FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Chicago O'Hare for FS9 => Topic started by: harpsi on March 16, 2008, 01:05:08 am
-
Hi all,
After several hours of work, I have the complete package for KORD.
1. There are 3 files with a little readme inside.
2. As you can imagine, all 3 files are intended to be used with a certain wind setting. If you don´t set the winds for the specific file in use, you will have strange operations like arrivals on 32R or 04L for example.
3. As you already know, I don´t know KORD. I have never been in the USA as well. I did those files with all your inputs about airline assignements, technics in use for afcad and others.
4. You will find some incorrect assigments for sure. For these and other issues, PLEASE POST ONLY HERE from now on.
Thanks you for all your inputs. I am sure that this work is never completed and improved afcad files will come to make this KORD scenery as real as it gets.
harpsi
-
ok harpsi, you fixed the aircraft going on top of one another and the AA airline terminal is fixed, but i had about 40 aircrafts all lining up one runway...... They were landing the same runway plus one other runway, but just taking off on one...i used plan B.......should i choose another AF2, like A or C??
-
Hi
I already found the problem because I am seeing it on my FS as well. It occurs with plans B and X. In order to do the crosswind star system I need to rename to runways: 14L/32R needs to be 32R/14L and 14R/32L needs to be 32L/14R. With this, ILS must also be renamed, but the problem is that I can´t delete the stock ILS. If you go to the navaids option, you will see two ILS for 14L and also two for 14R. 2 of them must be renamed into 32L and 32R. When I can sort it out I will post new files. It is just a little change, but maybe an .xml file will be needed... I have to wait for some answers. If you use file W you don´t have this problem because there were no runways renamed. Did you find any more issues?
harpsi
-
Nope, everything else looks great!!! So if i use file W, the parking codes and everything like that will be just like B?
-
Hi
In these minutes I think I solved it. Let me try first. For now use file W when I try to test the other two. I just need 30 minutes to see where the traffic goes.
About your question: yes, all files have the same parking specs. Only runways are changing and some parts of runways or taxiways are not shown depending on what we want.
harpsi
-
Harpsi I'm having a problem with how your approaching this. For those of us that use real weather (ActiveSky 6 for example), the weather conditions can change at the destination while en route (say from KMSP to KORD). We need one single Afcad that can handle everything. Having certain Afcads for certain wind directions is a little cumbersom to say the least. If my weather conditions were static I'd be happy as a clam but dynamic weather is a whole other animal. For FS9 to take into account a new Afcad would mean restarting FS9 with each wind course change at the destination airport. That's not a viable solution for an international airport where for example my flight can originate at EHAM and end at KORD... :(
-
Hi
The files are now ready and working. Two values from two fake runways were wrong for 2 files. That´s why it was not working. Now, it should be OK. There is one thing it can not be solved: to eliminate landings on runway 32 R. I decided not to close the runway at all. For those who want the runway closed for all operations, you can edit the afcad for yourselves.
Sorry, Dillion, but this issue has also been discussed: you have to choose between almost 100 % real life files with several afcads to simulate everything, or you just choose one of them at your choice, but then you will have landings where there should be take offs only and the opposite way arround. The problem is: one single afcad plus 100 % real operations is not possible. This is just a game... not real simulator. That one costs thousand million dollars/euros. ;D
harpsi
-
Trafficlook at KORD with plan X.
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Fair enough Harpsi... ;)
For the record (and you might be surprised), Plan 'W' is what happens at KORD most of the time. Of the many flights I have flown into KORD I've usually landed on runways 27L/R. I love the 9R takeoff although I've never done it in the real world... To takeoff with the Chicago skyline over to the right is great as you make that right turn headed for KLAX (CLS DC10 Fedex cargo flight). I guess that's all in the wind now as my choice has to be Plan 'W' from your sets... :)
-
Just checked out Plan 'W' and for the most part it looks good. Those pesky American Airlines planes still don't want to park at their perspective terminals. Now there's an AA MD80 parking in the cargo area just east of the International terminal. The area just west of the rent a car area (I'm guessing this is for military and/or corporate parking) is now the parking area for a few American Airlines 757's. I know this must be frustrating for you Harpsi but overall there's a huge improvement. Now if you can get those last few AA holdouts to park where their supposed to park you'd be finished here.
