Please consider helping us pay for the server hosting that keeps this website, the forums and the download hangar running. Use the PayPal link at the bottom of this page.

McChord Rodeo "07"

Post and discuss what YOU are working on. This is the place to preview and/or discuss your modern day military AI projects.
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Mike & Pascal,

Thank you very much for your help. I didn't realize the flight level had to be 180 or below for the aircraft to fly VFR. Now I should be able to get the C-17's to a TNG at KMWH :lol: . I guess the C-5's will land for an hour or two then takeoff. Yesterday I had copied one of the PAI flight plans and added the C-5 to it to see if it would do a TNG and all did was fly in a circle in front of the RWY. I was beginning to think I bit of more than I can chew. This is such a great tight knit forum. I've learned a lot since joining. Thanks again to everyone.

Paul
mikewmac
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 1787
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 10:06
Version: P3D
Location: KBTV - Vermont

Post by mikewmac »

Paul wrote:Mike & Pascal,

Thank you very much for your help. I didn't realize the flight level had to be 180 or below for the aircraft to fly VFR. Now I should be able to get the C-17's to a TNG at KMWH :lol: . I guess the C-5's will land for an hour or two then takeoff. Yesterday I had copied one of the PAI flight plans and added the C-5 to it to see if it would do a TNG and all did was fly in a circle in front of the RWY. I was beginning to think I bit of more than I can chew. This is such a great tight knit forum. I've learned a lot since joining. Thanks again to everyone.

Paul
Paul,

Sorry about the PSAI C-5 not being able to fly VFR patterns, but when I was developing its AI FDE I chose to give it more realistic C-5 like general flight behavior which unfortunately prevented it from making the sharp turns required to fly the tight VFR patterns in FS9. :(

Mike
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

mikewmac wrote:
Paul,

Sorry about the PSAI C-5 not being able to fly VFR patterns, but when I was developing its AI FDE I chose to give it more realistic C-5 like general flight behavior which unfortunately prevented it from making the sharp turns required to fly the tight VFR patterns in FS9. :(

Mike
Mike,

No need to be sorry..... You did an excellent job with the FDE, and Pascal with the model :lol:

Paul
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

mikewmac wrote:
Paul,

If you flightplan a VFR AI flight at a flight level above 180, FS9 will automatically switch it to an IFR flight and therefore the VFR TNG's included in your following flightplans will become IFR missed approaches:
I have one more quick Question. Do you know if the whole flightplan become IFR or just the leg that is above 180.

AC#45,99-0169,30%,WEEK,VFR,5/12:00:45,5/15:07:55,350,F,045,KTCM,6/16:05:00,TNG6/16:37:36,170,F,045,KMW1,6/16:38:36,6/17:11:09,200,F,045,KTCM,0/18:00:00,0/21:07:10,355,F,045,PAED

Paul
mikewmac
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 1787
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 10:06
Version: P3D
Location: KBTV - Vermont

Post by mikewmac »

Paul wrote:
mikewmac wrote:
Paul,

If you flightplan a VFR AI flight at a flight level above 180, FS9 will automatically switch it to an IFR flight and therefore the VFR TNG's included in your following flightplans will become IFR missed approaches:
I have one more quick Question. Do you know if the whole flightplan become IFR or just the leg that is above 180.

AC#45,99-0169,30%,WEEK,VFR,5/12:00:45,5/15:07:55,350,F,045,KTCM,6/16:05:00,TNG6/16:37:36,170,F,045,KMW1,6/16:38:36,6/17:11:09,200,F,045,KTCM,0/18:00:00,0/21:07:10,355,F,045,PAED

Paul
Paul,

Just the leg or legs above FL 180 will become IFR.

Mike
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Mike,

Thanks, that makes things a little easier for the weekly flight plan

Paul
mikewmac
MAIW Veteran
MAIW Veteran
Posts: 1787
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 10:06
Version: P3D
Location: KBTV - Vermont

Post by mikewmac »

Paul wrote:Mike,

Thanks, that makes things a little easier for the weekly flight plan

Paul
Paul,

Yes it does as it allows you to mix VFR and IFR legs in the same flightplan string. :wink:

Mike
User avatar
Savage
Captain
Captain
Posts: 287
Joined: 15 Aug 2006, 11:01
Version: FS9
Location: EGNT

