypoint AFCAD (EJY1) using a 10M x 1M runway with an elevation of 12,000 ft. It's similar to one that's been in use for a while with my Marham retro scenery for simulated air to refuelling from a Victor tanker. The flight plan for the Victor is weekly and is too complex for the Wattisham aircraft.

What I need is a simple 24 hr flight plan text for one aircraft departing EGUW at 10.00 hrs, flying at 8000 ft to the waypoint (EJY1), (about 15 minutes away), overflying without landing and returning to Wattisham. FS9 format is fine, I can convert to FSX with AIFP.

I was wondering, as a separate example, whether a second waypoint could be introduced (EJY2) that would enable the Phantoms to fly a short distance up the North Sea Coast from EJY1 and then return to Wattisham from there.

Any help would be much appreciated and in the meantime, here are some screen shots of the QRA Phantoms "scrambling" from Wattisham:

Image

Image

While I've been busy with the AI and the HAS sites, Stevo has been concentrating on the central area. Here's the result so far, with the addition of my AI Phantoms to the flight lines, using a "Plumbed" AFCAD (AFX) so that through parking is achieved on the flight lines and turn around on arrival back at the HAS turning pads:

Image

Stevo has also been exploring the new SODE facility (FsDeveloper) that allows FSX objects to be switched according to a given variable (bit like MdlTweakerII for FS9 but using XML and a simobject). We now have the crash net up on one end of the runway, while at the other end it's down, the pair switching according to wind direction. Rotation of the PAR also works on the same principle. The QRA sheds have animated doors, but unfortunately (and as far as we know), SODE doesn't allow for programming to open/close them at set times during the day, however, they can be opened/closed by a user key press. We thought that would be useful when the user takes the place of one of the AI QRA Phantoms with a flyable aircraft.

Image

This is the 56/74 Sqn flight line:

Image

I have also added visiting Phantoms from 19 and 92 Sqns (Widlenwrath Germany), including the two all blue commemorative schemes:

Image

Andy at Sound Labs has kindly offered to make the sound package for the AI Phantoms and that should sound great, particularly with the QRA scramble.

John
User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 12112
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Firebird »

God those Q sheds bring back memories. :D
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________
RKE
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 809
Joined: 26 Sep 2007, 21:37
Version: P3D
Location: Odense, Denmark

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by RKE »

Something like this, John?

Code: Select all

AC#101,101,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00,TNG10:20,080,F,0101,EJY1,10:40,11:00,080,F,0101,EGUW
Adding a second waypoint is no problem, it's just a matter of adding another flightplan block to the end. If the three locations were to form an equilateral triangle, it would be something like this:

Code: Select all

AC#101,101,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00,TNG10:20,080,F,0101,EJY1,10:40,TNG11:00,080,F,0101,EJY2,11:20,11:40,080,F,0101,EGUW
20 minutes is the minimum time that AIFP likes to use between waypoints, so that's what I tend to use as well.
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

That makes sense and many thanks for the code.

I've tried the single waypoint line, repeated for two aircraft (unique A/C numbers of course). It compiles Ok, it converts to FSX format and the two Phantoms move off after ATC clearance. However they only fly a circuit of the airfield and land. I've double checked the airports.txt file and the flight plan and both look OK. The waypoint AFCAD seems fine too - I can actually see the tiny runway at 8000 where it should be in the sim. The aircraft do not however request an IFR clearance, they just request to taxi for take-off, departure straight out.

I'll have another go tomorrow from scratch, but I'll check back here first in case you can spot anything I might be missing.

John
RKE
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 809
Joined: 26 Sep 2007, 21:37
Version: P3D
Location: Odense, Denmark

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by RKE »

I dunno, are you working in FS9 or FSX? I have zero experience with the latter, but I have seen weird issues in FS9 when it comes to TNGs (Flightplanned for a single TNG followed by a normal full stop landing, the aircraft flew about 15 TNGs before I gave up and manually ticked off the TNG status :lol: ).
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

I'm testing in FSX with an FSX-formatted file.

