FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood FS9 => Topic started by: sleddriver on July 05, 2009, 01:03:18 am
-
Hi. I just downloaded and installed the new update, but I'm still getting the problem with the AI aircraft bunching up at the hold short areas again. How can I fix this? Thanks
-
You are the first one reporting it for KFLL. We had a couple of users having this issue at KLAS, but nobody else reported it before for KFLL, perhaps it depends on the kind of AI models used and also their density.
We think it might be caused (and, apparently, it doesn't happen with all AI configurations) by the fact that FS9 doesn't have a native command, like in FSX, to turn off the default hold short zones drawing, in order to be replaced by custom ones, like we have at KFLL. Since it's obviously not possible to remove the hold short node entirely, otherwise the AI will just stop working, the only way to get rid of the default drawing, is to set the width of the taxiway at the hold short node to 1 ft.
In FSX, we don't have this issue, because there's a specific hold short node type that is not available on FS9, that works as a proper hold short, but doesn't draw anything, so it can be used safely for custom hold short markings, without using those tricks.
So, in either case we'll try to fix the issue, we would end up in one of those less than ideal situations:
1) keep the scenery as it is, and risk the AI bunching
2) restore the normal taxi width, and get double hold short markings, with the default ones that will bleed through the custom ones.
3) remove the custom hold short markings in the FS9 version of the scenery, making it even less attractive compared to the FSX one than already it is, because the default hold shorts markers really looks much worse and out of place, considering the whole ground markings are entirely custom.
A question: are you using the AFCAD that comes with the scenery, or the Harpsi's one ?
-
I'm using the one that came with the update, which I think is harpsi's. Also, the only ai packages I use is from World of AI.
-
It would be interesting to know (I'm not saying you can't use KFLL with addon AI traffic, this would be only a TEST) if the problem happens the same with the default traffic. Or, if it happens at all densities ? Try with different AI traffic complexity settings, and see if it does make any difference at different settings.
-
Haven't looked at the update, but you could try opening AF2 and making sure that all the hold-short nodes are withing the required distance from the runway (the red circle should be overlaping the runway texture).
EDIT: Just looked at the AFD in ADE and it seems that the start locations are not over the runway. Every runway that is open for take-off should have the start location over the runway texture. You can't place it over the taxiway or it messes with the AI traffic.
I don't know if this is causing the bunch up, but it will definitely cause AI problems.
-
Haven't looked at the update, but you could try opening AF2 and making sure that all the hold-short nodes are withing the required distance from the runway (the red circle should be overlaping the runway texture).
EDIT: Just looked at the AFD in ADE and it seems that the start locations are not over the runway. Every runway that is open for take-off should have the start location over the runway texture. You can't place it over the taxiway or it messes with the AI traffic.
I don't know if this is causing the bunch up, but it will definitely cause AI problems.
Are you sure about this? A lot of scenery addons have start locations in the hold-short area.
-
I don't know if this is causing the bunch up, but it will definitely cause AI problems.
No, start up locations not on the runway do not cause any problem of that kind, and no problem whatsoever to AI, that's a common misconception. Some people believe that a startup location not over the runway would cause problems to AI landing and leaving the runway, but it's just not true: the only thing the affects the AI landing or leaving the runway, is the AFCAD runway itself.
In any case, nothing related to AI stacking up at hold short zone.
-
Well, I thought that the runway start locations afect the scoring system that AI uses to assign runways.
The bunching up of AI might be caused by the taxiway width. I noticed some paths are 1 meter in width. This is smaller than the wheel base of most AI and will cause problems.
If it is not the hold short nodes, I can't think of anything else that would cause these problems.
Good luck Stryker.
-
Well, I thought that the runway start locations afect the scoring system that AI uses to assign runways.
Yes, but it's only used to decide the closest runway for departing airplanes, depending on the flight plan and, since all starting locations are made in the same way, so they are a little bit closer to the terminal by the same amount, the end result wouldn't change at all, because their relative distance would be the same.