Again great work... ;)
-
Just checked out Plan 'W' and for the most part it looks good. Those pesky American Airlines planes still don't want to park at their perspective terminals. Now there's an AA MD80 parking in the cargo area just east of the International terminal. The area just west of the rent a car area (I'm guessing this is for military and/or corporate parking) is now the parking area for a few American Airlines 757's. I know this must be frustrating for you Harpsi but overall there's a huge improvement. Now if you can get those last few AA holdouts to park where their supposed to park you'd be finished here.
Again great work... ;)
This was one of the things which took me several hours. That´s why I uploaded the files "so late". In my simulator, I got rid of AAL; DAL and UAL parked at areas outside the areas where they should be normally parked. And believe me, I have almost all the airline, GA, military packages available. Maybe you can edit it, according to your own codes. That depends also on what your aircraft assignements are. Anyway I can look at it again with more testing, because it is possible that someone finds more issues which means new files for download, since this work is never completed.
harpsi
-
This is going to sound silly, but where can I download these new AFCAD's? ???
-
May I suggest you post the link to the download in the first post. I had to dig through the entire topic to find the download.
-
May I suggest you post the link to the download in the first post. I had to dig through the entire topic to find the download.
It is there :)
You know that maybe some users will find mistakes and that´s why the files are going to be improved if we can do even better.
harpsi
-
Dillon, if you use ActiveSky, you could disable automatic updates, so you know what the weather will be like at the destination airport. That'll allow you to activate the proper Afcad. I only use one Afcad for KORD, but at several airports, I use two or even three. Especially at airports with one-way runways. Although not entirely realistic, KORD can work well without the need for multiple Afcads. My set-up uses three take-off and three landing runways at all times. Same as with the old SF scenery. I have a flight planned from KIAD to KORD in a United 763, should be sweet.
Harpsi, if you want a runway x/y to become y/x, you shouldn't need to tinker with ILS info. Unless the info was changed from the stock info. I have done this "runway flipping" at several airports and I've developed a fail-safe routine. Display Navaids, try and delete a navaid for a runway end, if available. If it tells you stock info can't be deleted, fine. If It "deletes" user modications and reverts back to stock settings, undo, then screen capture the properties of that navaid for later reference. Do this for both ends.
Then capture the properties of the runway in question. Then delete the runway. Then re-insert it, but "flip" all info. So if the base end was x, make the new base y, do this for all info. Markings, lights if applicable, etc... After you've re-inserted the runway, the navaids should already be linked to the proper ends. If you had to capture any ILS info, go into the properties of that ILS and make changes to reflect that capture. After that, the runway will be exactly the same and fully functional, except that the reciprocal end is now the base end.
It sounds like a lot of work, but as you know, it can be very helpful to recreate certain runway configurations.
-
Dillon, if you use ActiveSky, you could disable automatic updates, so you know what the weather will be like at the destination airport. That'll allow you to activate the proper Afcad. I only use one Afcad for KORD, but at several airports, I use two or even three. Especially at airports with one-way runways. Although not entirely realistic, KORD can work well without the need for multiple Afcads. My set-up uses three take-off and three landing runways at all times. Same as with the old SF scenery. I have a flight planned from KIAD to KORD in a United 763, should be sweet.
Harpsi, if you want a runway x/y to become y/x, you shouldn't need to tinker with ILS info. Unless the info was changed from the stock info. I have done this "runway flipping" at several airports and I've developed a fail-safe routine. Display Navaids, try and delete a navaid for a runway end, if available. If it tells you stock info can't be deleted, fine. If It "deletes" user modications and reverts back to stock settings, undo, then screen capture the properties of that navaid for later reference. Do this for both ends.
Then capture the properties of the runway in question. Then delete the runway. Then re-insert it, but "flip" all info. So if the base end was x, make the new base y, do this for all info. Markings, lights if applicable, etc... After you've re-inserted the runway, the navaids should already be linked to the proper ends. If you had to capture any ILS info, go into the properties of that ILS and make changes to reflect that capture. After that, the runway will be exactly the same and fully functional, except that the reciprocal end is now the base end.
It sounds like a lot of work, but as you know, it can be very helpful to recreate certain runway configurations.
That´s what I did. I just deleted and configuration was reverted. :)
harpsi
-
In my FS9 I have not changed several setting like wind, I usually rely on the afcad which comes with the (add-on) sceneries.
Which new afcad is best suited for my KORD, or should I wait until you altered the files because of the suggestions which have been posted on the Forum.
Another small question, I think I noticed two M1 gates on the scenery.
This doed not distract me from the great scenery.
A special thanks Harpsi for all your effort in making replacement AFCAD's.
