• 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.

Military Ramps

It sounds like I could use this coding to make AI helicopters land on the heli pads at my re configured EGCB Barton Manchester. At the moment they`re doing a wonderful job following my traffic pattern in and out. But spoiling things by parking with the light planes as GA traffic. I have at least two areas I wish them to park instead, as per an aerial photograph I`m using as my template.

Reider
________
K75
 
Last edited:
Ugo,

MIL_COMBAT comes from the Aircraft SDK and goes in the aircraft.cfg / fltsim.n / atc_parking_types= line. The allowable entires in FSX and FS2004 are:

RAMP
CARGO
GATE
DOCK
MIL_CARGO
MIL_COMBAT

The RAMP_MIL_COMBAT comes from the BGLComp SDk and goes in the TaxiwayParking node properties. The allowable entries in FSX are:

NONE
DOCK_GA
FUEL
GATE_HEAVY
GATE_MEDIUM
GATE_SMALL
RAMP_CARGO
RAMP_GA
RAMP_GA_LARGE
RAMP_GA_MEDIUM
RAMP_GA_SMALL
RAMP_MIL_CARGO
RAMP_MIL_COMBAT
VEHICLE

Forget FUEL and VEHICLE for this discussion.

GATE means GATE_HEAVY, GATE_MEDIUM, GATE_SMALL in no priority (size/radius is what's important)

DOCK means DOCK_GA

CARGO means RAMP_CARGO - then all the other ramp types in no priority, then Gate or Dock or None in no priority - size again the overwhelming factor

MIL_CARGO means RAMP_MIL_CARGO - then all other ramp types in no priority, then the other types

MIL_COMBAT means RAMP_MIL_COMBAT - then all the other ramps types in no priority, then the other types

RAMP means all the ramp types in no priority. If the parking spots are equal size - an aircraft with RAMP in the ATC_PARKING_TYPES= line will park in a MIL_CARGO or CARGO spot over a RAMP_GA spot if it is higher up the list of parking spots.

AI aircraft will be assigned to FUEL parking spots if their size matches the spot size.

I suspect, but have not tested, that AI might be assinged to VEHICLE spots is the size is correct - another thing to test - though if vehicles are loaded before AI, the vehicle spots will all be previously filled.
 
Last edited:
Reider said:
It sounds like I could use this coding to make AI helicopters land on the heli pads at my re configured EGCB Barton Manchester. At the moment they`re doing a wonderful job following my traffic pattern in and out. But spoiling things by parking with the light planes as GA traffic. I have at least two areas I wish them to park instead, as per an aerial photograph I`m using as my template.
Click to expand...

Use a custom parking code for such situations.

In the config - atc_parking_codes=HELO

In the parking spot properties - use HELO as the airline code.

That way if you ever see a helo in a GA spot, you know you don't have enough HELO spots setup.
 
Bob Keeshan said:
The radius is set to 16.99 ft. I originally used 17, but for some reason, ADE changes it to either 17.01 or 16.99.
Click to expand...

Rounding is why I never set parking in feet and why I always set parking slightly larger - i.e. 17.1M

If an aircraft half wing span value converts to 16.00001M - FS will not allow it to be parking an any spot which is not 17.0M or larger.

For an F-16 the aircraft.cfg wing_span= value should be 32.67

That requires a parking spot radius value of 5.0M - preferably 5.1M

If the wing_span=value is 33.00 - that requires a parking spot radius value of 6.0M or larger.

Again, please do not use FEET to set parking spot sizes. FS does not and the rounding is a big issue.

To FS the aircraft parking need is always a whole meter value. The parking spot is always in whole meter values:

15 ft = 4.0M aircraft or smaller
16 ft = 4.0M aircraft or smaller
17 ft = 5.0M aircraft or smaller
18 ft = 5.0M aircraft or smaller
19 ft = 5.0M aircraft or smaller
20 ft = 6.0M aircraft or smaller

4.0M aircraft must have a wingspan value no larger than 26.17
5.0M aircraft must have a wingspan value no larger than 32.75
6.0M aircraft must have a wingspan value no larger than 39.33

Here is what I recommend - set your flyable aircraft wingspan value to 32.67.

Set the desired parking spots to 5.1M size. Set the AI parking codes to F16. Make sure the spots are RAMP_MIL_COMBAT

Make sure the atc_parking_types entry in the aircrft.cfg is MIL_COMBAT - this had no impact in FS2004, but we don't really know in FSX.

Make sure you have no other parking spots on the airport smaller than 6.0M

Test

Let us know the results

With FS2004 - the key to user aircraft parking was to make the preferred parking spot so small and so low in the AI parking order that the user aircrft would be assigned to the spot.
 
rfields said:
For an F-16 the aircraft.cfg wing_span= value should be 32.67

That requires a parking spot radius value of 5.0M - preferably 5.1M

If the wing_span=value is 33.00 - that requires a parking spot radius value of 6.0M or larger.
Click to expand...

