FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Las Vegas FS9 => Topic started by: harpsi on April 19, 2009, 01:23:11 pm
-
Hi
Ok. To be sure that everybody finds the file I will post a new file here which will be improved as soon as somebody has comments.
What I have done until now:
- parking positions and its specifications about airlines now 95 % accurate; I just need to know what happens to some airlines which are rare visitors of KLAS and some cargo airlines which I don´t know if they exist
- added some positions for GA traffic; maybe they are not enough since I don´t use a lot of GA traffic as well, and because of the fact that we don´t have so much marks on the ground to improve this
- crosswind system added according to the most common combination at KLAS (addapted to virtual life as well) which is:
25 R opened for both operations
25 L opened for landings only
19 R opened for landings only
19 L opened for take-offs only
If the winds are blowing in the "opposite" way, it happens the opposite.
I need your comments to improve the file.
Have fun.
harpsi
-
I don't see it mentioned elsewhere so I have to ask, does this work for the FSX version?
-
Hi
No. This file is only for FS9 version. It is a "free" file improved by me and, like all other sceneries is only for FS9 since it is the only sim I use at the moment.
harpsi
-
Oh I see. I was hoping it would work for FSX too as the Terminals A & B parking codes look much better. Thank you much anyway.
-
The reason it can't work for FSX is that the FSX afcad includes the Jetways and if you use the afcad for FS9 you will have no Jetways. Believe me I've tried it!!!!
Regards
Dave
-
A little bit of patience: as soon Harpsi finishes his work, we'll take all the addition and will integrate in the default ACAD for the scenery, both in FSX and FS9. We did like this for all our sceneries that were released so far, and it worked out alright.
-
Thank you Harpsi, It works fine for me ;)
-
Hi
Ok. To be sure that everybody finds the file I will post a new file here which will be improved as soon as somebody has comments.
What I have done until now:
- parking positions and its specifications about airlines now 95 % accurate; I just need to know what happens to some airlines which are rare visitors of KLAS and some cargo airlines which I don´t know if they exist
- added some positions for GA traffic; maybe they are not enough since I don´t use a lot of GA traffic as well, and because of the fact that we don´t have so much marks on the ground to improve this
- crosswind system added according to the most common combination at KLAS (addapted to virtual life as well) which is:
25 R opened for both operations
25 L opened for landings only
19 R opened for landings only
19 L opened for take-offs only
If the winds are blowing in the "opposite" way, it happens the opposite.
I need your comments to improve the file.
Have fun.
harpsi
Harpsi I fixed the Afcad where aircraft taxi onto runway 19L. In your file the AI would cross the runway from the GA area do an almost 165% turn back onto the runway when cleared for takeoff. This conflicted with AI coming from the the main terminal for takeoff onto this runway.
One thing that would be nice Harpsi is if you would delete the GA parking spots in the AFCAD where Area51/Janet aircraft park. The GA spots in that are that's along to the side can stay but the main ramp should be devoid of GA aircraft until someone hopefully makes some static Janet 737-200 aircraft to go there. Look at Google Earth to see what I'm talking about here if you have the time...
Harpsi we still have a problem with larger GA aircraft parking at the cargo terminal. We'll need some larger GA spots (7-8 should be good) over along the GA area by the strip. The southernmost executive area could use some spots added.
I modified the various gate at KLAS especially Terminal 'B' because I don't know if what was present is realistic in that it had Southwest planes parked there. We can change things back it this is realistic today. Terminal 'D' is still a mess as the same airline codes are for every gate at that terminal, I fixed this. For example Delta and JetBlue have specific spots for parking there. I did my best with placement but more modifications is likely necessary. The way things were before in the Afcad listed every gate at Terminal 'D' as a potential Delta parking spot among other airlines that park there.
-
Terminal B doesnt have that much southwest presense. They only have a few gates at terminal b. What about codes for individual airlines for terminal D??? Im having trouble filling up all the gates in terminal d. I have them all labeled, but it is hard to see really how many gates each airline has with out seeing a pdf with them listed on their. The wikipedia list doesnt provide airline specific gates. I also added some 30 new ga spots and still need to add more because they are still parking at the terminals.
All of this is for FSX.
-
I modified 'again' the gate locations in my updated afcad above to better represent airline placement at KLAS... :-\
I'm sure others from this area can give a better perspective...
-
Hi
Dillon, let me see your afcad and if your suggestions are better, I will place it in the first post. The file can be updated as soon as we all have more improvements to it. The best thing indeed would be some more yellow marks on the ground to make more spots. I know that we still need some spots to handle all GA traffic. I will look at it now.
harpsi
-
Harpsi my afcad mod is attached to my post above...
-
Dillion, you have to many AAY gates, they only have one in real life. If u were to look at the arrivals and departure section of the vegas airport site you can see the gates that the airlines use.
-
Hi, I'm new to the forums and I have all 3 US Sceneries and they are awesome! Other than the GA issue, i noticed that on the new airport diagram that 7L and 25R is 14,510 feet long, it goes all the way to 1L, any way that you can fix this? thanks in advance
-
Hi
I caught Dillon´s file since it is similar to mine with some improvements and I tweaked it myself:
- shortened runways 7L/25R and 1R/19L - traffic will flow better if 1R and 7L are in use for take-offs
- added more GA traffic spots
- modified some parking specs for terminals B and D
- some minor issues found
The file is posted in the first post above. Feel free to do your comments and make suggestions.
harpsi
-
Dillion, you have to many AAY gates, they only have one in real life. If u were to look at the arrivals and departure section of the vegas airport site you can see the gates that the airlines use.
I had no idea how many AA gates there were but I made an educated guess judging by my WOI traffic at the airport and Google Earth. This is still a work in progress and we welcome ideas and suggestions.
-
Just looking at this now Harpsi.
Where do the US Airways/America West aircraft park?
Both Airlines are now using the CACTUS callsign and the AWE code.
Looking good after that.
Nice Job.
Edit; Could you also tell me where the Janet Aircraft park please?
-
Janets park on the west side. They have 6 or 7 stands.
-
Hi
Which airline is the "janet" one?
US airways park at concourses A and B.
harpsi
-
Which airline is the "janet" one?
Janet Airlines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_(airline) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_(airline))
One thing that would be nice Harpsi is if you would delete the GA parking spots in the AFCAD where Area51/Janet aircraft park. The GA spots in that are that's along to the side can stay but the main ramp should be devoid of GA aircraft until someone hopefully makes some static Janet 737-200 aircraft to go there. Look at Google Earth to see what I'm talking about here if you have the time...
There's a Janet AI package on AVSIM:
http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=129356
Matthew
-
Janet is a nickname plane spotters have given "these" a/c. US Government would say they don't exist.