Henry
-
In my FS9 I have not changed several setting like wind, I usually rely on the afcad which comes with the (add-on) sceneries.
Which new afcad is best suited for my KORD, or should I wait until you altered the files because of the suggestions which have been posted on the Forum.
Another small question, I think I noticed two M1 gates on the scenery.
This doed not distract me from the great scenery.
A special thanks Harpsi for all your effort in making replacement AFCAD's.
Henry
Two M1 gates? Or 2 M1 taxiways?
Well, the best afcad is difficult to say. They are intended to be used dependent on the wind settings. Let´s say that plan_X is used almost 40 % of the time in real life, so if you use this one maybe it is better. I have the following:
a) Open FS >>> load aircraft and scenery plus weather addon or FS weather >>> if the file is not suitable for that weather, change file to the appropriate one >>> Open FS and load aircraft and scenery again
or
b) Go to a webpage with real weather, or go to vatsim website to see the weather at KORD >>> choose the best file according to the weather you have >>> Open FS and load aircraft and scenery
With the second option, you just open FS one time. If you are departing from KORD, it is no problem. If you are landing at KORD, specially after an 8 hour flight, well, it might be possible that the weather has changed during your flight and the suitable file is not the one you have chosen in the beginning. It is no problem. Just the fact that you would see landings where TO should occur, and TO where landings should occur.
harpsi
-
Hi all,
I decided to get back to work ;D ;D ;D and I added plan R (called plan Rodney) which means that I uploaded a new complete package. This file has a third different way to configure the star system, which means that you have now 4 files with 3 ways to configure the star system. There are two files which work in the same way but runways in use are different. In this one, used more or less 5 % of the time at KORD, departure runways are 09R, 14L and 22L and arrival runways are 10, 14R and 22R. I added some simple issues like some curved taxiway lines missing, and the entrance from the west at runway 32L (T10) because it was missing in one of the files, for cargo aircrafts that entrance runway 32L from the west side.
Some people asked what file should they use if they want to keep just one, let´s say "forever". Well, it is always difficult to say, but concerning that plan_X is used 40 % of time and more time than the others, I would use this one. All files are intended to be used dependent on the wind settings. I normally do the following:
a) Open FS >>> load aircraft and scenery plus weather addon or FS weather >>> if the file is not suitable for that weather, change file to the appropriate one >>> Open FS and load aircraft and scenery again
or
b) Go to a webpage with real weather, or go to vatsim website to see the weather at KORD >>> choose the best file according to the weather you have >>> Open FS and load aircraft and scenery
With the second option, you just open FS one time. If you are departing from KORD, it is no problem. If you are landing at KORD, specially after an 8 hour flight, well, it might be possible that the weather has changed during your flight and the suitable file is not the one you have chosen in the beginning. It is no problem. Just the fact that you would see landings where TO should occur, and TO where landings should occur.
The file to download is available in the first post of this thread.
I hope you like them and please feel free to add your comments. ;D
harpsi
-
I usually get into the habit of fault finding the AFCAD with the AFCAD program I have and all of these AFCAD'S have a number of problems that are highlighted. These sometimes can contribute to crashes, although in a number of cases it appears the check is indicating there is no link between several of the taxi-ways and hold short nodes. Not sure if this is part of the development of the AFCAD so that certain planes do certain things, but there are a large number of "faults" in each of the AFCAD'S. Sometimes, they are easy to fix, but with these I don't want to start messing around until I'm sure I can. Do you use the "fault finder" built into AFCAD to check things out at the end. Gotta say, impressive job you are doing nonetheless. Keep it up.
John Haley
Thunder Bay
-
I usually get into the habit of fault finding the AFCAD with the AFCAD program I have and all of these AFCAD'S have a number of problems that are highlighted. These sometimes can contribute to crashes, although in a number of cases it appears the check is indicating there is no link between several of the taxi-ways and hold short nodes. Not sure if this is part of the development of the AFCAD so that certain planes do certain things, but there are a large number of "faults" in each of the AFCAD'S. Sometimes, they are easy to fix, but with these I don't want to start messing around until I'm sure I can. Do you use the "fault finder" built into AFCAD to check things out at the end. Gotta say, impressive job you are doing nonetheless. Keep it up.
John Haley
Thunder Bay
Yes, I use fault finder. Let me show you that it has no faults. Just as an example, plan R and plan X. First check, then post...