Post by Savage »

mikewmac wrote:
Paul wrote:Mike,

Thanks, that makes things a little easier for the weekly flight plan

Paul
Paul,

Yes it does as it allows you to mix VFR and IFR legs in the same flightplan string. :wink:

Mike
Fascinating, a very useful piece of information there Mike!
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

C-17's do TNG's at KMWH on Runway 27 which is 3500 ft.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Thanks Mike for all your help on the VFR approaches

Paul
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

A C-130 drops their load in a valley

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Paul
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Hi all, I would like to know your opinion on the armor vehicle I placed in the middle of the RWY. I did it to simulate a quick drop off without landing of heavy equipment. I'm torn between keeping it or losing it. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Paul
ronniegj

Post by ronniegj »

If XML coding could be used to have the vehicle appear as the C-130 makes it's closest approach, it would be a terrific effect. Perhaps someone like Rip or Nick might want to speculate on that. As is, it looks ok, but maybe a little confusing, as 'was the vehicle placed there to block the runway?' kinda thing.

I am a little more interested in having the C-130 make the low approach into the valley. Have you had any problems doing this? Sometimes the surrounding high terrain can have an effect not desired, and I was wondering if you have found a way to overcome any issues.

Ron
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Hi Ron,

I've gone and looked around in the military zone for any valleys that are wide enough or the mountains aren't to steep so the aircraft can make it over them without crashing into them. A lot of trial and error. I found one valley that curves right and I was able to get the C-130's to go down into the valley, do a missed approach turn right and climb out of it without going through the mountains. I found that it all depends on where your next waypoint is. For this particular one I had to move the invisible runway 6 or so times to get it right. Then the next waypoint has to be to the south. So I'll use it for the last leg of the flightplan. Haven't tested the C-17's on it yet.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Paul
ronniegj

Post by ronniegj »

Well, it was clearly worth the effort, and now I know it's possible to achieve - trial and error - pretty time consuming effort. Thanks much!

Ron
ronniegj

Post by ronniegj »

Paul, I forgot to ask. Have you discovered any general rules of thumb to make this a little easier to pull off?

Ron
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Ron, Unfortunately I haven't. After posting those screen shots I found out you can't have to many aircraft coming in behind one another or you'll have aircraft 2 and 3 stacking up and they will start descending to soon and go through the mountains. I had them set at 5 min. apart. It also could be that I started the sim to close to the time of arrival and that caused them to start stacking up, plus I was kind of rushed and had set the sim speed at 4x normal speed. I'll keep you posted.

Paul
Paul
Captain
Captain
Posts: 367
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 19:07

Post by Paul »

Hi all,

I have flightplans for 40 out of the 61 aircraft done. All 28 C-130's are done, all 9 KC-135'sare done, and 3 out of 11 C-17's are done. I need to finish the rest of the C-17's and do the C-5's and the KC-10's

I know it's a busy time of year with the holidays and all, but I was wondering if anyone that has a land mesh scenery other than Abacus USA Extreme Landscape, which I use, can test the flightplans to see if any aircraft go through any mountains or below the ground. You wouldn't have to test them all if you don't want to, just a few of the C-130's and C-17's. You will also need Brian Voigts excellent McChord scenery ktcm_pnw.zip found at flightsim.com . The scenery states it is for the Pacific Northwest Mega Scenery, but you do not need the Mega Scenery for it to work. PM me if you would like to help. Thanks in advance.

Paul
TheFoufure
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 2270
Joined: 06 Mar 2011, 16:48
Version: FS9
Location: Belgium

Re: McChord Rodeo "07"

Post by TheFoufure »

Hello,

I know it's an very old topic.

But there are reference to a KMWH Afcad in this topic.

I'm searching KMWH afcad for FS2004.

Does anyone have a good afcad for KMWH in FS9 ?

Thanks a lot.

Regards
france
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 18
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 06:19
Version: FS9

Re: McChord Rodeo "07"

Post by france »

i have this kmwh afcad, plus inside the file find smal scenery fot moose lake airport.
Attachments
kmwh.zip
(63.04 KiB) Downloaded 9 times
TheFoufure
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 2270
Joined: 06 Mar 2011, 16:48
Version: FS9
Location: Belgium

Re: McChord Rodeo "07"

Post by TheFoufure »

france wrote: 10 Jan 2025, 11:17 i have this kmwh afcad, plus inside the file find smal scenery fot moose lake airport.
Thanks a lot.

I'll try them tomorrow.

Regards
Post Reply