It's funny if you've ever been to KLAS and heard clearance delivery - they just give clearance to "destination".
Edit.... make sure you add some Military gates too. McCarran gets as much traffic as Nellis:
http://www.alexpeake.co.uk/p55116370.html
-
I have put together a list of what airlines serve what gates
I am not done yet but here is what I have so far.
All of A Concourse- US Airways
B-Concourse
Virgin America-B20
Westjet- B14 & b15
Southwest
US Airways
Spirit
C Concourse-
Southwest Airlines
"D" Concourse
United/Express/TED- D51, D52 , D53, D54, D55, D56
AirTran D50
Alaska- D25 & D26
Allegiant- D1-D7
American-D8-D11
Continental-D19, D20, and D21
Delta-D36-D42
Frontier D17
Jetblue-D16
NWA-D9, D12, and D14
Sean
-
Harpsi,
I think your AFCAD still needs lots more large GA parking spots - my terminals are full of Gulfstreams. It would also be good if there was somewhere for private 737s and other bigger business jets to park.
Finally the positioning of the parking spots near the cargo apron is a bit off (see attached image).
Thanks,
Matthew
-
OK, I'm going to ask the question and hope I don't get flammed for it.
Why is there no payware-grade AFCAD deliverd with the final product such as KLAS (specifically, parking spots)? Almost everyone who purchases these large Intl airports already have, to some extent, an AI collection of which they would like to see at the proper gates. I don't know Harpsi and I commend him for his endevours of which we will all benefit, but I don't get the feeling that he's part of the offical FSDT development staff. Why does FSDT make such good airports and then deliver non-accurate AFCADs?
This is one area, and there aren't many, that could be improved before the product is released and purchased by customers. Waiting for a properly radius-sized AFCAD for FS9 or a proper wingspan-sized AFCAD for FSX, after purchasing the product, somehow doesn't seem right. You guys are so good at the airports, I just sit back and ask myself, what happened to the proper parking spots during beta testing? Are descent AI collections not taken into account?
I love the FSDT FSX products, and I will continue to buy all of them for FSX, but, IMHO, some improvment could be made to the generation of the AFCADs prior to selling the product.
Contructive critisism only...
With kind regards,
-
OK, I'm going to ask the question and hope I don't get flammed for it.
Although this question was already answered, I'll like to give a definitive reply, hoping it would be the last one.
One thing that we learned over the years is that, whatever AFCAD you might do, it will NEVER be to everyone's taste. Some expectations are just conflicting with each other. There are user that don't care at all the default ATC, because they fly online so, for them, any side-effect on the ATC created by the desire to make the AFCAD as close as possible to real world, doesn't matter to them. Other users, instead, fly *only* with the default ATC, and they would prefer a more standard and close to default behaviour. And, there are many users who don't even FLY the sim, they just WATCH AI for hours and, for them, there are other priorities, like smooth traffic flow, correct arline matching...
If you combine this, with the fact that everyone use a different AI package, sometimes even *combination* of them, like multiple package installed, one for airliners, one for GA, it's almost impossible to verify everything.
Parking sizes, you mention...that's quite messy because, there are still many AI models out there, that weren't even created for FS9, they are still around from FS2002 that didn't had the airline codes in the parkings so, there was some kind of common conventions in the model authors to use non-realistic wingspan sizes in the model files, in order to trick a specific plane to park at a specific place, by playing with parking radius in the AFCAD against wingspan sizes in the MDL files. Of course, this method doesn't make much sense anymore in FS9 and FSX, thanks to parking codes but, since there are still plenty of models made like that around, it might become very complex to appeal to everyone.
What we found is that, there's no way a "perfect" AFCAD can be done during developement. If we had to do it with the dedication needed, we would just have to stop scenery developement, and start playing with AI package collections, testing them together, etc.
The only solution that seems to work, is to let the most interested users, like Harpsi, who is helping us since we did EHAM for Cloud9, playing with the AFCAD, and exchanging feedback with other users, to progressively improve it, until it becomes something *most* ( "everyone", is just not possible ) users would find it a reasonable compromise, and that will become the standard AFCAD. And of course, the forum would be always open for users wanting to share more customized solutions, like multiple wind settings, etc...if they like to do so.
I think our solution is the best compromise, because a good AFCAD will eventually come. Harpsi is credited in our manuals and gets some minor compensation, we thank him for helping us, and he has always been happy of this.
In this market situation, the line between surviving and losing money is *very* thin, and we don't have much to spare, we can barely keep FSDT into operation by releasing 4 sceneries per year. If those would become just 3, because we had to spend 1 month extra for each one to create the elusive "commercial grade AFCAD", we might just not be able to continue as a commercial entity. And no, a better AFCAD on the relase day, will never increase sales so much to offset the loss of 1 major product per year...what it's important is that people knows that a good AFCAD will eventually arrive, as it was for ALL our previous 4 products.
-
Thank you for the reply and now I know it's a conceous decision for several reasons that I hadn't thought of. I appologize for not searching for the question being previously asked (I should have).
Regards,
-
Hi
I still need to add some more parkings but as you understand I am working in the "dark" because there aren´t so much yellow marks on the ground. I am seeing google earth and trying to replicate what should more or lees happen in real life. I almost added a lot of positions. I will try to add more 20 or 30 tomorrow if I have time to do it. I think next weekend the file should be more or less complete, not for all tastes, but at least 95 % of all users should be happy with the file, concerning what I imagine all users should have in terms of AI traffic in their simulators.
harpsi
-
Although this question was already answered, I'll like to give a definitive reply, hoping it would be the last one.
One thing that we learned over the years is that, whatever AFCAD you might do...
Very nice response. Impressive. Thanks for taking the time to explain that to people in such detail.
If everyone would go to AVSIM and look at all the different AFCADS that have been made specifically for use with various airport sceneries they would see there are tons of them out there. That's why Lee Swordy created AFCAD... so that FS users could have the freedom to [very easily] customize their sim experience.
AFCADS for commercial airport packages are a lot like liveries for commercial aircraft packages. PMDG, Feelthere, CLS, PSS... none of them include every single livery that exists in the world for each aircraft type they sell. It's a no-brainer: You go to AVSIM/Flightsim/etc and do a search for liveries made for that particular model, download and install them. The same has always been true for AFCADS.
I submit to anyone concerned about this AFCAD situation that if they just took a mere 30 minutes out of 1 day of their life and read the help file for AFCAD, they would realize how simple it is to edit and/or create detailed, complex AFCADS which conform to their specific needs and desires. It's actually quite fun once you start getting into working on one. And then when you get done, you can release your own unique version for everyone in the world to try if you like. And become famous even, provided you're good enough at it!
FSDT KICKS BUTT!!!
