Military AI Works

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 . 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 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 . 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

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

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

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

Mike,

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

Paul

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.

Mike

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.

Mike

Fascinating, a very useful piece of information there Mike!

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





















Thanks Mike for all your help on the VFR approaches

Paul

A C-130 drops their load in a valley

















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.



















Paul

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

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.














Paul

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

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

Ron

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

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

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

i have this kmwh afcad, plus inside the file find smal scenery fot moose lake airport.

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