Hello all...
A quick question regarding MAIW packages and Fort Campbell, KY (KHOP)...
None of the flight plans utilize this airfield. I am retired from the US Army and was stationed here for many years and still live outside the base now. We get C-130 training traffic on a daily basis from KLRF and C-5's from KLTS doing TNG's. The base is home to the 101st Airborne Division and 2 SOCOM units - 5th SFG and TF 160 SOAR. The base is also an emergency field for NASA operations and features a lot of T-38 traffic. Many Guard and Reserve units transit thru the area also...
Is there anything in the works to include this much deserving hub of military activity in the MAIW family or should I continue to program my own features?
Any and all responses greatly appreciated...
Fort Campbell (KHOP)?
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
Thanks...
Thank you all for the responses...
AVSIM only has an inaccurateed AFCAD for KHOP. I have been hoping that maybe John Stinstrom will turn his talents to it someday. I have FP's that I have created on my own and have been trying to dissect the latest MAIW packs using NB's AH-64 and CH-47 Helos. The 101st ABN and TF 160 SOAR have a combined total of over 400 various helos located on the airfield and they can be seen flying daily in the area. KHVC is located 10 miles north of the field and is used for both day and night training as well for the helos. I may post my own AFCAD for KHOP in the near future as I keep it updated regularly based on FAA charts and personal observations. If anyone is interested in knowing more about how this field operates feel free to email me at ubc256@hotmail.com ... Thanks One and All...
AVSIM only has an inaccurateed AFCAD for KHOP. I have been hoping that maybe John Stinstrom will turn his talents to it someday. I have FP's that I have created on my own and have been trying to dissect the latest MAIW packs using NB's AH-64 and CH-47 Helos. The 101st ABN and TF 160 SOAR have a combined total of over 400 various helos located on the airfield and they can be seen flying daily in the area. KHVC is located 10 miles north of the field and is used for both day and night training as well for the helos. I may post my own AFCAD for KHOP in the near future as I keep it updated regularly based on FAA charts and personal observations. If anyone is interested in knowing more about how this field operates feel free to email me at ubc256@hotmail.com ... Thanks One and All...
-
Victory103
- Colonel
- Posts: 4073
- Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 03:35
- Version: P3D
- Location: KPHX
AF2 KHOP
Thanks for the reply DUSTOFF...
I will be posting, my very first by the way, an accurate AF2 for KHOP to AVSIM by 02/07. I much appreciate the interest all have shown in KHOP. Hopefully, the much more talented folks here at MAIW in make an official package at some point with NB's terrific helicopters...in the mean time I will try and find some time to give the community a few upgrades to the area.
I will be posting, my very first by the way, an accurate AF2 for KHOP to AVSIM by 02/07. I much appreciate the interest all have shown in KHOP. Hopefully, the much more talented folks here at MAIW in make an official package at some point with NB's terrific helicopters...in the mean time I will try and find some time to give the community a few upgrades to the area.
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
Not meaning to derail this or go off-topic....
I have played around a bit with a couple of helo bases, like KHOP, myself - especially right after the AI Apache came out. One of the things that came to mind fairly quickly, for me at least, was that helo-bases don't really function like USAF plane-based bases.
That is, while there seem to be some through-base transits, most aircraft one would see there are simply day-trippers - meaning they return to roost "there" at night. So, unless I am completely out to lunch, which is possible, the helo's go fly around 50-150 miles (at most) away from the base on training exercises and daily operations, 90% of the time, they don't do overnighters elsewhere.
Consequently, something like a Ft. Campbell "package" might have a bunch of aircraft but would actually have a relative shortage of fp's in terms of actual fp-variety. How many training flights to outlying fields/waypoints can you really do or see before the air is filled with aircraft for the sake of filling the air with aircraft? What's the difference in doing a 10 mile out and back flight to/from a waypoint and a set of TNG's - visually at least? Effectively, you might be able to accomplish a similar visual result using justa few fp's and some static models. You see what I mean? And there's the FS limitation of #'s of aircraft actually departing/landing on visible runways at one time. --- There goes one; there goes another; there goes another - as opposed to a group lift-off like most people think of for Air Cav type operations..... --- (There is a completely different discussion possible if one creates visually invisible runways which allow simultaneous departures/landings, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)
So, a "mini-package" that "takes care of" someplace like Ft. Campbell, for me, winds up being the KHOP afcad, 5-10 waypoints, and possibly 1 or 2 updates at a couple bases no further than 100 miles from the main base.