-
Regarding GA, you'll need at least 60 parking spots to get rid of them parking at airliner gates. BBJs need 22m BBJ2s need 24m and if you have my flightplans installed for the Las Vegas Sands Corp 747s and Tristar, you'll need to have some 43m!
Feel free to copy the GA gates off mine (excuse the custom GA codes):
-
And, there are many users who don't even FLY the sim, they just WATCH AI for hours...
You've GOT to be kidding... :o
-
And, there are many users who don't even FLY the sim, they just WATCH AI for hours...
You've GOT to be kidding... :o
Nope, rolling your own AI is addictive as painting liveries or cutting AFCADs, and once you spend the hours collection, installing, and tweaking, it's dang fun to watch the fruits of your labors. I now know more about the world's airlines and how they really work than I ever thought I would. I've been doing this since the early PAI days when everything was done in Notepad and still find it intriguing to this day, although keeping up with the mergers and defunct airlines has become more of a chore lately.
-
But...you do fly though, right? I mean, it may be neat to watch, but it seems like an aweful expensive way to learn airline ops, especially when you can just wikipedia them, download their timetables, and visit their websites...
-
But...you do fly though, right? ...
Oh heck yes! Everything from the F1 ATR to the all of the PMDG, MD80s, to LvL-D, etc... but collecting AI gives the sim another aspect that has litteraly helped it's 25+ year lifespan. I personally use WoAI for those oddball airlines around the world and then roll my own larger mainline and regional fleets using all the freeware models and AIG flightplans with the MRAI installer. That doesn't make it too bad, but then you get addicted to shockwave lights, custom FDE's and how many bounces a particular problematic single plane makes.
-
Ah, ok, just checkin'! ;)
-
Regarding GA, you'll need at least 60 parking spots to get rid of them parking at airliner gates. BBJs need 22m BBJ2s need 24m and if you have my flightplans installed for the Las Vegas Sands Corp 747s and Tristar, you'll need to have some 43m!
Feel free to copy the GA gates off mine (excuse the custom GA codes):
I will try to put them on the file I am compiling with all users suggestions, so that in the end we have a resonable file for everybody.
harpsi
-
I will try to put them on the file I am compiling with all users suggestions, so that in the end we have a resonable file for everybody.
harpsi
Thanks Harpsi, I appreciate you putting this together.
-
Attached is an updated AFCAD I adjusted the parking for the airlines to reflect the actual gates served as of 4/21/09. I have checked this against live Las Vegas McCarran Arrival/Departure data on the web site.
I have not changed any of the taxiway, markings, GA parking or cargo. I will be adding extra Allegiant MD-80 parking as they do in real life behind the D concourse and in the middle area of the D concourse (Triangle area just off Taxiway 'C')
This should help the airline parking situation at McCarran. I will work on the GA and Cargo stuff next.
Sean
-
Attached is an updated AFCAD I adjusted the parking for the airlines to reflect the actual gates served as of 4/21/09. I have checked this against live Las Vegas McCarran Arrival/Departure data on the web site.
I have not changed any of the taxiway, markings, GA parking or cargo. I will be adding extra Allegiant MD-80 parking as they do in real life behind the D concourse and in the middle area of the D concourse (Triangle area just off Taxiway 'C')
This should help the airline parking situation at McCarran. I will work on the GA and Cargo stuff next.
Sean
Is this the afcad I posted on the first post plus your changes and the changes from global express? If so I will check everything and test it myself as well.
harpsi
-
Yes this is your AFCAD adjusted for current airline parking.
Sean
-
Harpsi, I assume this is supposed to be a 'crosswind' runway afcad? I really applaud the improvements overall, but I see no crosswind runways used ever, simultaneously. It is causing go-arounds for 8 out of 9 and a stack-up-back-up at 25R 20 aircraft deep; I am not too familiar with the 'STAR' method of the crosswind technique, but it seems as though I never see any combination of runways in use? Not complaining, just curious to see how to solve the issue; I enjoy this kind of stuff!
-
Harpsi, I assume this is supposed to be a 'crosswind' runway afcad? I really applaud the improvements overall, but I see no crosswind runways used ever, simultaneously. It is causing go-arounds for 8 out of 9 and a stack-up-back-up at 25R 20 aircraft deep; I am not too familiar with the 'STAR' method of the crosswind technique, but it seems as though I never see any combination of runways in use? Not complaining, just curious to see how to solve the issue; I enjoy this kind of stuff!
I'm seeing 25L for landings, 25R for takeoffs. At the same time I'm seeing 19R for takeoffs and 19R for landings. For me this is a great job by Harpsi as this curbs the problem of congestion. Are you sure your using Harpsi's file in this thread?
-
Good question, Dillon....I will have to double check that now; I see no activity on 19 left or right at all with my current afcad....
-
Ok double checked and sure enough...you are correct, sir! I had another from one of the other forums....and missed Harpsi's original altogether, it appears. Thanks for the 'head check'!
-
I don't know if this is just me but on a flight from KSAN to KLAS upon decent I get vectored to runway 22L at KLAS and given a heading of 180 away from the airport. I have to manually request 19R or 25L in order to get vectored for landing to the real runways at KLAS. Is there anyone else seeing this issue? :-\
-
It sounds like you were cleared to land on a fake runway used to make the star. Solution, place the fake runways far far away from the airport. Such as S60 E1 or N60 E1. Those are good places to place all your fake runways.
-
Hi
In fact there is not so much activity on 19L at all. Why? Two reasons:
- 25 R is much much longer
- 19 L is too far from most of the aprons
You will see some activity it we talk about small aircrafts coming from the west side of the airport where 19 L is much closer to 25 R.
There is one more thing: someone placed here another afcad in order to deal with all the necessary parking positions for small GA traffic. In fact what I see is the same number of positions as mine. I would like everyne to check if you have 104 parking positions for GA traffic in your afcad which I think it is far enough. There are even too much positions with one parking code for airlines which are coming few times to KLAS.
I will modify some little things on my file after checking all the others and I will post a new one which will be almost similar to the previous ones.
Thanks.
harpsi
-
Hi
Ok. The file is there. Not so much changes. Try and comment.
harpsi
-
Thanks, Harpsi! I will look at it some time today and let you know.
-
Hi Harpsi,
The problem I'm having with your AFCAD is not so much the number of GA spots but the size of them. I have all of the Ultimate GA Gulfstream and BBJ packages installed, plus various other large business jet repaints, and there are simply too many aircraft which can't fit into the GA medium spots that your AFCAD mostly provides. As a result they overflow into the terminal areas, which in turn means that there isn't enough parking for the airlines. The AFCAD that Mike posted has 10 GA large spots plus 7 "gate sized" GA spots, compared to the 5 GA large spots that yours has, and even then I'm getting some overflow into the cargo area.