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Nice job on the AFCAD Harpsi!I use plan x and it is the basic config I see at
ORD almost daily. as for the AA 757s that were talked about earlier. here is where we have been putting them in real life.these gates should have radius to support widebody acft.757 767......K-5, K-7 K-11, K-13, H-8 H-12 H-15. K-19, L-8, K-16 and K-12 can also support 777 acft.within the last week we have started to put 757s on K-8 too though this seems to be a rarity.
Stan
-
You've probably mention it somewhere Harpsi but for the life of me I can't find it.
I've just installed Plan X into KORD and started FS. Why is rwy 32L not starting where it should beside the Cargo area? It starts after the crossing runway, is it because of this?
You can see it in the second pic you posted above
-
Nice job on the AFCAD Harpsi!I use plan x and it is the basic config I see at
ORD almost daily. as for the AA 757s that were talked about earlier. here is where we have been putting them in real life.these gates should have radius to support widebody acft.757 767......K-5, K-7 K-11, K-13, H-8 H-12 H-15. K-19, L-8, K-16 and K-12 can also support 777 acft.within the last week we have started to put 757s on K-8 too though this seems to be a rarity.
Stan
Hi
Tks for your nice words. I can check those gates naturally, but what I see is that maybe the lenghts of aircrafts and wings can not be transported exactly from real life. I was measuring almost every gate with all types of aircrafts. For example, there are gates at concourse C which I thought: this is for boeing 747. But when you put 2 boeing 747 or even one 777 plus one 747, wings have colisions. That was almost 16 hours work non-stop. Of course we can improve even more. I will take notes from this. If you have more issues, please post here. :)
harpsi
-
I've just installed the 'W' plan and it seems all AA birds are parking at the B concourse which seems to be for United mostly. The labels on the scenery indicate they should be at H and K which right now are basically empty.
-
You've probably mention it somewhere Harpsi but for the life of me I can't find it.
I've just installed Plan X into KORD and started FS. Why is rwy 32L not starting where it should beside the Cargo area? It starts after the crossing runway, is it because of this?
You can see it in the second pic you posted above
That was made with intention. In real life (plan X and plan W) aircrafts depart from runway 32L via taxiway T10, and this runway is only used for takeoffs. That´s why I cut 1/3 of the runway. :P You can see that plan R and plan B have complete runways because it is not 32L in use but 14R.
harpsi
-
I've just installed the 'W' plan and it seems all AA birds are parking at the B concourse which seems to be for United mostly. The labels on the scenery indicate they should be at H and K which right now are basically empty.
As you see here in the image you can see AAL at G (eagle), H (MDs) and K (the 767 is there in the picture). ARe you sure you have all the assignements correct for your aircrafts?
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Weird. I wonder if it's because I'm using this AFX program instead of the oldest version of AFCAD, when I check X version I have a lot of faults, here's just one of about 40 problems in the X version. Maybe I will download the old version of AFCAD and try again. Obviously, there's a problem somewhere. Thanks for the post just the same
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Weird. I wonder if it's because I'm using this AFX program instead of the oldest version of AFCAD, when I check X version I have a lot of faults, here's just one of about 40 problems in the X version. Maybe I will download the old version of AFCAD and try again. Obviously, there's a problem somewhere. Thanks for the post just the same
AFX is for FSX? You can not use anything for FSX here. These afcads are ONLY for FS 9 and I use the afcad tool, version 2.21 from Lee Swordy. It never gives me problems.
harpsi
-
As you see here in the image you can see AAL at G (eagle), H (MDs) and K (the 767 is there in the picture). ARe you sure you have all the assignements correct for your aircrafts?
harpsi
I am sure:
[fltsim.7]
title=AIA MD_82_AMERICAN AIRLINES CONE
sim=aia_MD_8X
model=cone_no_refl
panel=
sound=
texture=American_CONE
atc_id=
atc_airline=American
atc_flight_number=1208
ui_manufacturer=AI
ui_type=McDonnell Douglas MD-88
ui_variation=AMERICAN AIRLINES Cone tail
description=AIA MD_82 AMERICAN AIRLINES Cone tail
atc_id_color=0x00000000
visual_damage=0
atc_heavy=0
atc_parking_codes=AAL
atc_parking_types=GATE
[fltsim.8]
title=AIA MD_82_AMERICAN AIRLINES SD
sim=aia_MD_8X
model=SD_no_refl
panel=
sound=
texture=American_SD
atc_id=
atc_airline=American
atc_flight_number=1208
ui_manufacturer=AI
ui_type=McDonnell Douglas MD-88
ui_variation=AMERICAN AIRLINES Screwdriver tail
description=AIA MD_82 AMERICAN AIRLINES Screwdriver tail
atc_id_color=0x00000000
visual_damage=0
atc_heavy=0
atc_parking_codes=AAL
atc_parking_types=GATE
-
Hi
It is strange because parking radius is enough in the afcad, codes are there, you have the right assignements. Maybe there aren´t enough places. But I added more 20 places from the original one. It doesn´t happen to me and I have full traffic 100 % (GA, military and airlines) and I have almost all the airlines and flightplans available. Only in the beginning. I can investigate as well.
