ATCPro Forums Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > ATC Pro Forums > ATC Pro Official Support
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The S46 Fixes Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

The S46 Fixes Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2017 at 8:30pm
As I mentioned in another thread.

There is a problem with the MARNR4. The A/C is marked as decending via and it does a good job. While it turns on course the AI vectors them to 180 as above with the aircraft on the left. If you don't catch it fast enough you get busted.


The overall ballet of the AI seems to be performing nicely with just the primary airport on now.


I still have to look at the other non-rnav arrivals and other area connections that are a little messy


Edited by Xodius - 01 Oct 2017 at 9:26pm
Back to Top
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 12:42pm
Went through the current CIFP's and entered the numbers exactly as they are in there (Correctly formatted for this of course) for the SUMMA route. While there was a little variation in the original file, it's back to being exactly the same as when I started.

I can only point to a guess that there is something wrong with one or more of the following:

1. It's not handling the VR type in conjunction with other types correctly
2. Something is off with the mag bearings
3. One or more of the input numbers in the navdist, dist, or turn from this type of SID connection isn't taking

It is a rare type of route which leads me to believe that is part of the issue. Not to mention more complicated math to simulate.
Back to Top
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2017 at 4:08pm
Just to further the discoveries.

The issues with flights not coming in on other non-rnav routes seems to be tied to the type numbers. I know someone mentioned this in another thread, but I can't seem to find it.

I tried this out and the flights are now responding to the correct routing and coming in from all angles. It's not exactly as it is in the CIFP data, but we just have to consider that the engine isn't really processing every part of that efficiently or even correctly. Changing the 1, 2, 3 types to the RNAV 4,5,6 will stagger the routes so everything isn't arriving in on the Hawks.

Due to this change, some things will need to be reworked in the Terminal Legs to better fit that, but the overall change seen just out of this number swap alone is pretty large.

If I get into a comfortable place with it all this weekend, I will do a livestream on it and post it here.
Back to Top
hnorgaar View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hnorgaar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 12:48am
All the data in these files come from AIRAC data cycles and the data is not wrong in the files, but the way Atcpro is handling some of it is. However I will recommend that you check and correct the routes in the universal.db with correct procedure names as they are mixed with different AIRAC cycles and uses wrong SID/STAR names as in SKIPS1 and SKIPS2. I have tried to fix the problems with arrivals where 6 is in use, but the only way for the aircrafts to use the 6 part is with the command "descend via" and I believe it should work with "join" and also as the AI does, just "Expect RWY"

1,2,3 is non RNAV and 4,5,6 is RNAV procedures. 

1,4 : is the first step of the procedure and for departures they are named RW09 and for arrivals the transition
2,5 : ALL
3,6 : for departures the transition and arrivals again RW09

I have attached examples of the AIRAC files for KSEA and KMIA

Edited by hnorgaar - 07 Oct 2017 at 1:01am
Back to Top
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 2:55am
I think you're missing the point of what I am trying to do here. I'm aware the data isn't wrong (Well some was possibly dated since this hasn't been updated in quite some time) and also of the field content Route types tagging taken via the ARINC 424 manuals. I have the converted raw CIFP data converted to a SQLite table as well which lines up with the planning.db for a good portion of the data.

The below table from the ARINC 424 also covers the rest of the types which you will see tagged in others:



I have no reason to believe the routes in the universal does anything at this point and I have yet to find anyone here confirming that is the case alongside visual A/B tested references. If you have something else to confirm how that file interacts with the code and where it does do its job, please let me know or point me in the right direction. I have messed with it extensively and can't come to any conclusion between the flight path the sim is generating and that file information as it stands currently (or with changes). I'm not saying there isn't something happening here, but my testing has been inconclusive.

There are leg types as we're already aware in here that aren't being processed correctly or even at all. Removal and/or changes of those legs can yield mixed results. I can't confirm how other facilities are setup and working within this, but I can confirm (as can many others on here) that there are some extremely frustrating flaws with S46 that nobody has been able to pin down. My goal here is not to match KSEA exactly. As much as I would like to see that, it's out of our control until there are updates to the core code itself to support it as written. 

There was another thread here and I can't recall if it was you, but the 1/2/3 non-rnav aren't processing flights correctly and the engine itself is picking the best available which is making for an experience which isn't jiving with how this should be operating. As many can attest, SEA has many flights either killed or sent up via the Hawkz in large quantity for arrivals. So many, in fact, that the AI controllers can't keep up with it. That in turn is creating frustrations. 

In the meantime, I am hoping to create an interim experience for KSEA that is fun. The testing I did tonight with it was the most promising changes I have tested so far. I hope to have some more tweaked out this weekend to show the results using both the raw planning and my modified one.

Below is two different images. This doesn't do it full justice, but you can clearly see the larger variation happening here for arrivals vs the cramming going on the Hawkz. Top is the original planning and the bottom is my own. Same time, same day, same flow. I'll see about doing a comparison video after a few more things.

Full Size Image Link: https://i.imgur.com/W5AKOq3.png






Edited by Xodius - 07 Oct 2017 at 4:22am
Back to Top
hnorgaar View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hnorgaar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 5:21am
Yes I explained that, and the way to fix it is to change the arrivals in question, and these I remember was the arrivals from East to 4,5,6 and I believe the reason is that the game expect that high performance/jets only will use RNAV arrivals. However I changed the arrival names in universal and all is good so far, try it out and might prove that they are in use, and I think that if the arrivals are named wrong, then there is a logic build in to use the most reasonable route, and therefore not controllable by us Smile
The connection between the 2 databases are the route, SID/STAR names, waypoints and airways

Regards Henrik


Edited by hnorgaar - 07 Oct 2017 at 5:34am
Back to Top
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 5:34am
Can you explain the "Altitude" associated with the routes? Is that based off their cruising alt or something else? 

As I said above, I've seen no correlation in route changes between those now, when I change them, and how they are currently for any arrival or departure.

What did you change them to or was it just correcting the SID and STAR designators?


Edited by Xodius - 07 Oct 2017 at 5:35am
Back to Top
hnorgaar View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hnorgaar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 5:35am
Yes cruise altitude. Im pretty sure they got the routes and altitude from Flightawares database.
And yes changed them to correspond to correct SID/STAR names in the GAME
Try mine and backup



Edited by hnorgaar - 07 Oct 2017 at 5:40am
Back to Top
Xodius View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Aug 2017
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 66
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xodius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 5:39am
But to further that did you do any of the following:

1. Add additional altitudes?
2. Remove the routes that are in there and just put the SID/STAR names?
Back to Top
hnorgaar View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hnorgaar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2017 at 5:42am
Just changed SID/STAR names in the routes, universal, not in planning. In planning change the STARS in question to 4,5,6. I have added mine in the other post, try it out

Edited by hnorgaar - 07 Oct 2017 at 5:48am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.