Hope that's of some help.
Matthew
-
Still not enough? ;D I'm running out of room to put more. Although I can squeeze them together like I did at the North most part of the airport. Maybe I should sacrifice one military cargo spot. It is taking up a lot of space. Anyway, I had removed my Afcad, because of some minor tweaks here and there. I'll probably upload it to Avsim tomorrow together with some edited textures. And then I'm off for a short vacation and I need it, this has been too much. ;)
-
Hi
I am posting the file here with some changes and you can test it to see if it improves your traffic.
Test yourself and comment.
harpsi
-
Did you not combine all my GA parking spots? The GA works perfectly.
Parking sizes are:
15m - GLF5
14m - GLF4
13m - GLF3
13m - GLF2
12m - CL60
22m - BBJ
24m - BBJ2
10m - LJs, Cits etc...
Plus you need some 43m for the Sands Corp 747s, and perhaps some 19m for a new GA AI model soon to be released ;)
They really stack them close at McCarran:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=KLAS&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.527387,56.25&ie=UTF8&ll=36.097726,-115.161999&spn=0.001012,0.002736&t=h&z=19
-
Hi
In the first post I have a new file just because of GA traffic. There are enough Ga parking places, manye of them with radius 15, 16 and 18; some of them with 24 for JNT and BBJ. I hope this issue is solved. SWA codes at Terminal B were missing, so that there were aircrafts from SWA parked at other terminals.
Have fun.
harpsi
-
Many thanks for your efforts. Is there a way to force JNT planes to park at the right place ? I changed the parking types in the Afcad file and aircraft.cfg to Mil_cargo, but to no avail. The B736's keep parking on the cargo spots, whereas the B1900C found the right spot.
-
Hi
I assigned a code for janet planes: JNT... Well, in my tests I am not seeing them. Let me test more changing times to see if they are in fact there.
harpsi
-
It sounds like you were cleared to land on a fake runway used to make the star. Solution, place the fake runways far far away from the airport. Such as S60 E1 or N60 E1. Those are good places to place all your fake runways.
Fake Runways???
I have no idea what your talking about here. ???
-
Hi
I assigned a code for janet planes: JNT... Well, in my tests I am not seeing them. Let me test more changing times to see if they are in fact there.
harpsi
Harpsi,
Just an FYI-
The ICAO code for "Janet" is WWW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_(airline) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_(airline))
-m@
-
If you check Airframes.org, you can see WWW is a "reserved" code, so I don't think it belongs to Janet. I doubt if they have a code, but for the purpose of flight simulator, I believe JNT is the accepted one.
Fake Runways???
I have no idea what your talking about here.
In order to enable non-parallel runways, such as at KLAS, one has to make a "star", comprised of the real runways and fake runways, which are inserted every 7.9 degrees, to fool FS into thinking the real runways are parallel. FS considers two or more runways parallel if there is no more than a 7.9 degree heading difference. We used to believe the fake runways had to be placed in the AI Visual Zone (108NM?!) for the star to work, but later it turned out they could be located anywhere. By placing them far away, you prevent ATC from clearing aircraft to land on them. It would do that, even though the runways were only 10x10ft and closed to all traffic. (Has to do with the heading of the runway and aircraft.)
BTW, I use a 23m radius for BBJ's, simply because they are 737's. See attached my latest Afcad. It adds a bunch more GA (including Las Vegas Sands spots), reincorporates the aprons and is also back to 1ft links around hold short nodes... Pretty close to done.
-
Still not enough? ;D I'm running out of room to put more.
Almost, but not quite! I reckon another half dozen would do it. If it helps, I am doing most of my testing at dawn on a Saturday when the airport seems to be pretty well full.
Harpsi, your latest file is pretty good. A slight problem in that with the radiuses that global express suggested you can't have any overlap in parking spots otherwise the wings overlap - I needed to reduced the size of Parking 6 - Parking 10. Also the Janet parking spots should be on the west side of the airport, which you have numbered Parking 1-5. There's plenty of room to turn these into larger radius spots. The good news is that I no longer have any GA jets parking at the gates, the bad news is that it's now apparent that there's not enough airline parking! Some overflow parking would be good, as seen in Google Earth.
Thanks for your efforts.
Matthew
-
Almost, but not quite! I reckon another half dozen would do it. If it helps, I am doing most of my testing at dawn on a Saturday when the airport seems to be pretty well full.
Check the file above, should be good now.
Although the bunching up has returned. I'm seriously wondering if maybe Jim Vile's approach file is causing the issue. It also affects the runways used with winds calm...
-
Check the file above, should be good now.
Although the bunching up has returned. I'm seriously wondering if maybe Jim Vile's approach file is causing the issue. It also affects the runways used with winds calm...
Thanks, that one seems to do the trick. Although according to AFX some of the hold shorts are too far from the runways...
-
If you're still having problems with the GA even though you have enough free spaces, it'll be because of parking priority. Makes sure all the GA have the correct codes "GA3J" "GA2J" "BBJ0" etc.... and ensure they are at the top of the parking list. It wont cause problems with airlines parking at GA spots as all the GA spots are parking ramps, not gates.
-
Although according to AFX some of the hold shorts are too far from the runways...
That's nothing to worry about. Only the hold short node where AI enters the runway needs to be close enough to the runway. "Exit hold short nodes" can be too far without causing problems.
;)
-
I think I've finally figured out the bunching up issue and it does indeed have to do with link width. There are two sides to a hold short node. One solid side and one side with teeth. The teeth should always point to the runway. If the width of the link on the solid side, where AI queue, is set to 1ft, it may trigger the bunching up problem. I say may, because it doesn't appear to affect everyone, my only guess on that, is that the kind of AI aircraft and its FDE (aircraft.cfg + air file) matter. To suppress the hold short marker it suffices to set the width of the link last drawn to or from the hold short node to 1ft. It is not necessary to set the width of the links on both sides to 1ft.
You can simply redraw the link on the runway side to make sure it is last drawn. With widths on both sides set to 100ft, verify the teeth are pointing to the runway. Then set the link on the teeth side to 1ft (leave the other set to 100ft) and the marker should disappear. The marker direction setting of the hold short node does not seem to be relevant, reversed or not, the last drawn link is in control.
Knowing this you can have a normal width on the queue side and still suppress the marker by reducing the width on the runway side.
Interesting, no? ;D
Edit: attached is my Afcad with the above taken into account.
-
Harpsi, your latest file is pretty good. A slight problem in that with the radiuses that global express suggested you can't have any overlap in parking spots otherwise the wings overlap - I needed to reduced the size of Parking 6 - Parking 10. Also the Janet parking spots should be on the west side of the airport, which you have numbered Parking 1-5. There's plenty of room to turn these into larger radius spots. The good news is that I no longer have any GA jets parking at the gates, the bad news is that it's now apparent that there's not enough airline parking! Some overflow parking would be good, as seen in Google Earth.
