• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

Creating Flight Plans from Timetable Data

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don, I'm sorry for all the trouble - I just didn't know what to look for. Thanks for all the help.

Great minds think alike - I went looking for just those files. If I add Mexicali to the timezone.dat file I now get 15 aircraft used - woo hoo! OK, I'm happy!

And it appears that your algorithm already keeps almost all of the flights together, at least in this flight plan set. I'll try others and let you know if I see any further issues on that front.

So all I need is a way to compile plans with a less than 15 minute wait time, and I can start compiling away.

Thanks again,
 
Last edited:
Hi again,

One more question - how do you determine the flight altitudes for these flights? Overall, they are very accurate - I'm impressed. One minor issue with the DC-3 flights - there are a few flights that should probably fly a little higher than 1000 ft - a two hour, 370 NM flight is highlighted:

aifp_dc3.jpg

It should probably be closer to 8-10,000 feet? The 40 minute flight below it should probably be higher too. Perhaps I need to adjust something to make them all higher?

Thanks,
 
So all I need is a way to compile plans with a less than 15 minute wait time, and I can start compiling away.
Click to expand...
Well, not quite. It would seem that the folks for whom I developed this feature haven't used it much, cause there is no linkage saved between the aircraft type and the assigned aircraft. That makes the AC#s in the flight plan meaningless. Fortunately, this is relatively easy to fix.

One more question - how do you determine the flight altitudes for these flights? Overall, they are very accurate - I'm impressed
Click to expand...
It's proprietary, but for you ... FL is based on cruise speed, in the theory that the higher the cruise speed the higher the FL should be. I assign upper and lower FL limits based on one of four cruise speed ranges. For short flights (distance/cruise speed < 0.5), I use the lower end, for long ones the top. Then I randomly pick a value in the range and adjust for direction of flight. You can, of course, specify FL in the timetable. When provided, that will be used.

I'm afraid the scope of the required fixes is going to make it difficult to finish before I leave. The program is complex and rushed changes aren't usually productive. So, I'm going to set it aside for a few days, giving me time to consider how best to implement the changes. It will work properly by the time I return and maybe sooner.

Don
 
OK, understood. For the few flights that have FL too low I can always change them manually, so no big deal. And no rush, as I said before.

I could always change the aircraft types in my plans files to what AIFP would recognize, if I had some kind of list. I'll look for that online.
 
Oh, one more thing. In the box that comes up upon loading my plans file, the "Other" radio button (I put a semicolon in the box) will not activate the Continue button; Auto and the other choices will allow you to Continue. But Auto works fine for me, so no major problem.

Hope this helps,
 
As much as I wanted to, I couldn't leave this alone. I'll have a fix for the aircraft selection shortly. As well, I misinformed you earlier. While a test is made to determine the most efficient sit-time, the sit-time actually used in any flight plan is that which is selected under the main Flight Plans menu. (It's been a while since I've "dug around" in this code.)

Don
 
The aircraft selection issue and the "Other" separator issue fixed (at least for me) in2.2.11(f), available as the AIFP Development Release from http://stuff4fs.com.

As well, though I no longer think it necessary, I have forced minimum sit time to 1 minute whenever there's a value in the FN Priority field.

Have fun!

Don
 
Hi,

I discovered that and deleted my post. :) Thanks.

Yes, version f seems to fix the aircraft assignments. Now the flight plan only contains AC# 1, 2, 4, and 6. I guess I need to change some of the 2's to 3 and some 4's to 5. I can easily do that manually.

So now I decided to test the new version with plan that has wait times shorter than 15 minutes and came up with an error that doesn't really match the problem, but it does give me a clue where to find it if it comes up (this is not a bug, but a tip).

I had a line:

WC;53;KLGD;KPDT;9094;0927;123456;DC3

As you can see I have 9094, where I should have 0904. This gave the error message that KLGD and KPDT have mismatched arrivals and departures. I just needed to find the line that included both airports, fix the time, and that allowed me to load it.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
I ran your longer file and it alternated 2s and 3s (DC3s).

I validate times but I was ignoring the error. Fixed. (But I'm not going to re-release until you give me a thumbs-up - or another issue to sort out.

Don
 
PS. My plans file with the error described above (West Coast 1959) now loaded fine and produced 14 flight plans, compared to 17 using the MRAI compiler (and it had multiple errors I had to fix, yours has none). Very good! I did have to fix the time zone for Ontario, OR, though. The 5 minute wait times are working fine. The only "errors" are that there are 6 plans with more than 100 legs, which I will have to fix manually (I usually split them in two at a small town I never go to, or create a fake airport where the plane can go to "RON" the remainder of the week). That's a common problem with these local service airlines. My helicopter airline plans are even worse - they often have over 200 legs...

