Best settings for wind smoothing? Can't get it right.

[Martinlest]

I am not really having much luck with my settings in FSUIPC when trying to prevent FS9 from changing my landing runway as I approach my destination. Can anyone kindly advise - I have looked on the forum and read the 'Wind' section in the pdf, but I still have problems:

I use Oncourse's PF3 for ATC (though of course ATC is still in practice provided by FS9) and for my weather either FSrealWX_Lite (or sometimes FSrealWX_Pro), or AS6.5, though this latter doesn't provide a server now of course for real-time weather. I have the problem that, when ATC/PF3 assigns me a landing runway, within a minute or so they change their mind and assign a different runway, and not just once, but yet then again. The PF3 guys looked at the log of my flights and said that this is due to wind shifts at the destination airport. I have Wind Smoothing checked, with 5,0,0 in the boxes, but clearly that's not doing what I thought.

What FSUIPC settings/figures would best eliminate the wind shifts and so (my chief aim here) the repeated runway changes from ATC in FS9? If anyone uses FSrealWX_Lite (which I prefer to the _Pro version really), I have the FSUIPC box checked on the DWC & Interface tab. Maybe I need to enable 'Direct Wind Control' instead?

Many thanks.

[Pete Dowson]

On 5/16/2017 at 4:44 PM, Martinlest said:

I am not really having much luck with my settings in FSUIPC when trying to prevent FS9 from changing my landing runway as I approach my destination.

There's really no function in FSUIPC aimed at this. ActiveSky has a facility to stop weather changes when near the airport. I'm pretty sure it was in an FS9 compatible version. Wind smoothing isn't related to this.

When wind is less than 6 knots or so, FS assigns any runway to AI traffic, so I'm sure that applies to the built in ATC too. Same when the wind is a crosswind with only low components affecting either ends of a runway.

On 5/16/2017 at 4:44 PM, Martinlest said:

I use Oncourse's PF3 for ATC (though of course ATC is still in practice provided by FS9)

Really? That's very poor. I thought it managed ATC itself. I've always used Radar Contact (for many years) till recently when I switched to ProATC/X. PF3 always looked far too cumbersome to me, and I'm surprised it only passes on the FS9 ATC. I'm sure the FSX version doesn't.

On 5/16/2017 at 4:44 PM, Martinlest said:

The PF3 guys looked at the log of my flights and said that this is due to wind shifts at the destination airport.

What sort of "wind shifts"? Smoothing won't stop the wind changing if that's what is set. 

Maybe I need to enable 'Direct Wind Control' instead?

ActiveSky has been using Direct Control for several versions on FSX, where it is very effective. I don't know about FS9. The wind stuff in FS9 is buggy.

Pete

 

[Martinlest]

I may be misrepresenting PF3, but as far as I know the core FS9 ATC engine is active in all 3rd. party ATC programmes. Whatever, I find PF3 works really well and especially in co-ordination with FDC (also from OnCourse). I must say, I waited literally years for RC5 to appear and when it was finally announced that it never would, I went with PFE, then with the improved version, PF3. Both of these have ground ATC, which I understood RC4 lacked (a deal breaker, for me at least).

I'll have to experiment with some more settings. I do have the appropriate boxes checked in AS6.5 and FSrealWX. I had thought there was an option in FSUIPC I had missed.. apparently not.

Thanks for the reply.

[ThomasAH]

On 5/16/2017 at 5:44 PM, Martinlest said:

I use Oncourse's PF3 for ATC (though of course ATC is still in practice provided by FS9)

Clarification:

FS9/FSX ATC is still running internally, because you can't disable it. You may see their messages in the kneeboard when you are on a frequency that is identical to what FS ATC uses.

Additionally PF3 mostly only reacts to AI actions (which kind-of listen to the internal FS ATC). Only in certain cases does PF3 control AI, e.g. by freezing AI to avoid collisions during taxi.

[Martinlest]

Thanks for the clarification :)