My AI Traffic Flight Compiler proposal for MSFS

Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Wishlist
, , ,
1

Hello everyone,
Recently I sent a proposal to MS/Asobo with a concrete idea to improve AI traffic in MSFS. My suggestion is to add a small built‑in compiler to MSFS2020, allowing simmers to define their own AI flights through a simple text file. This would let users create individual AI flights without relying on complex external tools or third‑party programs.

The goal is to make AI traffic more flexible, realistic, and customizable. This is especially valuable for military AI flights, since many simmers want to add specific routes, timings, callsigns, mission profiles, and aircraft types that are currently not possible within MSFS.

Advantages of a built‑in AI flight compiler

  • Full control over military routes — users can define complex military trajectories such as low‑level training routes, holding patterns, intercept procedures, or formation flights.

  • Realistic planning of military missions — simmers can set exact times, callsigns, altitudes, and mission profiles.

  • Support for special military aircraft — tankers, AWACS, helicopters, transport aircraft, or fighters can be added easily through a text file.

  • No more dependency on external tools — AIG, FSLTL, or AIFP are powerful but complex. A built‑in compiler makes AI flight creation accessible to everyone.

  • Flexible scenario building — users can create their own military scenarios: exercises, scramble events, night flights, formation training, and more.

  • Better compatibility and stability — a native compiler avoids issues with packages, folder structures, updates, and third‑party conflicts.

  • Quick adjustments by the user — a text file can be edited in seconds without recompiling large packages.

  • More variation in the airspace — military AI flights create a more dynamic and realistic environment.

  • Support for niche groups — many military simmers want specific squadrons, callsigns, and training routes that are never included by default.

  • Future‑proof system — a built‑in compiler could later be expanded with helicopter routes, naval aviation, or drone operations.

Example of a simple AI flight text file

Below is an example of how such a text file could look. It shows how easily a simmer could define a military AI flight:

Code

FLIGHT
TYPE=Military
AIRCRAFT=F16_Belgian_AirForce
CALLSIGN=BAF421
DEPARTURE=EBBL
DEPARTURE_TIME=08:30
ARRIVAL=ETMN
ARRIVAL_TIME=09:15
ROUTE=EBBL DCT LNO DCT NORKU DCT ETMN
ALTITUDE=25000
SPEED=420
MISSION=Training_Run

This is only an example, but it demonstrates how accessible and flexible a built‑in compiler could be. MSFS would automatically convert this text file into a working AI flight visible in the simulator, following all the parameters defined by the user.

I am sharing this here so other users can give their opinions, experiences, and suggestions. If valuable ideas come up, I can include them in a follow‑up message to MS/Asobo.

All feedback is welcome.
Thank you for your time.Please add the msfs-2020 or msfs-2024 tag to your post, depending on which sim your wishlist item is about.

Before you create new topics in this section, please use the search function to look for existing topics that cover your idea. If one exists already, open it up and contribute in the form of replies and/or votes. If not, please create a new one here, but remember to discuss the what, why and how.

We only want one topic per idea. Duplicate posts will automatically rejected from our moderator team without a message. Thank you for your help!

7 Likes
2

This sounds great, but it literally sounds like using AI Flight Planner availaible from Fsdeveloper, using the old FSX format. And don’t get me wrong, I’ve been draming of something like this. To get the flexibility of creating and modifying AI traffic as we please like we used to do in FSX. I guess most people want to avoid the hassle of having to install everything manually, so prefer the injectors we have. The thing with these is that we have to take whatever they give us, no modifying. Or adding for that matter. If a small regional airline wasn’t included, I can’t include it myself. If I want my local aero club or flight school, I can’t add it.

Another thing where I believe your suggestion would be great, would be model assignments. Right now I see a high dependance on AI model matching as if it were impossible to get priper models and textures to cover all AI aircraft with a flight plan. It would be way simpler to simply assign them by title, old school. Yes an app that could do it because not everybody wants to go through the hassle of doing this manually. But AIG has already done something like this.

The other thing is the old bgl format, since it’s the sim itself that has to process all of the traffic info it creates a heavier load and lower fps.

Unfortunately from MS/Asobo, all we hear about AI traffic (if anything at all), is live traffic. I don’t find it ideal. But sure develop it for those who want it. Just don’t forget offline.

2 Likes
3

According to what MS/Asobo an

swered to me, they seem being interested as well to introduce the system of my proposal, they only wait for more interest from users, so please let them know that you are really interested.

2 Likes
4

To make it clear:

The proposal concerns a small software component that MSFS2020 could include: a translator/compiler that converts simple TXT files into an MSFS2020 compatible file (BGL or similar), to be placed in the Community folder.
Users would create three small text files:
FlightPlans_FS2020.txt
Contains all legs of one aircraft, e.g.:

AC#001,OO-JIV1,60%,24hr/3d/1w,IFR/VFR,08:32:30,09:27:00,180,F/R,1790,ELLX-G30,08:42:23,09:32:00,180;F/R,1791,EBBR-146

Airports_FS2020.txt
all required data are in the text file
ICAO code, coordinates, altitude:
EBBL,N51* 10.05’,E5* 28.14’,200
Aircraft_FS2020.txt
Aircraft tag, cruise speed, aircraft title:
AC#1,550,“F 16AM_Belgian_Air_Force_FA 56”

MSFS2020 would generate one file:
• traffic_FS2020.bgl (or similar)

5

To be honest anything that builds upon the traditional text format originally defined by Ttools and continued up to AIFP, created by the late Don Grovestine, would be best.
This way people that have programmed flight plans for other Flightsims will be able to adapt to it quite easily.