Well, I read in one post that they should be on the west side. Never mind. It can be changed. There are more than 100 parking positions for GA trrafic. The problem is: I can not figure it out for every user´s traffic... I changed a lot of parking radius so that you can a lot of them with 15, 16 or 18. It should be enough. I will post a new file with these minor changes but after that, unless big changes are needed, I will not post much more, simply because you say that you need 100 parking positions with radius 16 and then, 10 minutes after, there will be another user which needs 120 parking positions with radius 18 and then I have to rework everything again.
Another thing is: I work with Lee Swordy´s tool 2.21 and not with AFX from Flight1. I know that there are some conflicts between them, so be aware of that as well.
Last question: the 1 feet width between hold shord nodes doesn´t affect my scenery or my AI aircraft behaviour at all, so I changed all to 100 feet. With 1 feet width I had no AI traffic.
harpsi
-
What would those conflicts be?
-
Last question: the 1 feet width between hold shord nodes doesn´t affect my scenery or my AI aircraft behaviour at all, so I changed all to 100 feet. With 1 feet width I had no AI traffic.
??? Can you clarify this ? If the 1 ft didn't affect the AI behaviour, why you changed it to 100 ? And, if you don't have AI traffic with 1 ft, that means it DOES affect your AI, doesn't ?
-
Last question: the 1 feet width between hold shord nodes doesn´t affect my scenery or my AI aircraft behaviour at all, so I changed all to 100 feet. With 1 feet width I had no AI traffic.
??? Can you clarify this ? If the 1 ft didn't affect the AI behaviour, why you changed it to 100 ? And, if you don't have AI traffic with 1 ft, that means it DOES affect your AI, doesn't ?
Sorry. I didn´t explain it very good... Before 100 feet width no AI traffic in the airport. After 100 feet width Ai traffic returned...
I give you another example: ESSA from aerosoft. The afcad file was made with AFX and it is stated in the forum that you can not modify the file with afcad tool from Lee Swordy. If you do it, you will have traffic problems, and in fact I tried this before reading the post and problems came. It means you can not modify a file made by AFX using the Lee Swordy´s tool...
harpsi
-
Sorry. I didn´t explain it very good... Before 100 feet width no AI traffic in the airport. After 100 feet width Ai traffic returned...
Have you read my post and, have you tried the AFCAD I've posted there ? Because, I have full AI traffic regardless of that taxi width.
I give you another example: ESSA from aerosoft. The afcad file was made with AFX and it is stated in the forum that you can not modify the file with afcad tool from Lee Swordy. If you do it, you will have traffic problems, and in fact I tried this before reading the post and problems came. It means you can not modify a file made by AFX using the Lee Swordy´s tool...
I don't know what AFX has something to do here: we compile BGL with BGLCOMP. The AFCAD I've posted in the forum is your AFCAD, edited with AFCAD 2.21
-
Have you read my post and, have you tried the AFCAD I've posted there ? Because, I have full AI traffic regardless of that taxi width.
Now, it gets confused... Let me see if I understood: You are trying to say that you still have AI traffic when you use 1 width taxi lines? Is this so? Sorry, I lost something then... Then where is that file you posted with 1 feet width and all traffic? Can I try that one as well?
There is one thing that I didn´t understand: what is the influence of having 1 or 100 feet width in the scenery? Does it matter? I ask this because I don´t have any changes in the scenery at all...
harpsi
-
Now, it gets confused... Let me see if I understood: You are trying to say that you still have AI traffic when you use 1 width taxi lines? Is this so? Sorry, I lost something then... Then where is that file you posted with 1 feet width and all traffic? Can I try that one as well?
Yes, of course, you might have missed the messages posted here:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1770.msg14114#msg14114
That screenshot was taken using one of your AFCAD (the current version at the moment of that post), just changed with links in proximity of hold short zones to 1 ft.
We released the scenery with an AFCAD made like this, I guess that if that affected the AI traffic, we would have had thousands of reports of users losing AI, by now...
There is one thing that I didn´t understand: what is the influence of having 1 or 100 feet width in the scenery? Does it matter? I ask this because I don´t have any changes in the scenery at all...
You should see a difference, that's another strange thing you are having. When the width at an hold zone is set to a normal value, the default hold short marker will be shown. And, this would conflict with the custom hold short zone marker we have in the scenery, because you would see both. By setting the width at the link close to the hold short node to 1 ft, the default marker will not be drawn anymore.
Now, there's still something that is not 100% clear, is if setting the width on *both* sides of the hold short marker to 1 ft makes any difference on AI behaviour. It doesn't on my machine, using the AFCAD I've posted on that thread. However, Mike says he sees AI bunching up at hold short zones, if the width is set to 1 ft to both sides of the marker. But, perhaps, this happens with his AFCAD only, because he removed the Aprons, that sets the surface type and act as a flatten as well, and are needed because we don't have real "taxiway" links to set the surface type, only "apron links", so this *might* have an effect on the AI behviour at the hold short zones.
I don't see such issues with my AFCAD but, if setting the width to 1 ft only to one side of the marker it's enough to get rid of the default hold short marker, so be it...
-
Hi
Ok. Now I understood:
1. I don´t see any default hold short markers with width set at 100. This is maybe what you find strange but in fact, it happens to me.
2. With the width set to 1 feet I don´t have traffic landing and takeing off from KLAS.
We released the scenery with an AFCAD made like this, I guess that if that affected the AI traffic, we would have had thousands of reports of users losing AI, by now...
Strange or not that´s what happened here before.
harpsi
-
But, perhaps, this happens with his AFCAD only, because he removed the Aprons
See a couple posts back, I had reincorporated the aprons back into my Afcad. Still I was able to reproduce the bunching up consistently. In any case, my Afcad now conforms to your design choices completely, no bunching up, supressed markers, so I'm happy.
I give you another example: ESSA from aerosoft. The afcad file was made with AFX and it is stated in the forum that you can not modify the file with afcad tool from Lee Swordy. If you do it, you will have traffic problems, and in fact I tried this before reading the post and problems came. It means you can not modify a file made by AFX using the Lee Swordy´s tool...
It's not so much the true Afcad it self, the airport data, but what other elements editors support. AFX supports exclusion rectangles, which Afcad may not and remove. But on the other hand, AFX may strip out elements (it warns you about that though) it does not like. In case of ESSA, I think there was also approach data included in the Afcad and that should never be done, no matter what the Afcad editor supports. Approach data goes in a separate file and is placed in a different folder. Either way, it is best to use one editor for a certain Afcad, whichever editor that may be.
