TrafficLook question

[johnhinson]

I have a question about the output in TrafficLook.exe.

Here is a screenshot from my system:

It is entry 04 that I am curious about - shown as AIRCOMPANY KH (Actually AIRCOMPANY KHORS)

This is the aircraft.cfg entry:

[fltsim.3]

title=AIA MD82 Khors Aircompany

sim=aiamd80v5acofadv

model=SD

texture=khors

atc_airline=AIRCOMPANY KHORS

atc_parking_codes=KHO

atc_parking_types=GATE

ui_manufacturer=AI

ui_type=McDonnell Douglas MD-82

ui_variation=Khors Aircompany

description=AIA Douglas MD8x series

and this is the Flight Plan for one of four aircraft wetleased to ATA Airlines:

AC#28303,UR-CDN,1%,WEEK,IFR,1/05:05,@1/05:35,170,R,0000,OITL,1/07:05,@1/07:35,160,R,0000,OITT,2/03:00,@2/04:00,310,R,0000,OIII,2/06:00,@2/07:10,320,R,0000,OITT,2/09:30,@2/11:25,330,R,0000,OIMM,2/11:45,@2/13:55,330,R,0000,OITT,3/03:00,@3/04:00,310,R,0000,OIII,3/06:00,@3/07:10,320,R,0000,OITT,3/09:30,@3/11:25,330,R,0000,OIMM,3/11:45,@3/13:55,330,R,0000,OITT,4/03:00,@4/04:00,310,R,0000,OIII,4/06:00,@4/07:10,320,R,0000,OITT,4/09:30,@4/11:25,330,R,0000,OIMM,4/11:45,@4/13:55,330,R,0000,OITT,5/09:30,@5/11:25,330,R,0000,OIMM,5/11:45,@5/13:55,330,R,0000,OITT,6/05:05,@6/05:35,170,R,0000,OITR,6/07:05,@6/07:35,160,R,0000,OITT,6/14:30,@6/15:30,310,R,0000,OIII,6/17:30,@6/18:40,320,R,0000,OITT,0/05:05,@0/05:35,170,R,0000,OITR,0/07:05,@0/07:35,160,R,0000,OITT,0/14:30,@0/15:30,310,R,0000,OIII,0/17:30,@0/18:40,320,R,0000,OITT

Note that the flightplans have been designed (not by me!) to make the aircraft fly under its tail number by using the letter R instead of F.

Flight Simulator 2004's ATC system describes the aircraft as UR-CDN, but TrafficLook shows it under its callsign. Is this how it is intended to work?

My reason for asking is that I think a third-party programme I use is getting similar information from FSUIPC and becoming confused.

Notes:

1. The abbreviation to thirteen characters is not an issue, I have tested this with a smaller callsign.

2. I know that I could force it to show the tail number by removing the aircraft.cfg atc_airline= entry but this would then affect the airline's own flights.

Kindest regards,

John

[Pete Dowson]

I have a question about the output in TrafficLook.exe.

...

Flight Simulator 2004's ATC system describes the aircraft as UR-CDN, but TrafficLook shows it under its callsign. Is this how it is intended to work?

TrafficLook just gets the information available through FSUIPC.

The TCAS tables in FSUIPC can contain different things according to the setting in its INI file, also controlled by a drop-down list on the Miscellaneous Tab in its options. This is fully described in the paragraph about "TCAS Id" in the FSUIPC User Guide (about page 22 I think).

My reason for asking is that I think a third-party programme I use is getting similar information from FSUIPC and becoming confused.

If it is reading the data from the TCAS tables it will get the same as TrafficLook. If it becomes confused you need to contact the author to find out why. There's not enough room in the tables for more than one short ID, and the default is what most folks and programmes want. There is an interface in FSUIPC for programmes to obtain any of the main identifying strings, in full, for any AI plane, but these have to be individually requested not read in bulk from a large table.

I'm afraid much of the technical information in your message is pretty meaningless to me, especially the part concerning "using the letter R instead of F" ... so maybe you are trying to point out something else that I've missed?

Regards

Pete

[johnhinson]

I'm afraid much of the technical information in your message is pretty meaningless to me, especially the part concerning "using the letter R instead of F" ... so maybe you are trying to point out something else that I've missed?

Thanks very much for your reply.

Basically, the AI flightplan specifies that the aircraft should fly under its tail number and not use the callsign shown in the aircraft.cfg.

FS2004 reads that and identifies the aircraft under its tail number in its ATC system. I was therefore thinking that TrafficLook would show the tail number, but it doesn't.

I know this sounds trivial, but I'm trying to approach the issue in a systematic manner one step at a time.

Many thanks,

John

[Pete Dowson]

Basically, the AI flightplan specifies that the aircraft should fly under its tail number and not use the callsign shown in the aircraft.cfg.

OIC. I assume that's an instruction to the built-in ATC.

FS2004 reads that and identifies the aircraft under its tail number in its ATC system. I was therefore thinking that TrafficLook would show the tail number, but it doesn't.

Hmm. Sorry, but I don't know how FSUIPC could get hold of that choice.

Regards

Pete

[johnhinson]

OIC. I assume that's an instruction to the built-in ATC.

Hmm. Sorry, but I don't know how FSUIPC could get hold of that choice.

Regards

Pete

OK, no problem. Just two follow-up questions, then, if you don't mind:

1. Does FSUIPC supply the callsign information for an AI aircraft based on the aircraft.cfg and nothing else?
   
2. Does FSUIPC give an indication to other software whether the identity of the aircraft is a tail number or callsign (other than the obvious that you and I can see the difference with our eyes!)? I'm guessing perhaps that the only way would be the presence of a flight number?
   

Thanks again for your time,

John

[Pete Dowson]

Does FSUIPC supply the callsign information for an AI aircraft based on the aircraft.cfg and nothing else?

It doesn't read the CFG file, it gets the data from FS directly. I would guess FS gets it from the CFG file directly.

Does FSUIPC give an indication to other software whether the identity of the aircraft is a tail number or callsign

No, not at present. I don't tend to waste offset space unless there's a need. Is there?

I'm guessing perhaps that the only way would be the presence of a flight number?

Flight numbers aren't provided whilst the aircraft is "sleeping", awaiting the off.

Regards

Pete

[johnhinson]

Thanks very much for the answers. This explains the circumstances I have encountered.

No, not at present. I don't tend to waste offset space unless there's a need. Is there?

There could be a case for it, but it isn't for me to ask. I will go back to the developer with the information you have kindly given me.

Once again, thanks.

John