Military AI Works

No comment

That's when you try to save time and material....

Please use the attachment...

Well no problem... that's why it is called an Open Beta right ?

Just checked again...

- Hangar East: my chopper was beautifully lighted when inside the hangar, the one floodlight on the roof gives some effect on my chopper as well when parked at the ramp close to the doors.
- Hangar Main: my chopper and the static Tornado's inside are lighted when inside the hangar (not as much as in Hangar East), floodlights on the roof give some effect on my chopper as well when parked at the ramp close to the doors.
- Hangar Small: no light effect when inside (no floodlight at the roof)
- Hangar Glassroof: no light effect when inside, no light effect from the floodlights at the roof when at the ramp
- Hangar Curved: no light effect when inside, no light effect from the floodlights at the roof when at the ramp

Just reporting back what I see... I don't mind these missing light effects really though...

Eric - that is great to get your reports and you did detect a part of the scenery, that we have to talk about (please to all users here...).

I did the focus on following buildings:

- The main hangar
- The hangar east
- The big curved hangar NW
- The HAS areas
- The detuner area

These areas seem to be the most important places for users to be at night. Your detected areas without Dynamic Lighting are truly without DL (no more missing effects ), because I tried to reduce DL wherever possible because of the immense frame drop when enabled. For that reason, all other areas (road lights, big maintenances, warehouses...) do have simple 2D-light cones on the ground.

I am not sure, if the rest of the hangars or also the big maintenance/warehouse areas should be illuminated by Dynamic Lighting. On the one hand, yes, because it would look good when such big areas are illuminated, on the other hand no because of the performance drop.

What is your (all) suggestion please?

Manfred, I also learned the hard way that you should not add this cool dynamic lightning at all places where it looks great for performance reasons.

So I think you have made the right decision here.

In that case I would keep it as it is right now Manfred...

It's a fantastic looking scenery !

Thank you, guys.

So if nobody else will find some more reasons for increasing the Dynamic Lighting areas untill tomorrow, I will close the DL chapter...

Hi Manschy, just to confirm - the DL looks great on my system, with no significant performance hit. I would make the comment that the taxiway lights (blue edge/green centreline) look a bit washed-out. I don't expect them to have the intense colours that modern LED airfield lighting has (and is the default for FS/P3D), but my memory has it that the colours were reasonably clear.

Just a texture question. Will have a look at, thank you.

Okay, this AFCAD now let the AI aircraft park almost there where they used to be. A little different though, but this what we can live with I think.
I also added a little "brake" behind the parking spots (a blue normal node that is quite near the center of the green parking spot) to prevent the aircraft doing a pushback. They still do some feet backwards, but this is okay to my opinion. Please feel free to test it....

Hi Manfred, I can confirm that aircraft parking at the flightline after arrival are now parking at the same spot as where aircraft are parked when starting the scenery, nicely in between the ground equipment.

I am still seeing full pushbacks though:



However I noticed when opening the AFCAD with ADE that you have used green taxipaths to these parking spots at the flightline, when I deleted these and put a blue taxipath instead (keeping the little green part that was added to your "brake") the full pushback has gone and they only do a very short pushback of less then 1 meter which is not that disturbing.

With this blue taxipath I have not tested yet the behaviour of the aircraft departing from these parkingspots after they have arrived... Might be that they make a 180 and drive through their neighbour which in that case is not really a solution then.

The heavies are parked in a wird angle and not really straight, but I am afraid we can not do much about that... It's the sharp turn they need to make and the short taxi path to their parking spot.

Can I ask which traffic file you guys are using? I can see you have the JY Tornados, as have I, but mine are parking only in the HAS sites. I have none on the flightline.

Yap, that's correct. I managed all 4 squadrons to park there. The quantity of the Tonkas should be the same as the parking spaces on the HAS sites.
I don't know if the Brüggen Tonkas those days more often had been placed on the flightline as well.
Each hint is much welcome.

Flightline was mainly used by visiting aircraft... Based aircraft park in the HAS areas. The traffic file I am using for testing is a simple one I made for testing purposes only...

I don't know if the scenery includes a VAS (Visiting Aircraft Section) but when I worked at Bruggen, that's where the visiting aircraft parked. At this time of year, pre Christmas, we had everything from Nimrods to Tucanos visiting to stock up their duty frees.

Regards Paul Day.

Thank you Paul. Yes, that what the flightline was intended for. Denpending on which military AI traffic you have installed, you have a lot of fun watching the visitors arriving and departing. I made some flightplans for RAF Gütersloh and the nearby RAF Wildenrath...

As one who visited Bruggen as a driver-airframes many times, I'm very aware that the line is mainly used by visiting aircraft! I was just wondering what traffic files generated the traffic that gave the parking behaviour Manschy wanted investigating. If they're your own test files, that's understood. I have plenty of my own RAFG traffic I can divert via Bruggen! I was just a bit concerned that I didn't have a file that I should have.

Tim, what traffic do you have installed? I have modified FPs of
- Jagel (JY Tornado),many times a day
- RAF Gütersloh (JY Harrier), each hour for many times
- RAF Wildenrath (JY Phantom) (just same turn arounds like the Brüggen Tornados each 15 Minutes between these two bases...)
- RAF Lyneham (C-130 Herc), but not sure at which time they do appear...
- RAF Lakenheath (JY F-15), many times a week
- RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge (JY A-10, C-130), several times a day
- RAF Brize Norton (C-17), several times a day
...to appear at RAF Brüggen.

I could attach my flightplans here for testing - there may be some of these aircraft appear for sure

I've got all of the MAIW and ACG stuff, including Wildenrath F4s, Laarbruch Buccs, and Gutersloh Harriers. I also have the Lakenheath and Twin Bases stuff. My Lyneham traffic is my own, and doesn't send anything to ETUR at the moment, and I'm pretty sure that none of the current Brize files (C17, A400, C130J and A330) sends traffic there either.

That said, at the moment my P3Dv4 installation is basically Matrix plus the more recent JY stuff, which is really all C21st and not so much '80s, so of course Bruggen doesn't feature. I really ought to decide what era I want it to depict!

No worries, I'll have a trawl through the active flight plans and throw a bit more traffic Bruggen's way.

I seem to have found a way to have the aircraft at the flightline always parked in the same direction with their nose towards the runway, also after arrival they taxi behind the flightline and then park with their nose towards the runway... It's like a "drive through" parking. Also the pushback is cut to a minimum !

Still doing a bit of testing but the first results look promissing !

Okay, understand.
Found some pics of Brize Norton C-130 (not quite sure if E or H) visiting Brüggen, seems to be mid of the 90s, but didn't found any C-17 pics indeed, because those days a C-17 might be to modern for it ....
Just a thought, because for testing I can attach the Wildenrath flightplan, you simply could disable and enable your original file again after testing. Just to see some jets on the flightline, if you need.