-
Harpsi I'd like to add one more tid bit of info here. Some airliners aren't parking right up to the gate, their back farther in their parking spots than they should be. Moved up a little closer to the parking stand at the terminals would look allot better for aircraft parked at the various gates. Please note not all gates have the problem of aircraft sitting farther back from their parking stands than they should be...
-
Harpsi,
I find your last KLAS AFCAD seems to be working very well for me. I did notice that you have not placed the parking for EG&G’s (a.k.a. Janet) terminal. I made some small changes to your AFCAD to implement dedicated parking for “Janet” AI at “Parking 1 through 10”. Since most available “Janet” AI packages use JAN as their parking code I chose to use that as well. I have been able to change the parking spaces so that parked 737 won’t cross wings in the scenery. Please note that the spaces do overlap in the AFCAD but as I said before not in the sim.
Changes that were made:
Parking 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were changed to parking type “Gate Small” with a radius of 101.7 ft. and given the parking code of JAN for the “Janet” 737s
Parking 7 and 9 were changed to parking type “Ramp GA Small” with a radius of 32.8 ft. and given the parking code of JAN to preclude any other AI from parking in these two spots.
I have attached the AFCAD in a zip.
-
Hi all
Let my try to explain, what's the sense of this 1ft taxiways at the holding-points is. I did this the same way in the Geneva AFCAD because it was the only way to hide the AFCAD-Hold-Short-Bars, which was visible trough the transparent surface of the taxiway. Due to the design-style of fsdt, the taxiways and aprons are transparent surfaces in the FS9. The 1ft twy have no influence to the AI-Traffic, but hides the Stop-Bar.
But maybe it is not completely without problems. I read about the AI-Planes which bunching up at the holding-point and I had the same problem here. I believe that the smaller twy allows a smaller distance between Aircrafts in a queue. If the twy is only 1ft wide, the distance between the AI-aircrafts is so small, that they bunching up on the holding-point. But I have found a way to eliminate this problem in the AFCAD-file.
Btw I renewed the whole file with AFX to match the twy-lines, the parking positions, add parking spots, etc...
Except the crossing-runways I did the following in detail:
- bunching up of planes at the holding point eliminated (here in my installation. I hope it works also in your's. Please report)
- all missplaced parking positions corrected (much positions was too far from the Gates)
- all missplaced twy line corrected
- missplaced parking-spot approaches corrected
- added a lot of GA-parking spots
- added some remote parking spots for airliners like they nearly are in real
- airlines assignements added
- missed twy-line north and west of terminal D added (of course they are not like the other ones in the scenery)
- and a lot of small things...
Please note, that the remote parking spots in real normally are used for aircrafts which have a longer turn around time until her next flights. In real, the most of this spots have no Number or any thing like that. But in FS it is necessary to give a number, so that I assigned them with a maximal logical number.
Please note also, that this is a separate file of that one harpsi made. Save your current file first, before you overwrite it with this one.
Find it here: www.airliners.ch/AFX/AF2_KLAS.zip (http://www.airliners.ch/AFX/AF2_KLAS.zip)
If sombody need the crossing-runways for use at the same time, please let me now.
Mike
-
Harpsi,
I find your last KLAS AFCAD seems to be working very well for me. I did notice that you have not placed the parking for EG&G’s (a.k.a. Janet) terminal. I made some small changes to your AFCAD to implement dedicated parking for “Janet” AI at “Parking 1 through 10”. Since most available “Janet” AI packages use JAN as their parking code I chose to use that as well. I have been able to change the parking spaces so that parked 737 won’t cross wings in the scenery. Please note that the spaces do overlap in the AFCAD but as I said before not in the sim.
Changes that were made:
Parking 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were changed to parking type “Gate Small” with a radius of 101.7 ft. and given the parking code of JAN for the “Janet” 737s
Parking 7 and 9 were changed to parking type “Ramp GA Small” with a radius of 32.8 ft. and given the parking code of JAN to preclude any other AI from parking in these two spots.
I have attached the AFCAD in a zip.
Sorry, now I understand where JNT parking is. I will try to fix this as well, but anyway, now there are lot of small things running on, that I will try some more things based on users comments and then, in a few days maybe I have another file. Let me read everything carefully and think about this as well. I don´t need to hurry because "my" file and the file from Mike as well are more than enough for now and both are good. So, let me try to mix all the information from all posts because they are now a lot and a new file will come, with a lot of new things or not.
harpsi
-
MikeS , I would like to have crossing-runways for use at the same time ! had and old afcad one for the old FS9 LAS scenery , all 4 runways where in used for landings and takeoffs at the same time ! it was cool to watch and worked out good for me thanks MIKE
-
wow really difficult stay on top of things with so many AFCADs, so many versions, which one has crosswinds, which on has solved GA Parking problems? Perhaps someone can clarify.
-
hey kölner,
i´m very much on your side.
i have no idea which afcad to take and which one to leave.
harpsi, please help us.
best wishes,
sören
-
Meanwhile I'm lost as well.
Perhaps we need some kind of AFCAD download section or -thread with a short description which AFCAD does what exactly. I know, harpsi suggested to put everything in one thread, but although discussion about these files is necessary it makes the threads a little confusing when it comes to the question which file to chose.
-
Hi all
Yes, I know it's a little bit confusing about this different AFCAD Files. What I can say is, if you use harpsi's, you can't go wrong with it for sure. He made already the crossing runways for use at the same time and he'll correct all the small other things for sure. What I don't know is, if he solved the "bunching up" problem at the holding points too!?
Mine one above is finished so far except the crossing runways (star-methode), which I'll include this days. Maybe there can be some improvements with the airline-assignements. Please report if you find some issues about that. But this is a simple issue which theoretical all of you can simply change with AFX (or Lee Swordy's AFCAD Tool). I use only AFX for AFCAD-works, because it is compatible with FS9 and FSX. But it's not for free of course...
What I have forgotten to say (in my posting above) is, that I added also a lot of missing heavy gates there, where is enough place for it (no conflicts with neighbor-gates).
Conclusion: No need to feel lost. Both AFCADs (harpsi's or mine) are on the same way. You can use one of this and you can be sure it is much better than the original one! ;)
Best regards
Mike
-
What I don't know is, if he solved the "bunching up" problem at the holding points too!?
As I've said already, this problem doens't happen, both with one of the Harpsi files, and both with mine, which is the same as Harpsi, just with the hold short links widths set to 1 ft, and yes, I've tested both at 4x acceleration AND at 1x, checked for about 1 hour, seen hundreds of take-offs, with WOAI models, not a single one stacked into each other, they all flow normally.