This is the code that was used to get the Victor tanker from Marham flying to an FSX waypoint (EGZ5) on a weekly basis and that works fine:

AC#1,XM715,1%,WEEK,IFR,1/08:37:41,TNG1/11:15:11,200,F,0043,EGZ5,1/11:20:06,1/13:35:27,200,F,0043,EGYM,1/14:35:45,TNG1/17:15:42,200,F,0043,EGZ5,1/17:20:38,1/19:35:59,200,F,0043,EGYM,2/08:36:06,TNG2/11:16:03,200,F
,0043,EGZ5,2/11:19:45,2/13:35:06,200,F,0043,EGYM,2/14:35:23,TNG2/17:16:35,200,F,0043,EGZ5,2/17:19:03,2/19:35:38,200,F,0043,EGYM,3/08:35:45,TNG3/11:15:42,200,F,0043,EGZ5,3/11:20:38,3/13:35:59,200,F,0043,EGYM,3/14:37
:30,TNG3/17:17:28,200,F,0043,EGZ5,3/17:18:41,3/19:35:16,200,F,0043,EGYM,4/08:35:23,TNG4/11:16:35,200,F,0043,EGZ5,4/11:19:03,4/13:35:38,200,F,0043,EGYM,4/14:37:09,TNG4/17:17:07,200,F,0043,EGZ5,4/17:18:20,4/19:34:55,
200,F,0043,EGYM,5/08:37:30,TNG5/11:17:28,200,F,0043,EGZ5,5/11:18:41,5/13:35:16,200,F,0043,EGYM,5/14:36:48,TNG5/17:15:32,200,F,0043,EGZ5,5/17:20:27,5/19:35:48,200,F,0043,EGYM

It also works in FS9.

It's too complex for what I need for the Phantoms, hence the request for a simple one flight code.

I'll have another play tomorrow and report back.

John
User avatar
Garysb
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2807
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 19:33
Version: FSX
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Garysb »

Sometimes John, FS9 doesn't like waypoint to waypoint, try only 1

Gary
I believe that every human has a finite number of heart-beats. I don't intend to waste any of mine running around doing exercises.
Buzz Aldrin (1930 -
User avatar
bismarck
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Jan 2007, 14:35
Version: FS9
Location: Milan,Italy

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by bismarck »

I remember something about 1.700 feet.....
Have a look here:
http://www.militaryaiworks.com/newforum ... que#p79644

Multiple consecutive waypoints can work in FS9 :D

Giorgio
Image
Bora

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Bora »

RKE wrote:Something like this, John?

Code: Select all

AC#101,101,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00,TNG10:20,080,F,0101,EJY1,10:40,11:00,080,F,0101,EGUW
Adding a second waypoint is no problem, it's just a matter of adding another flightplan block to the end. If the three locations were to form an equilateral triangle, it would be something like this:

Code: Select all

AC#101,101,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00,TNG10:20,080,F,0101,EJY1,10:40,TNG11:00,080,F,0101,EJY2,11:20,11:40,080,F,0101,EGUW
20 minutes is the minimum time that AIFP likes to use between waypoints, so that's what I tend to use as well.
I believe these two flightplans are not made with a compiler ? You just added 20 minutes to each time in these flightplans to come up with the next time ? I am not sure if it will work like that... Also when the aircraft really arrives at 10:20 it will continue doing missed approaches at EJY1 untill 10:40

I would do it like this:
- First of all we need the exact cordinates of EJY1 and EJY2 that need to be put in the airport.txt file
- Use speed 400 in the aircraft.txt file
- Then the flightplan needs to be compiled (with TTools) without the "TNG" part in front of the arrival time to actually see when the airplane would arrive at EJY1
- Open up the compiled flightplan.txt and add the "TNG" part in front of the arrival time at EJY1
- Next set the departure time from EJY1 5 munites later then the arrival time
- Do the same for the next leg to EJY2: compile again witout the "TNG"part in front of the arrival time at EJY2 to see what time the airplane would arrive at EJY2
- Compile again
- Add the "TNG" part in front of the arrival time at EJY2
- Set the departure time from EJY2 5 minutes later again then the arrival time
- Compile again

Eric

Btw, great looking screenshots again !
Last edited by Bora on 17 Jul 2014, 09:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

Progress Report: I managed to get the Phantoms to the single waypoint using the RKE flightplan. I changed the altitude of the waypoint from the 8000ft flightplan height to just 100ft above sea level and that seemed to help. However, on arrival the aircraft made 5 missed approaches before I aborted with boredom. The last approach was 1 hr and 20 minutes into the flight. I wasn't sure what if anything would break the circle and get the aircraft back to Wattisham. I'm going to try Eric's suggestion next.........