I threw together 3 or 4 helo-based "mini-packages" for myself after the Apache first came out, did the same when the Chinook arrived. Cut lots of corners making them not-good-enough to release as a package - incorrect textures, not researching the actual squadrons/units, etc. Satisified my "curiosity" and initial excitement over the AI helo's. Then ran into an "imagination vs reality" wall and have walked away from them for a while.
The majority of transiting aircraft I could envision were not helo's but C-130's, C17's, C5's, possibly some Gulfstreams. So, a helo base becomes a localized scenery package and a "transit stopover" for aircraft that MIGHT occasionally arrive as a result of other packages - as opposed to Hickham which acts as a local base for some squadrons, a "natural destination" (out and back) for other aircraft, and a "natural" transit/refueling stop for other aircraft.
Edited to add: But the key reason I don't have a lot of traffic for KHOP myself thus far is that there are simply "thousands" of USAF aircraft possible to flightplan for and KHOP has yet to hit my radar as either a "desirable destination" or a place I have both the correct models and textures with which to do so.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about what operations a helo base actually has or enlighten me if I am overlooking something obvious.
I have played around a bit with a couple of helo bases, like KHOP, myself - especially right after the AI Apache came out. One of the things that came to mind fairly quickly, for me at least, was that helo-bases don't really function like USAF plane-based bases.
That is, while there seem to be some through-base transits, most aircraft one would see there are simply day-trippers - meaning they return to roost "there" at night. So, unless I am completely out to lunch, which is possible, the helo's go fly around 50-150 miles (at most) away from the base on training exercises and daily operations, 90% of the time, they don't do overnighters elsewhere.
Consequently, something like a Ft. Campbell "package" might have a bunch of aircraft but would actually have a relative shortage of fp's in terms of actual fp-variety. How many training flights to outlying fields/waypoints can you really do or see before the air is filled with aircraft for the sake of filling the air with aircraft? What's the difference in doing a 10 mile out and back flight to/from a waypoint and a set of TNG's - visually at least? Effectively, you might be able to accomplish a similar visual result using justa few fp's and some static models. You see what I mean? And there's the FS limitation of #'s of aircraft actually departing/landing on visible runways at one time. --- There goes one; there goes another; there goes another - as opposed to a group lift-off like most people think of for Air Cav type operations..... --- (There is a completely different discussion possible if one creates visually invisible runways which allow simultaneous departures/landings, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)
So, a "mini-package" that "takes care of" someplace like Ft. Campbell, for me, winds up being the KHOP afcad, 5-10 waypoints, and possibly 1 or 2 updates at a couple bases no further than 100 miles from the main base.
I threw together 3 or 4 helo-based "mini-packages" for myself after the Apache first came out, did the same when the Chinook arrived. Cut lots of corners making them not-good-enough to release as a package - incorrect textures, not researching the actual squadrons/units, etc. Satisified my "curiosity" and initial excitement over the AI helo's. Then ran into an "imagination vs reality" wall and have walked away from them for a while.
The majority of transiting aircraft I could envision were not helo's but C-130's, C17's, C5's, possibly some Gulfstreams. So, a helo base becomes a localized scenery package and a "transit stopover" for aircraft that MIGHT occasionally arrive as a result of other packages - as opposed to Hickham which acts as a local base for some squadrons, a "natural destination" (out and back) for other aircraft, and a "natural" transit/refueling stop for other aircraft.
Edited to add: But the key reason I don't have a lot of traffic for KHOP myself thus far is that there are simply "thousands" of USAF aircraft possible to flightplan for and KHOP has yet to hit my radar as either a "desirable destination" or a place I have both the correct models and textures with which to do so.
Please correct me if I'm wrong about what operations a helo base actually has or enlighten me if I am overlooking something obvious.
Why waste 'trons for a snappy signature when I can use this?
Overkill...
Very true and well spoken...
However, it might be worth considering an MAIW project built around KHOP and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment as they fly helos found no-where else in the USA (MH-47E/G, AH/MH-6, MH-60).
FP adjustment of existing MAIW packages and inclusion of KHOP in FPs of future AMC bases would be the simplest measure of giving this field a feeling of life that is currently lacking.