-
Conclusion: No need to feel lost. Both AFCADs (harpsi's or mine) are on the same way. You can use one of this and you can be sure it is much better than the original one! ;)
OK, I'll trust you... :)
Thanks for clarification!
-
Yes, I know it's a little bit confusing about this different AFCAD Files. What I can say is, if you use harpsi's, you can't go wrong with it for sure. He made already the crossing runways for use at the same time and he'll correct all the small other things for sure. What I don't know is, if he solved the "bunching up" problem at the holding points too!?
I still don´t unbderstand this point, because with taxiways width of 100 feet, everything looks exactly the same as with 1 feet, except the fact that no landings or takeoffs happen. Maybe someone can clarify me why it happens with all sceneries and not on mine...
harpsi
-
I still don´t unbderstand this point, because with taxiways width of 100 feet, everything looks exactly the same as with 1 feet, except the fact that no landings or takeoffs happen. Maybe someone can clarify me why it happens with all sceneries and not on mine.
I have no idea why it doesn't work for you.
The scenery does not look the same because, with taxiway width at the hold short zone (not all taxiways) at 100 ft, the default hold short markings pops out, and they disappear with the width set to 1 ft. And, with the width set to 1 ft, I still see plenty of AI landing and taking off, without any problems.
The only thing which is not 100% sure, if is putting the width to 1 ft on both sides or not has an effect on AI stacking into each other (or "bunching up", whatever one might want to call that).
It doesn't here but, as long as the double hold short disappear, that's fine with me so, it might just be safer to set 1 ft only on one side.
-
Hi Umberto
I totally agree with your statement. I have a superb AI-Traffic with this 1ft twy at the holding Point with the good side effekt, that the AFCAD-Holding-bars are not visible. That's what we did in geneva too where it worked also perfectly.
Harpsi, did you try my file? (Just for testing of course ;) ) Do you have also no AI-Traffic with mine one? May it be possible, that this happen why you use Lee Swordy's AFCAD?
Maybe you should use AFX from now on. Lee's tool is too old. Please remember, that fsdt designing for FSX and convert the scenery down to FS2004. I'm sure that Swordy's tool is not able to handle this files.
-
Harpsi, did you try my file? (Just for testing of course ;) ) Do you have also no AI-Traffic with mine one? May it be possible, that this happen why you use Lee Swordy's AFCAD?
Maybe you should use AFX from now on. Lee's tool is too old. Please remember, that fsdt designing for FSX and convert the scenery down to FS2004. I'm sure that Swordy's tool is not able to handle this files.
I onlt have Lee Swordy´s tool. It is enough for all my changes and I never had problems with that... Maybe that´s why I see no changes between 1 or 100 feet width. Could be?
harpsi
-
I onlt have Lee Swordy´s tool. It is enough for all my changes and I never had problems with that... Maybe that´s why I see no changes between 1 or 100 feet width. Could be?
With your file, made with AFCAD, I can see double hold short zones. And with the version that I've edited, with AFCAD as well, I don't see them anymore.
This, regarding to the double hold short zones. With regards to the AI bunching up, I don't see them in any case.
-
Hi virtuali
Photo 1 > width = 100 feet
Photo 2 > width = 1 feet
As you see, both are equal... Is this what you mean?
harpsi
-
This is what I can see here, and it's what is supposed to happen. First one is with 100 ft, 2nd with 1ft, it's your file, edited with AFCAD and saved back.
As I've said, I don't know why it doesn't make any difference to you, but it's very well known that, in order to get rid of the default hold short zone in FS9, you need to set the taxiway linked to the hold short zone to 1 ft.
-
As I've said, I don't know why it doesn't make any difference to you...
I don´t know either... ;D ;D ;D
But believe me, if would have seen that problem I would see it imediately. Then, it means that I am lucky... I don´t know why...
harpsi
-
I see a few different AFCAD's attached to some of the posts here. Which one is the most current one with the crossing runways active?
Jim
-
I see a few different AFCAD's attached to some of the posts here. Which one is the most current one with the crossing runways active?
Jim
With crosswind runways? First page, first post.
harpsi
-
I see a few different AFCAD's attached to some of the posts here. Which one is the most current one with the crossing runways active?
Jim
With crosswind runways? First page, first post.
harpsi
Harpsi,
Sorry, I'm confused about this too. What is the difference between yours and MikeS, than?
-
Thank you!
-
Sorry, I'm confused about this too. What is the difference between yours and MikeS, than?
Take a look into the first posting on page 6 of this thread (reply #75). I have listed there all the points I changed (based on the original fsdt File). Everything is done in this file, except the crossing runways. This feature I'll include one of the next days. I'm currently a little bit busy.
Harpsi's File has already the crossing runways included, but otherwise it still needs some things to do which are already done in mine. So, take that one you prefer or wait a few days until mine is completely finished.
-
Sorry, I'm confused about this too. What is the difference between yours and MikeS, than?
Take a look into the first posting on page 6 of this thread (reply #75). I have listed there all the points I changed (based on the original fsdt File). Everything is done in this file, except the crossing runways. This feature I'll include one of the next days. I'm currently a little bit busy.
Harpsi's File has already the crossing runways included, but otherwise it still needs some things to do which are already done in mine. So, take that one you prefer or wait a few days until mine is completely finished.
Mike I've been testing out your file here and I find it to be spot on. All the GA park in the locations they are supposed to and traffic around KLAS performs outstandingly well with how you have things arranged. This current file is great as is without the need for crossing runways. I find now I get properly vectored to runway 19R or 25L upon approach to the airport versus the phantom 22L I was getting with Harpsi's file (no disrespect to Harpsi as his offering is great as well minus the aforementioned problem and BBJ's parking at the FedEx/UPS/Cargo hangers). Maybe a double release is in order Mike... One for those wanting crossing runways and this current file.
For the record what advantage does crossing runways have outside of causing ATC to vector me to runways/locations that don't exist??? ???
-
Hi
Dillon, I didn´t have time yet to change this minor things as I have no time in this days. Maybe in the weekend, I hope.
harpsi
-
Mike I've been testing out your file here and I find it to be spot on. All the GA park in the locations they are supposed to and traffic around KLAS performs outstandingly well with how you have things arranged. This current file is great as is without the need for crossing runways. I find now I get properly vectored to runway 19R or 25L upon approach to the airport versus the phantom 22L I was getting with Harpsi's file (no disrespect to Harpsi as his offering is great as well minus the aforementioned problem and BBJ's parking at the FedEx/UPS/Cargo hangers). Maybe a double release is in order Mike... One for those wanting crossing runways and this current file.
For the record what advantage does crossing runways have outside of causing ATC to vector me to runways/locations that don't exist??? ???