A starting location would have a real effect, if it was missing, or if it was displaced by several hundreds of feets, but not in this case, were they are all displaced by the same amount.
The bunching up of AI might be caused by the taxiway width. I noticed some paths are 1 meter in width. This is smaller than the wheel base of most AI and will cause problems.
That's exactly what I've said, and unfortunately, there are no easy solutions for this, in FS9, with an airport that uses custom hold short zones like this one.
-
I think that all these problems stem from the method you guys use to make scenery. It seems like you use multiple transparent layers that rest on the AF2 and therefore the AF2 graphics show up. As far as I know, FSDT are the only scenery producers that do it this way, therefore the problems with the ghosted AF2 textures showing through (HS nodes, displaced thresholds). That is why there is a big piece of cement that covers the whole airport area. If that is removed, the underlying landclass shows through. This is the same reason you had runway marking problems with LSGG and KLAS.
It would be great if you guys would adopt a more conventional method of ground tiles that makes all these graphics problems a non-issue. But as you have mentioned before, I think it would mean making the scenery from scratch since it would be drastically different from the FSX dessign method you use.
So that leads us to where we are now. Bunched up AI, or bleed through markings. :-\
-
I think that all these problems stem from the method you guys use to make scenery. It seems like you use multiple transparent layers that rest on the AF2 and therefore the AF2 graphics show up. As far as I know, FSDT are the only scenery producers that do it this way, therefore the problems with the ghosted AF2 textures showing through (HS nodes, displaced thresholds).
No, this method has been used by a few others as well, but probably without using customized hold short markings so, the fact the default ones would pop up was ok.
It would be great if you guys would adopt a more conventional method of ground tiles that makes all these graphics problems a non-issue. But as you have mentioned before, I think it would mean making the scenery from scratch since it would be drastically different from the FSX dessign method you use.
No, it would not just mean "making the scenery from scratch", it would mean making the FS9 VERSION from scratch, because it wouldn't make any sense to dumb down the FSX version (losing rain effects) so this method would still be used for FSX, because there are absolutely no problems there.
If there was a method that would allow for the same solution to work both in FSX and FS9, we would have used that already, and we would "make the scenery from scratch" with that method instead.
So that leads us to where we are now. Bunched up AI, or bleed through markings.
Again, that's exactly what I've said in my first message. And no, in my first message, there was also a 3rd solution, which would be reverting back to default hold short markings, for the FS9 version only.
-
Hey, virtuali. First of all, I really appreciate your quick responses for my cries for help!!! :D There's a reason you are the best in the business. Second, I tried turning down the AI settings, but there wasnt enough traffic for me to tell. So, I tried moving the hold short markings a little closer to the runways, and this "seemed" to work. I only had enough time to try one flight last night, so I can't be sure. I will try some more tonight and see if it really worked. Thanks again.
Chris
-
So, I tried moving the hold short markings a little closer to the runways, and this "seemed" to work.
That would be interesting to know. We have the hold short withing that normal suggested distance from runway, according to tools like ADE, that would otherwise report a larger distance as an error. However, it might be possible that the bunching up might be depending on the distance, and at least it would be interesting to know.
There would be a side effect, though, because the AI will not stop exactly over our custom hold short markers, if the AFCAD ones are moved in a different position.
-
How hard would be to make a cement layer, one that is the same size as the big cement patch in the AF2, that is independent of the AF2 bgl and rests on top of the AF2 but below the other ground layers?
This way it could block all AF2 markings and still display the custom ground textures properly. Do you know what I mean? None of the AF2 graphical aspects are needed by your sceneries since you have custom made all of them, so the AI will use the invisible functions of the AF2 file.
Sorry if it doesn't make any sense, I'm not a scenery designer. :)
-
How hard would be to make a cement layer, one that is the same size as the big cement patch in the AF2, that is independent of the AF2 bgl and rests on top of the AF2 but below the other ground layers?