For simplicity sake, I left the wingspan at 33 ft. However, I adjusted all my military parking spaces to 6 meters. (I find it interesting that MSFS uses feet in the aircraft config file, but you're saying it uses meters in the airport files.)

Set the desired parking spots to 5.1M size. Set the AI parking codes to F16. Make sure the spots are RAMP_MIL_COMBAT

Make sure the atc_parking_types entry in the aircrft.cfg is MIL_COMBAT - this had no impact in FS2004, but we don't really know in FSX.

Make sure you have no other parking spots on the airport smaller than 6.0M
Click to expand...

I think changing the atc_parking_types from ramp_mil_combat to just mil_combat is what worked. My parking radii were all okay to begin with.

Now, when I land, I'm still directed to "general aviation parking," [which Jim explained previously why] but am given directions to the military parking areas. To check, I also landed several other types of aircraft, and they were all directed to the true general aviation parking.

Thanks for your help.
 
(I find it interesting that MSFS uses feet in the aircraft config file, but you're saying it uses meters in the airport files.)
Click to expand...

So do we.

Now, when I land, I'm still directed to "general aviation parking," [which Jim explained previously why] but am given directions to the military parking areas.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are getting there now. If you don't like what ATC says just change the ADE parking spot to a GATE_Letter such as Gate_M and a number

Change the .cfg to GATE also.

I don't like ATC to tell me to taxi to General Aviation when landing a heavy military cargo type or P3 plane at Jax NAS.
 
(I find it interesting that MSFS uses feet in the aircraft config file, but you're saying it uses meters in the airport files.)
Click to expand...

The 'world' tends to be meters in FS and the aircraft tend to be 'feet'.

It might possibly go as far back as SimLogic - where the first aircraft were totally feet in measurements. I've been told that the .air file is still based on much of the original SimLogic engine.

There didn't exist a world as such back then. As the world has developed, meters has been the only real choice because so much of the world is measured in meters.
 
FSX SDK SP2 says:

atc_parking_types:
Specifies the preferred parking for this aircraft, used by ATC. If this line is omitted, ATC will determine parking according to the type of aircraft and parking available. If multiple values are listed, preference will be given in the order in which they are listed. The valid values may be one or more of the following: RAMP, CARGO, GATE, DOCK, MIL_CARGO, MIL_COMBAT.
Aircreation582SL( atc_parking_types=RAMP )
Boeing 747-400( atc_parking_types=CARGO )
de Havilland Dash 8-100( atc_parking_types=GATE,RAMP )

Horst
 
Specifies the preferred parking for this aircraft, used by ATC. If this line is omitted, ATC will determine parking according to the type of aircraft and parking available.
Click to expand...


Horst

The rules you are reading in the aircraft confiquration doc is based on other SDK's that also must be studied. Too many times the SDK that we read does not tell you that the rule is based on using the rules of other companion SDK's in this case the TrafficDatabaseBuilder.exe.

The TDBB must also have the following

typeKey,Title,Cruise,minAlt,maxAlt,minRange,maxRange,minRwyLen,runwayTypes, radius,parkingTypes,IFR%,AutoRoute?,TouchAndGo?

# Examples

BE58,Beech Baron 58,200,40,120,50,661,4000,HARD,7,RAMP,50,yes,no

B350,Beech King Air 350,315,150,250,100,1298,4000,HARD,11,RAMP,75,yes,no

B734-0,Boeing 737-400,477,250,350,200,2248,6426,HARD,22,GATE,100,yes,no

parkingTypes = RAMP|CARGO|GATE|DOCK|MIL_CARGO|MIL_COMBAT (one or more)

which then the aircraft.cfg is a companion of code order to the FP's compiled with the use of TDBB.

If the aircraft.cfg omitts, certain lines ATC will determine parking according to the type of aircraft and parking available because it is coded in the TDBB.

How many Flightplans are available that used the TDBB and not TTools by Lee Swordy?

The TTools FP compiler does not follow all the rules of the TDBB so what we read in the aircraft confiquration docs may not be the exact same set of rules we have to use for parking.
 
Last edited:
rfields said:
Use a custom parking code for such situations.

In the config - atc_parking_codes=HELO

In the parking spot properties - use HELO as the airline code.

That way if you ever see a helo in a GA spot, you know you don't have enough HELO spots setup.
Click to expand...

Nice one, many thanks, working on an airfield at sea for the acceleration carrier just now (long story), so I`ve put this in a text file for when I resume it.

Reider
________
herbal vaporizers
 
Last edited:
FlyEF said:
Specifies the preferred parking for this aircraft, used by ATC.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with that part of the SDK.