So it looks like you now have a compiler better than MRAI - congratulations. However, I did a comparison of putting 90 minutes into the FN Priority box and leaving it blank. The resulting flight plan files are identical, so it isn't actually doing anything. But it's not doing any harm either, as you say. In this FP, some of the multi stop flights are broken up between 2 or 3 planes, so it appears that our attempt didn't work.

But I have been doing more thinking about this problem, and (especially for schedules like this one with short 5 minute stops) when you think about it, AIFP will almost always choose the next leg of a multi stop flight, because it will be rare that a different flight leaves within 5 minutes of the first plane's arrival.

What is causing AIFP (and MRAI Compiler) to break up long multi stop flights is this:

A flight arrives at a town, let's say KPDT (Pendleton, OR). This is the end of a flight, so there is no flight within 90 minutes with the same number. So now AIFP looks for the next available flight. Turns out we'll say it's flight 55 in our example. So now the plane starts flying flight 55, and flies the rest of the legs, into Spokane. But flight 55 actually started in Idaho Falls, and just stops in Pendleton for 5 minutes. Since the legs from Pendleton to Spokane have already been taken, AIFP now assigns the Idaho Falls to Pendleton legs to another aircraft.

So it looks like my dream of keeping these flights together will never be realized. But I'm glad I was able to help make this a great flight plan compiler. I'll let you know of any further problems, or any other improvements I can think of.

I do have one VERY minor thing - when you type in the airline name in the upper left box of the "load plans file and convert to flight plans" box, when I press Tab I would love the focus to go to the Parking Code, the other thing I have to type in. :)

Thanks again for a great job,
 
I tried it again and the 2323 doesn't seem to work for me. I just get 2 and 4:

aifp_version_f.jpg


I wonder why you see a different result? Interesting. Perhaps I'm using the wrong technique?

Hope this helps,
 
The aircraft assignment issue was due to an uninitialized variable, which made correct operation intermittent. Fixed. Just for you, Development Release 2.2.11(g) at the usual spot.

Now, can I have dinner, please? :)

Don
 
LOL! Yes, please eat something. I took a break too and watched a movie.

Works as advertised now - very nice. Even the tab key works! A question - what are those two boxes at the top used for? (the Airline Name and the Parking Code). They don't seem to be used to sub-select aircraft from the listing when I have to assign aircraft, for example. Do I need to fill those in?

Thanks again,
 
what are those two boxes at the top used for? (the Airline Name and the Parking Code).
Click to expand...
They will select existing aircraft for you. For example, if you had entered Aeronaves into the Airline window and/or AMX into the Parking code window, AI DC-3 Aeronaves de Mexico and AI DC-3 Aeronaves de Mexico 1962 would automatically have been assigned to your DC-3 entries. (Now you tell me!!) Check the aircraft.cfg file and you'll see the logic.

Enjoy, and thanks for your help in finishing this feature.

Don
 
Just realized the significance of the >100 legs you mentioned yesterday. AIFP shouldn't generate a flight plan FlightSim can't execute. I'll add a check for the 100 leglimit. (Actually, it will be 99 because a deadhead return leg is almost inevitable.)

Don
 
Good morning! That would be a great help. How do you plan on handling it? If you break the compiled flight plan into two plans, each plane will sit somewhere for several days. Just wondering, since I don't have a better solution. I assume once you get to 99 legs you are planning to program a deadhead flight to the origin airport? And then the other legs (as compiled in the current version) will be thrown into the mix for other aircraft to fly?

Thanks,
 
I assume once you get to 99 legs you are planning to program a deadhead flight to the origin airport?
Click to expand...
That's about all I can do. would you rather handle it yourself and have AIFP just generate a warning?

BTW, just found an error in automatic aircraft assignment. So, what I told you about airline/parking Codes earlier won't work - but it will soon.

Don
 
Hi,

No, that approach is about all I can do manually, so if the program can do it that would be great. Hopefully the legs jettisoned by this approach will be able to be incorporated into other aircraft's flight legs better than I can do it manually. Of course if you add one deadhead flight, you will eventually need to add another one in the opposite direction, to keep everything balanced.

If that automatic assignment would use the Airline Name and Parking Code I enter at the top of the import dialog box that would be quite helpful. At least I wouldn't have to scroll down every aircraft in my Aircraft folder each time. I'm not sure how you could do better than that, but I'll be interested to see what you come up with. You've done more than I ever expected before! :)

Thanks,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top