Hi Dillon
Thanks for your statement. Yes, for myself I don't need crossing runways too, due to this frightful and unrealistic reel off of runways... ;)
The Problems with the BBJs parking at Cargo positions in Harpsi's file could also happen in mine if there are no more free GA spots left in the specific size.
Let me try to explain why: BBJ Planes are designated as "Ramp" or "Ramp-GA". In a AFCAD-file, GA-parking spots are designated as "RAMP-GA", "RAMP-GA-Large" or "*-small" etc... Cargo Parking-Spots are designated as "RAMP-Cargo". A Cargo-AI-Plane is normally designated as ""Cargo" or "Cargo, RAMP". If a Plane like a BBJ is searching for a matching parking spot, it searches for the designation "RAMP" and "GA". This will it find in the Parking-position "RAMP-GA" but it will find also "RAMP" in "RAMP-Cargo". If there are not "GA" designated spots left, it will take the "RAMP" which he'll find in "RAMP-Cargo" designated spots. It's a little bit tricky, I know, but I hope you understand now why this can happen.
But there should be enough spots for BBJ's I guess. If not, I can add more.
-
Mike I think you've nailed it already in regards to the BBJ spots. I emailed Harpsi on this but it would be outstanding if one of you could help me with another location. Blueprint's CYYZ AFCAD is in serious need of more GA spots. This is something better taken offline as I can send you my already modified file. It won't be as much work as KLAS as I've done most of the work myself, it's just I don't know how to add the extra GA spots needed. KLAS and CYYZ are the only airports I've seen that needed that little extra care in the AFCAD because of the nature in how the airports are designed. I think we've all done a great job with KLAS's afcad and hopefully I can get some help with CYYZ.
Thanks in advance...
Next is KFLL and hopefully KDFW for all of us... ;)
-
GA parking is easy as anything else in AFCAD: Click the parking button, click the screen where you want to add it, set the properties of the parking space, then all parking spot additions that follow will match those parameters. Then you simply connect the parking spots with taxi lanes.
-
Hi
A new file is in the first post. I added some parking positions and changed others. JNT codes are now in the west side of the airport as well. Try this one and comment. Anyway the file from Mike is also a good one with a different "parking" approach in the west side of the airport. Anyway, I think that this question of parking positions depends from the traffic each one uses. I added a lot of stands, but I can not add more 100 or 200 stands, just because one user decides to use a lot of Ga traffic. I think that 110 parking positions which include the JNT ones, the cargo stands and a few military spots is more than enough to handle all Ga traffic.
One more note: since a lot of users have the problem of the default taxi widths, I changed all the necessary ones to 1 feet. I don´t have that problem but since there are a lot of users with it, I changed widths just fit all tastes and faced problems.
harpsi
-
Harpsi,
Thanks a lot for your efforts to provide us with an optimised AFCAD. To avoid any misunderstanding with the different versions on this thread, could you upload the latest version ?
-
Yes--thanks for all the work on the AFCAD. Just a note for future AFCAD's, the new ICAO code for USAirways is AWE. They kept the America West code after the merger.----------------Jim
-
But the flightplans such as those from AIG are still using USA. Perhaps using both AWE and USA is the best comprimise for now.
-
Hi
A new file is in the first post. I added some parking positions and changed others. JNT codes are now in the west side of the airport as well. Try this one and comment. Anyway the file from Mike is also a good one with a different "parking" approach in the west side of the airport. Anyway, I think that this question of parking positions depends from the traffic each one uses. I added a lot of stands, but I can not add more 100 or 200 stands, just because one user decides to use a lot of Ga traffic. I think that 110 parking positions which include the JNT ones, the cargo stands and a few military spots is more than enough to handle all Ga traffic.
One more note: since a lot of users have the problem of the default taxi widths, I changed all the necessary ones to 1 feet. I don´t have that problem but since there are a lot of users with it, I changed widths just fit all tastes and faced problems.
harpsi
Harpsi you've done some outstanding work with the various FSDT sceneries and it's amazing you do this stuff for free. I say the same thing for Mike more so looking at his latest version of the KLAS afcad (which doesn't contain crossing runways) is so spot on it's hard to choose between the two. I've flown more that a few approaches with Mikes AFCAD and I'm finding I really like the file all around. Everything from the vectors into the airport to the GA parking and accurate airline gates it's hard to choose between the Harpsi file and his. Harpsi does your latest file have crossing runways included which I find more than not vector me to phantom runways (22R/L) that are no where near the actual airport? Also does an afcad affect the vectored approach pattern into an airport? The approach into KLAS seems modified compared to sceneries I've had of KLAS in the past. Mike's last file really hit the nail on the head and I hope whichever one FSDT decides to officially include in their product the other Afcad get's uploaded on sites like Flightsim.com and Avsim. Both of you guys need a paycheck for your efforts here... ;)
-
Hi
My file has crosswind runways from the beginning.
About phantoms, well, I never got them if you are talking about AI traffic... If you are talking about your own aircraft, I must say that I don´t fly seriously for more than 3 years... I just work on these little things like sceneries for FSDT because I don´t have time to fly. Maybe you can test yourself and tell me what you think. :)
For the rest feel free to choose one of the two files. The latest version is already in the first post.
harpsi
-
Harpsi people like you are amazing. You can put together such outstanding work and never test it out much less fly in the sim. I'm busy these days myself flying in the real world so I don't have time to test but I do get plenty of sim time in. FS9 is amazing for practicing when one can't get up in the real plane. Anyway if I have some time I'll see if I spot the same issue I saw before otherwise Mike's file this time around has impressed me enough to use it until I have some extra time. :)
-
Harpsi people like you are amazing. You can put together such outstanding work and never test it out much less fly in the sim. I'm busy these days myself flying in the real world so I don't have time to test but I do get plenty of sim time in. FS9 is amazing for practicing when one can't get up in the real plane. Anyway if I have some time I'll see if I spot the same issue I saw before otherwise Mike's file this time around has impressed me enough to use it until I have some extra time. :)
Tks for your nice words. I really can´t test it more. At this moment I am even writing on a cyber cafe because I don´t have internet at time for some days, because of a problem on the telephone line. So, if people are happy with the file posted in the first post, great. If someone thinks it needs more adjustments, i will try to do something in a few days. However I think that at this moment we are getting two good files and the afcad work is getting stable. You can choose between both files. :)
harpsi
-
I am uploading an edited AFCAD from MikeS all I did was adjusted the parking to reflect the current parking at McCarran I opted to assign Alligant to D1-D14 to keep them from parking at GA and Cargo locations since D5-D14 are shut down (until someone moves to them maybe US Airway since they do not need all the gate space anymore over at A & B). I also closed 25R to landing aircraft and kept 25R for departures to help the backup on the ground you can always uncheck close 25R if you want.
Enjoy
Sean