Those atc_parking_types do not match exactly the parking spot type properties in the BGLComp SDK. Consolidation of the different parking spot types occurs with the aircraft.cfg value equal to more than one type of BGLComp parking spot property.

The values we use in the aircraft.cfg work great for the first type or parking spot - as long as it is not RAMP

The big problem with RAMP is that RAMP_CARGO, all the Ramp GA and Ramp MIL work exactly the same.

When the parking spots are the same size - FS2004 and FSX cannot tell them apart.

So it is very easy to get the default PA-28 Archers with atc_parking_types=RAMP parking in RAMP_MIL_COMBAT spots which are sized for F-16 or F-18 fighters - because the parking spot size is smaller than the RAMP_GA_SMALL spot.

A lot of people like to use: atc_parking_types=GATE,RAMP

because it appears in default aircraft.

That setting is not really for parking - but for the automated generation of AI flight plans for default aircraft. Because many of the smaller airports served by regional aircraft do not have GATE parking by default.

GATE,RAMP when applied to airport design using the BGLComp SDK standards means:

1. Use any available GATE spots close to the aircraft size parking value;
2. Use any other spot on the airport based on size of the parking spot as long as it is not DOCK or NONE.

Since there are no default DOCK or NONE parking types in FS2004 and FSX - we don't see the impact.

Since there are a few RAMP_MIL_COMBAT and RAMP_MIL_CARGO spots in FS2004 - but none in FSX - we don't see the impact.

With the default FS2004 parking spot sizes of:

RAMP_GA_SMALL - 10M
RAMP_GA_MEDIUM - 14M
RAMP_GA_LARGE - 18M
RAMP_MIL_COMBAT - 26m
RAMP_MIL_CARGO - 44M

What appears to be RAMP moving regional turboprops and jets into RAMP_GA_LARGE spots is really occuring because of the size of the default parking spot.

If you change some spot types size value - the apparently good system falls apart. You quickly find that the size of the parkign spot and it's placement on the list / order determines which aircraft park where.

What you will see occur in FSX with the GATE_SMALL set to 18M and RAMP_GA_LARGE set to 18M is B737 and A320 sized aircraft parking in RAMP_GA_LARGE spots even though they have GATE only in the atc_parking_types entry.

One other factor which has a HUGE impact on parking is load order.

When a traffic/flight plan file loads - the first aircraft in the file are placed on the airport, then the next, then the next, etc.

Most people order their flight plans with the smallest aircraft first. This masks a great many parking issues by causing aircraft to overflow into larger spots of the same type.

If you reverse the order of the aircraft in the flightplans.txt file - the heavies first, then the mediums, then the smaller jets - you see quickly where there is not sufficient parking.

This load order effect occurs even more when separate traffic files are used.

If you have:

Traffic_AAL_xxxx.bgl
Traffic_COA_xxxx.bgl
Traffic_DAL_xxxx.bgl
Traffic_NWA_xxxx.bgl
Traffic_UAL_xxxx.bgl
Traffic_USA_xxxx.bgl

All the American aircraft are placed, then all the Continental, then all the Delta, then Northwest, then United then US Airways. "My US Airways aircraft are not parking correcty - they are in cargo and GA spots" when the problem is almost always one of the other airlines.

We really saw this effect early in FS2004 at KATL - because AAL and COA took all the available parking spots - and "There are no Delta aircraft at KATL - what's wrong with your flight plans"

The order in which aircraft/ airlines are placed in the sim is very important - especially regional carriers, military and GA aircraft - because they are most likely to contend for the same parking spots.
 
Here's a little, tiny contribution from me: since I needed to produce two divine airports and make some AI traffic to visit them (and it's military traffic and A/C are single engined TP - PC9's),I decided to do some testing. On airport B I made 9 parking spots that were RAMP_MIL_CARGO and coded themPC7 that 's listed and on airport A I made only one spot, then I made one single flight from A to B and back - no way, no compile, eror was "cannot find parking spec on airport A", so I made another spot on A and tried again - same result. Only when I made the third parking spot at airport A, compiler stopped nagging and produced a bgl. With increase of positions this percentage probably drops off and is not so dramatic, but in case of small airports with, say 10 parkings, it's good to know.
 
I was using(as far as I know, the latest) version 1.3.0.1 of AISort that nicelly lists the compiler output in TBldr.txt.
Actual output of error mentioned in my previous post looks like this: error: Unable to find available parking at LJLJ for Pilatus PC9-M L9-64.

In the mean time I'm expanding my traffic to more flights (six) and I'll have 8 dedicated positions on A and 7 on B to see what will happen.

Interestingly enough this last combination (6 flights from 8 parkings to 7 parkings) compiled without any problem. I do still have tho troublesome file in backup and will
again double check them for errors, even if I already did before first posting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top