This way it could block all AF2 markings and still display the custom ground textures properly. Do you know what I mean? None of the AF2 graphical aspects are needed by your sceneries since you have custom made all of them, so the AI will use the invisible functions of the AF2 file.
Sorry if it doesn't make any sense, I'm not a scenery designer. :)
Custom ground can cover default elements. In fact in "normal" addon scenery for fs9 the afcad layer would be covered by custom ground since there's no reason to show the ugly default layer through transparency. BUT Fsdt's situation is different because the priority is the fsx-version, with a requirement for a 1:1 port to fs9. The reason for the transparency is for the fsx version to be able to have the native rain effect. In fs9, however, the transparency serves no purpose (well it did for LSGG and KLAS, since default runway lights were used, but not with KFLL's custom scasm runway lighting). So the fs9 version ends up looking worse than it could be, since the default afcad layer and its hold short nodes/ arrows are shown partially, and with no benefit. This can be rectified fairly simply by modifiying the alpha transparency on the base photoreal but it obviously is in Fsdt's best interest to make the fs9 version crappier than the fsx version. Sceneries before LSGG were not completely 1:1 ports and slightly more fs9-optimized but it appears with the ever-diminishing user base for fs9 priorities have shifted.
-
OK, have come up for a temporary fix.
I made a dummy AF2 named "AF2_KFL1", and I renamed the AP_KFLL from the latest update to "AF2_KFLL_MCB". Here is what they do:
The "AF2_KFL1" file only contains the cement area that underlies the ground textures. It keeps the default ground from showing and also blocks the "AF2_KFLL_MCB" textures from showing (HS nodes, runway markings).
The "AF2_KFLL_MCB" file contains the airport facility features. It is the default AP_KFLL file from the V1.1 update but with the following changes to it:
- No cement ramp (not needed, it is in the AF2_KFL1 file)
- No more 1 meter taxiways (fixes the AI bunch up)
- Deleted X-Wind runways (Not needed at this airport)
- Deleted some taxiways that AI will never take for simplification
- Reposition start locations to be over the runway threshold
The files, along with a screenshots, are attached below. The only side effect of this workarround that I know of is that the displaced threshold arrows and threshold bars are missing, but I think this is an acceptable compromise for me. ;)
As always, please make sure to back-up the original AP_KFLL file and place it somewhere safe. Then, place both these files included in the ZIP into the Scenery folder for KFLL. That is all.
-
This can be rectified fairly simply by modifiying the alpha transparency on the base photoreal but it obviously is in Fsdt's best interest to make the fs9 version crappier than the fsx version.
Wrong. We don't intentionally make the FS9 version look crappier, we just don't make any extra effort to make it better, that would be otherwise required, to overcome FS9 limitations.
However, specific to THIS particular problem, we'll probably work on the solution of having a different alpha, just for FS9, and this is what we are working now, but we need to release the FSX upgrade, because even FSX user has a right to get an update, this is the first time ever we released an upgrade for FS9 first, if anyone had noticed...
-
This can be rectified fairly simply by modifiying the alpha transparency on the base photoreal but it obviously is in Fsdt's best interest to make the fs9 version crappier than the fsx version.
Wrong. We don't intentionally make the FS9 version look crappier, we just don't make any extra effort to make it better, that would be otherwise required, to overcome FS9 limitations.
However, specific to THIS particular problem, we'll probably work on the solution of having a different alpha, just for FS9, and this is what we are working now, but we need to release the FSX upgrade, because even FSX user has a right to get an update, this is the first time ever we released an upgrade for FS9 first, if anyone had noticed...
I understand the fs9 version is a result of the 1:1 port from the fsx version, the "make it crappier" part was bad exaggeration on my part and I apologize. Also, pending the official update, do you approve of M-Sauce's method as a fix (which he posted just before your reply)? Don't worry about me though, I only fly fs9 about 10% of the time anyway. ;D
-
Also, pending the official update, do you approve of M-Sauce's method as a fix (which he posted just before your reply)?