KLRF, Guard, and Reserve C-130 traffic is a daily event as are KLTS C-5s.
USN/USMC and 89th AW traffic is also common.
NASA also conducts T-38 traffic as well...thus she is a far busier base than one would think, especially for one owned by the Army vs. the Air Force.
One final note...many of the daily helo flights actually go no further than 20 to 30 miles from the base and are routine maintenance flights to local civilian fields...
During field exercises flights of 6 to 8 UH-60 and/or CH-47 traffic is common as are OH-58/AH-64 "Kill Teams"...
However, it might be worth considering an MAIW project built around KHOP and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment as they fly helos found no-where else in the USA (MH-47E/G, AH/MH-6, MH-60).
FP adjustment of existing MAIW packages and inclusion of KHOP in FPs of future AMC bases would be the simplest measure of giving this field a feeling of life that is currently lacking.
KLRF, Guard, and Reserve C-130 traffic is a daily event as are KLTS C-5s.
USN/USMC and 89th AW traffic is also common.
NASA also conducts T-38 traffic as well...thus she is a far busier base than one would think, especially for one owned by the Army vs. the Air Force.
One final note...many of the daily helo flights actually go no further than 20 to 30 miles from the base and are routine maintenance flights to local civilian fields...
During field exercises flights of 6 to 8 UH-60 and/or CH-47 traffic is common as are OH-58/AH-64 "Kill Teams"...
-
BadPvtDan
- MAIW Staff
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:14
- Version: FSX
- Location: Round Rock, TX
- Contact:
You are wrong...and right to a point, Ford. Actually, MOST traffic at any base is going to be restricted to local range flying and what not, whether it is USAF or ARMY. One of the things we found out after 100 + packages is that we really had to watch the amount of transient traffic that we sent out from each package. We were overloading bases with already large numbers of aircraft stationed there. Working with only 7 days, it is just not possible to reflect day to day operations realistically.
One of those bases happens to be Nellis AFB. I took out of the Nellis traffic and lo and behold I had over 50 transients!
So, starting with the Yuma and Elmendorf packages I started making use of more and more local waypoints. So in effect, all traffic is being kept local with the exception of a couple of flights that might go here and there.
One of those bases happens to be Nellis AFB. I took out of the Nellis traffic and lo and behold I had over 50 transients!
So, starting with the Yuma and Elmendorf packages I started making use of more and more local waypoints. So in effect, all traffic is being kept local with the exception of a couple of flights that might go here and there.
"The first rule of Zombieland: Cardio. When the zombie outbreak first hit, the first to go, for obvious reasons... were the fatties."
Remarks
BadPvtDan...
Good point...I did not realize the effects of the individual package FPs until I made an AFCAD for PGUA one day and then went to look. The base was loaded with MAIW Flights...
Thanks for the in-sight and food for thought
Good point...I did not realize the effects of the individual package FPs until I made an AFCAD for PGUA one day and then went to look. The base was loaded with MAIW Flights...
Thanks for the in-sight and food for thought
LOL...it's an imperfect situation that we have created for ourselves. Like Danny is saying, right now, even without a proper Nellis package, that base is overloaded with AI transits. At least the packages can be modified by each user to suit their needs.
Like one of you already said, go to Hickam any day of the week, it's way overloaded with military AI.
What can you do.....
Like one of you already said, go to Hickam any day of the week, it's way overloaded with military AI.
What can you do.....
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
And that is where customization to "my system"/"my sim" has come in.BadPvtDan wrote:You are wrong...and right to a point, Ford. ...Working with only 7 days, it is just not possible to reflect day to day operations realistically.
For instance, while I do not regularly use the FSX Monthly fp option, it does exist while it doesn't in FS9 flightplanning. What is possible in both FS versions is to use a series or collection of rotating weekly fp's that allow for "exercise scenarios". Matthew Ministry has a system which allows for "52 week" flightplans.
I find that most "official" MAIW don't work for me "as is" as they have insuffificent parking - usually as a result of being FS9-parking-spec-based, and other times because they have apparently been based on different satellite imagery or airport diagrams than I have used. So, over 90% of my afcads are customized versions - some of which began as MAIW, others which began as FSX/FS9 defaults.