Small further improvements to include waypoints and SIDs/STARs should be fairly easy as you can define waypoints as 3 chars, airfields as 4 and a SID/STAR as 5. The simple rule being that you have to start and end at an airfield.

I have done a lot of work with flight plans for MAIW so if you or Asobo would like any input from myself then feel free to contact me.

1 Like
6

What happened to MAIW, I don’t see them anymore… They were fantastic

7

The site is still there but the problem was essentially MSFS.

In a nut shell it got to the stage where people had to choose to either go down the MSFS route or the Prepar3D route. The trouble was that MSFS wasn’t stable enough to be able to work things through and you couldn’t build, easily, for both Prepar3D and MSFS.

What brought us together in the first place was FS9. People stayed with us through FSX because you could compile aircraft for both sims using the same source.

The trouble was that it was down to individual choice and some chose P3D, some chose to wait for MSFS and some decided to stay with FS9 no matter what. When modellers like John Young decided that it was too much hassle to build for each system and stopped that really didn’t help. Most painters could not get their heads around the MSFS requirements for models.

We got to the stage where we had one package that worked for MSFS, but the next SU screwed it up and the aircraft wouldn’t taxi. John said that he wouldn’t touch MSFS again until they sorted it out, and that is still the case.

So what brought us together was FS9 what splintered us was the diversity of options.

Let me know if you need anything from me. For example I have all the raw flight plan files from all of our packages. These can easily be amended and used.

1 Like
8

So, and what do you think of my proposal to MS/Asobo, of which the result, if it works finally, will be almost similar to the Ttools result?.. Each user will be able to build his own AI flights with individual aircraft. Of course, the necessary AI aircraft will be needed from aircraft designers…

9

I would totally support it. It would be awesome to have the functionality we had back tjen. My question is… how to show MS/Asobo that there is a huge comunity willing to give their support?

AIG already exists. There’s all of retroai.com, and a bunch of other sites still supporting FSX and P3D because of lack of support of offline AI by 2020 and 2024.

1 Like
10

How did you manage to get their atte tion? I’ve sent a few messages through zendesk suggesting something similar, yet all I got was some sort of “thanks for your excitemen” pipe down talk. I’m sure your proposal was more complete. But whatever I can do to help I’m in.

11

For my part, we need the buy in from Asobo. The reason being that they need to build into the game the AI flight dynamics logic that the aircraft will follow. It may be that most of it is available already.
So to me it seems more than likely that there would need to be expanded parms that an new AI.cfg would hold and be used. The logical place for a new tool that would be used to compile the txt files to produce a bgl, or equivalent, is in the SDK.

In effect we are talking about a system that is documented, with tool(s), that will be able to join the games air traffic system that will not impede it’s operation.

In an ideal world the system should be able to cope with airways and non-airways traffic.

12

I would be interested in it. I tried AIG in MSFS2020 but it never worked. It just never populated any airport. I would be willing to try it.

13

True, the flight dynamics of all models need to be worked on. The visual behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. The other thing is tgat there has been so much development from Say Intentions, BeyondATC, and FSHud, that the direction of development will most likely go that way. I believe it should, It simply handles traffic better and externally. But, it shouldn’t sacrifice the capability to customize one’s simulator at will.

There must be some way to find a middle point.

14

The way that I am looking at things is that SayIntentions etc. should still exist as they work outside the game and inject traffic into it, i.e real time traffic.

What MAIW, AIG etc. did was create their own traffic which is coded into bgl format. It was not real-time it was an example of what could happen. This format is read by the sim and the components loaded.

Two different entities. If you are paying for SI then the chances are that you are going to limit yourself to non-airway traffic to avoid duplication.

The fact is though that the work would actually improve the ground operation of the real-time traffic providers.

15

Ofcourse, that would be ideal. I did suggest this to all three through discord. The only one that sortof said they would look into it was SI, but customizable AI isn’t their focus.

FSHud is capable of doing it though. They have the option of retrieving data from older bgl files. I have managed to inject fsx flight plans with converted models. But it’s very limited. The injection logic the program uses only injects aircraft immediately around you when you start the flight and at arrival, not in flight or anything else that has nothing to do with your direct flight.

And they all have the visual flight dynamics issue.

16

I’m curious how you envision your proposal would look like? Right now, the sim has a very solid Live Traffic native engine (that even works with FSLTL and/or AIG models) so I assume your proposal is only to customize Offline AI Traffic?

Right now AI traffic (native or injected) interacts with default ATC, taking your plane into account when taxiing, requesting clearance for departure, landing etc. Would your proposal comply with this interaction with tower?

What plane models do you have in mind would work with this compiler? AIG has some military models but I think you have in mind the possibility of having many more

17

I don’t mean to speak for him, but the idea is to develop customizable offline AI traffic using already available models and some that can be converted or newly made.

As you mentioned these would be controlled by either the native sim ATC or the third party AI ATC injectors to interact with the player’s aircraft.

Just a modern version of what we used to have back in FSX.

18

In fact, the result of my proposal, when it might be introduced, will be the same, possibly with some more details, as the result of the old Ttools, and anybody can realise his own military traffic based on existing or new designd aircraft and for that purposed possibly adapted airports.

3 Likes
19

Indeed, it will be amodern version of what we had in FSX

20

I’d be interested in something like this too. The point about keeping it separate is important: I use AIG mainly for model coverage and schedules, but I’d still want control over what gets generated rather than treating it as a replacement for live traffic. A clear boundary between offline scheduled traffic and a live-traffic setup would make testing and tuning much less confusing.

2 Likes