John
User avatar
Garysb
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2807
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 19:33
Version: FSX
Location: Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Garysb »

John
Set the departure from the waypoint to 4 mins after the the time you have for the TNG

AC#101,101,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00:00,TNG10:20:00,080,F,0101,EJY1,10:24:00,TNG11:00:00,080,F,0101,EJY2,11:24,11:40,080,F,0101,EGUW


Try that


Gary
I believe that every human has a finite number of heart-beats. I don't intend to waste any of mine running around doing exercises.
Buzz Aldrin (1930 -
Bora

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Bora »

Where I wrote "TNT" should ofcourse be "TNG"....
User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

We have a result, not quite what I was expecting, but the Phantoms overflew the waypoint and landed safely back at Wattisham.

These are the two flight plan lines I used:

AC#16,F4,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00:00,TNG10:15:00,020,F,0101,EJY1,10:19:00,10:37:50,020,F,0101,EGU1
AC#19,F4,1%,24Hr,IFR,10:00:00,TNG10:15:00,020,F,0102,EJY1,10:19:00,10:37:50,020,F,0102,EGU2

EGU1 and EGU2 are the two overlay AFCADS to enable both QRA aircraft to operate together.

The problem with the IFR flight plan is that when the aircraft depart runway 23, A/C#16 turns right, while AC#19 turns left.

A/C#16 does one overshoot of the waypoint and then immediately turns and returns to Wattisham, just as we want. However, A/C#19 does two overshoots before returning to Wattisham.

It rather spoils the effect of the AFCAD overlays to keep the two aircraft together.

I'm not sure if anything can be done about that. The AFCADs are the same, except for a slight shift in the position of the two runways. I had the pattern boxes unchecked for the first step, but checking the pattern in both for a right turn, didn't prevent the split.

I tried a VFR flight plan and that kept the aircraft close together for the whole flight, both turning left on departure. The aircraft overflew the waypoint but then turned north and just kept going.

Is there a way please to force ATC to keep the aircraft together when flying IFR I wonder?

John
User avatar
zsoltfireman
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 925
Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 05:23
Version: P3D
Location: Budapest/Hungary

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by zsoltfireman »

User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 4206
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by John Young »

I know people here like tiger schemes, so I thought I would share this one I've done for Wattisham:

Image

It's actually on a static model because the aircraft never flew like that. It was especially painted by 74 Sqn to mark their disbandment in 1992 and was on the dump sadly, a few weeks later. That's a year after the date of the scenery, but the object is in it's own .bgl file so can be removed by users if they want complete accuracy. However, for those wanting to bend the truth a tad, the texture can also be substituted on one of the 74 Sqn AI Phantoms. The aircraft on the right is AI and carries the 1991 Tiger Meet Fairford tail so is legitimate.

Just working through the FSX-FS9 conversion of the scenery at the moment. The AI is all done for both versions.

John
User avatar
gsnde
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 4380
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 08:13
Version: P3D
Location: South-West Germany
Contact:

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by gsnde »

That looks gorgeous, John!
Cheers,
Martin
________________________________________
The Owl's Nest * Military Aircraft Reference * ICAO Reference * Distance Calculator * MAIW, Military AI & UKMil Reference
Sonarboy
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 181
Joined: 16 May 2012, 18:11
Version: FS9
Location: Seville, Spain

Re: Wattisham '91

Post by Sonarboy »

This is just a dream come true John. Having lived nearby Wattisham and spent many happy hours there watching the Phantoms coming and going I cannot wait to get this into my sim.

The Tiger paint is a very nice touch. Its okay to bend the truth a bit. All adds to the enjoyment.

I know the many hours you have put into this and cannot thank you enough.

Well done from a very happy simmer.

Brian

:D :D :D
Post Reply