You mention Nellis. Interesting base. I agree that with the KLSV afcad(s) I've found in MAIW packages I didn't see the transient traffic I expected. My own version has only "been filled to the brim" twice as far as I can remember. But it's a VERY HIGHLY customized version that doesn't fit anyone else's scenery bgls, terrain mesh or installations. I do park aircraft inside hangars as is done in real life, thus allowing for additional traffic, but you don't see them while they are behind closed doors. OTOH, they do land and depart normally rather than "pop in"/"disappear on the runway".
Back to KHOP transients.... The only way I've found to "manage" transient parking spaces for "the world" is to have a master fp system covering all traffic bgls you've installed. I've worked on one on and off since I began. It has been the bane of my existence in each of its various versions as my system grew and hardware failures destroyed those versions (while I failed to back the damn thing up!). I did manage to get it working for Nellis, of all places, for about 3 real world months. But my current version just basically sucks.
This is how it works - for ONE base.
Essentially, you need to maintain a text version of all fp's on your system.
1. Install/copy each fp, line by line, in an Excel spreadsheet/Access flat-file database.
2. On a separate worksheet, you need to have a list of parking spaces along with their specs.
3. On yet another worksheet, you need to have all the atc_parking_codes/types codings for EVERY individual aircraft which is perma-based or will be transiting the base that day.
4. Extrapolate the hour by hour (even minute by minute sometimes) arrivals and departures schedule for the base.
5. Extrapolate the parking space occupancy/availabillity for each parking space.
Now comes the "fun".
Correlate the occupancy vs availability of spaces in terms of arrivals and departures based on parking space specs and atc_parking_codes/types of perma-based and transient aircraft scheduled for that day. This can be done via sorts, searches and brute force.
It gets messed up routinely because of the "somewhat random" assignment of aircraft already at the base to parking spaces each time the sim is started/loaded. It also gets messed up because of ATC inaccuracies and missed approaches causing delays in both arrivals and departures - which cascade into parking space (non-)availability problems.
I did let the sim run for an entire week without restarting one time and found that the management system I had at that time actually did predict/handle the assignments correctly. That is, all aircraft which were supposed to be at the base for a 2 day period actually had spaces and were showing up and parking correctly.
Meticulous and tedious customization of atc_parking_codes/types along with micro-managing the flightplans in various packages makes a big difference - but one runs into the problem of what works great for one base screws up another. FSX's allowance of 4 fully and accurately functioning atc_parking_codes has made a significant difference over trying to accomplish the same thing in FS9.
Edit t add: If you want to try this on a small scale, pick someplace like Singapore. Limited aircraft inventory, a limited number of bases, and little need for international/other force traffic unless you want to make a headache for yourself.
All this just to be able to have transient aircraft at KHOP where I don't normally fly? Shrug. Hasn't been worth the effort for me to this point. I don't regularly fly or plane watch there. OTOH, I have continued to play with it at places like Nellis, Elmendorf, Misawa, Kadena and some Russian airbases I have been interested in. It's both a pain and extremely rewarding (when it works).
While this post seems to veer way away from KHOP itself, it illustrates the difference in how we each view and handle "the problem" of AI traffic differently depending upon what we individually want in our own individual FSsims. Wanting an individual airfield/base/airport to appear "real world" is one thing and pssibility within the realm of accomplishment, managing a worldwide traffic management system with accurate parking assignments is completely different.
This has not been "a broadcast by the BBC", just MY take on things as I see them.
Why waste 'trons for a snappy signature when I can use this?
Ford...
Thank you for your insights and I agree with the bulk of what you have said. When I started this post it was with two questions in mind:
1) Was the MAIW staff even remotely considering KHOP in any way shape or form (i.e., "no sense re-inventing the wheel" if the PRO's were interested)...
2) How much interest, if any, from others was there in KHOP so as I could decide if it is worth my time to try and contribute to the community now that I am retired and have the time to enjoy MSFS which I have had since the very first version...
Both questions have been more or less answered and I have appreciated everyone's input.
1) Was the MAIW staff even remotely considering KHOP in any way shape or form (i.e., "no sense re-inventing the wheel" if the PRO's were interested)...
2) How much interest, if any, from others was there in KHOP so as I could decide if it is worth my time to try and contribute to the community now that I am retired and have the time to enjoy MSFS which I have had since the very first version...
Both questions have been more or less answered and I have appreciated everyone's input.
Just in case we didn't make it clear enough, DON'T wait on us!! 