I'm not sure what do you mean with "approve". You are of course free to download anything made by anyone, as long as you remember to remove it, when we'll release the proper update. Also, this is not just a fix for that problem, but includes several other modifications to the AFCAD, which might be useful or not, you decide (some people would complain not having x-wind runways, for example)
If, by "approve", you mean "use your time to download the file, test it, and suggest it or not" then no, sorry, we'd rather spend time working on the patch itself...
-
Hi
That's what I did to solve the bounching problem (at both sides of the RW, of course). No major modification to the original AFCAD's, no additional files. The only thing is that tha traffic holds short closer to the runway but with this airport layout and these FS limitations I couldn't find a better solution.
Iouri
-
It may be interesting to read my post here (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1723.msg14158#msg14158) about link widths and suppressing the hold short marker...
-
It may be interesting to read my post here (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1723.msg14158#msg14158) about link widths and suppressing the hold short marker...
Everything related to this issue at KFLL is now obsolete, because with the 1.2 we change the ground textures in order not having to use 1 ft taxiway widths in order to suppress the hold short markings, which are now all standard sizes.
-
Hey Mariano, I read your post again and I wonder if the sole side effect couldn't be fixed by adding runways with threshold markings to the dummy file?
Dummy file with apron and runways (with displaced threshold markings). The visual Afcad.
Regular Afcad, without apron, with runways that can be widened without showing up in the sim as such, with regular width links, with hold short markers. The non-visual control Afcad.
I've been talking to another forum member about the transparency and removal thereof. The same issue arises, no displaced threshold markings.
:(
Think I'll give your method a shot.
;)
-
Nice, it works as expected. Dummy file provides the visuals (and flatten), the other one does the rest without affecting the visuals.
I named the dummy AF2_KFL1.bgl and gave it KFL1 as ICAO code. It was a new Afcad, so without any stock info linked to it, then I simply copied and pasted the apron and the three runways from the finished Afcad. I may need to position the runways a little better still.
The finished Afcad has been freed of the apron and edited to include a three hundred feet wide runway and a three hundred feet wide hold short marker to test. And nothing is showing through!
Give the files a try and see. For testing purposes only, will finalize them later.
The benefit of this approach is its simplicity. It doesn't involve texture editing of any kind, the dummy can be made in a matter of minutes, and the real Afcad can be edited to your heart's content.
Edit: zip removed. Final dummy and Afcad can be found in the Afcad thread shortly.
-
That is agood idea Mike.
When I made the original dummy file, I just wanted to use the apron in it to remove it from the runways and override all AF2 visual effects. I don't see why leaving the runways in would be a problem, as long as it is another airport name it should not interfere.
I'll adapt it to my dummy file and hopefully will have a completed AF2 file soon.
Mariano :)
-
I just attached my set to the Afcad thread.
Does FSDreamTeam have an opinion about this refined dummy Afcad method? It takes very little time and effort to make the dummy Afcad and no additional texture editing is needed. Seems like the best compromise so far. Hope you can look at it with an open mind.
:)
-
Does FSDreamTeam have an opinion about this refined dummy Afcad method? It takes very little time and effort to make the dummy Afcad and no additional texture editing is needed. Seems like the best compromise so far. Hope you can look at it with an open mind.
We already said that it's no problem for us to update the textures, of course after having verified that your suggested modifications to the hold short zones make sense in the first place, then we'll probably fix our own AFCAD, and this will not use the dummy file. If you prefer to use your method and your own AFCAD, it's your choice.
-
If it wasn't clear already, I'm talking about future sceneries.
It takes mere minutes to make the dummy file. And where texture edits only cover specific areas, the dummy covers the entire scenery. It gives the user complete freedom to edit his/her Afcad without any visual side effects or AI related problems.
You keep your design method and FSX effects and you no longer have to edit textures. Minimal effort for you, maximal result for the user. And no more post-release issues and discussions like we've had with the past couple of sceneries.
What do you think?
:)