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
msm,
Please don't hesitate to "develop" the base and offer anything that you come up with to the community. I recently released some "down converted from my system" afcads and the reception was decidedly mixed. A few people apparently appreciated them and some textures suddenly appeared allowing for flightplans/traffic to follow. Other people, well, let's just say their pm's and emails now reside in the cyberspcae trash bin.
I'd like to see KHOP as you describe it. I didn't have a clue about the transient traffic load described in this thread.
It takes one person's effort to get the snowball started and rolling, so to speak. Once rolling, you might find others join in and you get a larger snowball than you'd planned (more textures, more models, more flightplans which DO transit there...).
Please don't hesitate to "develop" the base and offer anything that you come up with to the community. I recently released some "down converted from my system" afcads and the reception was decidedly mixed. A few people apparently appreciated them and some textures suddenly appeared allowing for flightplans/traffic to follow. Other people, well, let's just say their pm's and emails now reside in the cyberspcae trash bin.
I'd like to see KHOP as you describe it. I didn't have a clue about the transient traffic load described in this thread.
It takes one person's effort to get the snowball started and rolling, so to speak. Once rolling, you might find others join in and you get a larger snowball than you'd planned (more textures, more models, more flightplans which DO transit there...).
Why waste 'trons for a snappy signature when I can use this?
Ford...
Thanks...My FS2004 setup is over 60GB in size and I have a lot of custom stuff that I have never released to the community. Now that I am retired from the Army I now have lots of time on my hands to do even more...at least when the wife is not keeping me busy with projects that have been put off for the last 20+ years...
Thanks...My FS2004 setup is over 60GB in size and I have a lot of custom stuff that I have never released to the community. Now that I am retired from the Army I now have lots of time on my hands to do even more...at least when the wife is not keeping me busy with projects that have been put off for the last 20+ years...
-
ronniegj
Ford, have you concidered one of these yet?
http://www.amazon.com/HP-MediaSmart-Ser ... 754&sr=8-7
A little pricey, but the end of all of your troubles. I'm going for one of these before I start saving for an FSX powerhouse.
Ron
http://www.amazon.com/HP-MediaSmart-Ser ... 754&sr=8-7
A little pricey, but the end of all of your troubles. I'm going for one of these before I start saving for an FSX powerhouse.
Ron
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
Actually, I solved the "loss of data" due to hardware problems a while back. I've got a couple external drives now, nearly 1GB of storage. Total investment under $150! I got a deal.
OTOH, losing various versions of "software/projects under development" due to things like "ignorance while working" isn't solved by extra storage. By that I mean, programming idiotic things (routines, misspellings, error loops, etc.) into code myself is part of the norm for me. That can't be solved by extra storage.
And since my head injury a while back, I no longer follow some of the logic threads/processes I do have "old code" on - even when I've done the unthinkable-for-me and actually have embedded comments or external documentation. Lol!
But thanks for the suggestion.
OTOH, losing various versions of "software/projects under development" due to things like "ignorance while working" isn't solved by extra storage. By that I mean, programming idiotic things (routines, misspellings, error loops, etc.) into code myself is part of the norm for me. That can't be solved by extra storage.
And since my head injury a while back, I no longer follow some of the logic threads/processes I do have "old code" on - even when I've done the unthinkable-for-me and actually have embedded comments or external documentation. Lol!
But thanks for the suggestion.
Why waste 'trons for a snappy signature when I can use this?
-
ronniegj
I wasn't really suggesting that you needed more external storage. The server is far more than that. And the best part is you don't need to spend 5 minutes to create absolute protection for all of your data, setups etc. The server backs up everything constantly. You can devote a little time to setting up some special backup points to return to, but for the most part, if any drive on any system of your home network has a hic-up, the problem is immediately corrected. The only time you have to take action yourself is if the main C: drive with operating system dies, you will have to put a special boot disk into the disk drive and reboot. The boot disk only only makes the server visible to the the computer that failed (of course you will have had to replace the C: drive with a new on first), and the server will return the computer/drive/programs/folders to exactly what existed before the failure. So, if you loose for example a years worth of work on FS main program, bgl files, textures, downloads excel and access files of one or another project, etc (as I have an several occasions, with the server, you loose nothing (the server is actually another computer in your home network, just without monitor, keyboard, mouse etc). Worth looking in to!
Ron
Ron