harpsi
-
No, AFX is for both FS9 and FSX, you can switch between versions when you open up the program. I read some posts though over at SimForums and see that this is a problem with other developers of scenery, they are indicating that AFX connections are much more "finnicky" in that the connecting points must match exactly, if anything is not matched precisely, then it shows as a fault.
Regardless, I downloaded the old version of AFCAD and sure enough, no faults, just as you posted. Now that IS weird.
Thanks for the reply, keep up the good work.
John
-
I am not sure what you are doing but none of your AFCAD files actually show those much needed ILS frequencies without which nobody can ever land anywhere at KORD so here are those very important figures:
KORD ILS FREQUENCIES AND IDENTS
RWY FREQ IDENT
04R 110.10 IFJU
09R 110.50 IJAV
10 111.10 IMED
14L 110.90 IOHA
14R 109.75 IORD
22L 110.10 ILQQ
22R 111.30 IRXZ
27L 110.50 IIAC
28 111.10 ITSL
32L 108.95 IRVG
32R 110.75 IIDN
Please try and get these right as I attempted a landing on runway 32L and without the ILS was not possible except as a manual landing from approach through to touchdown. These frequencies are put there in real world for a reason and your afcad file must match the real world charts which at the moment they only do partly.
AFX DOES work in FS9 and can be used whilst FS9 is running so angles and placements can be check immediately.
-
Hi
Again here it is.
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi
Just one thing. Now, that the package is released I am starting to play with the lenghts of the runways. For example, when departure runway is 32 L, there is often a long queue to handle all departures and maybe some aircrafts can disappear after 5 minutes with no ground mouvements. The only possibility to make a better distribution of the traffic is to make runways more closed to the aprons shorter. I am starting will plane R which is the most obvious one, because runway 09R is the most closed to the aprons. After playing with shorter and longer runways with the 4 files, I can make another package for all of you who like AI traffic. :)
harpsi
-
One quick, simple question...Does the AFCAD file that is chosen to be used need to be renamed AF2_KORD.BGL, or do we just drop, for example, AF2_KORD_Plan_X.bgl into the scenery folder and delete AF2_KORD.BGL?
Thanks!
Marty
-
Hi
Yes, you need to delete AF2_KORD.bgl, otherwise you will have double afcad files. You don´t need to rename Plan_X. You just use one single afcad included in the package like it is.
For all afcad files, you can give the names you want like AF2_qweiuvbiqeuviqeuvhbqieubviqeubviquebv.bgl, but it needs to begin with AF2_( ). ;D ;D ;D
harpsi
-
Thanks for the quick reply, Harpsi! Great work on the AFCADs!
Marty
-
parking looks great but now you introduced the biggest issue! You deleted all the ILS frequencies! They all show up as VOR or NBD??? Why?
-
Could I make a recommendation that the note file in the next download include during what wind conditions the plans are used? It would help in choosing the appropriate AFCAD. To my knowledge it is as follows:
1. Plan X: Winds Calm or wind >4 kts from 360 to 130 clockwise.
2. Plan W: Wind >4 kts from 230 to 350 clockwise
3. Plan B and Plan R: Adverse or low visibility conditions during. Don't have specifics for winds on those two.
I haven't downloaded a new version since the first one, so my appologies if this is now there.
-
parking looks great but now you introduced the biggest issue! You deleted all the ILS frequencies! They all show up as VOR or NBD??? Why?
Look above. ILS frequencies are there on the pictures.
harpsi
-
Could I make a recommendation that the note file in the next download include during what wind conditions the plans are used? It would help in choosing the appropriate AFCAD. To my knowledge it is as follows:
1. Plan X: Winds Calm or wind >4 kts from 360 to 130 clockwise.
2. Plan W: Wind >4 kts from 230 to 350 clockwise
3. Plan B and Plan R: Adverse or low visibility conditions during. Don't have specifics for winds on those two.
I haven't downloaded a new version since the first one, so my appologies if this is now there.
No, there is no new version yet. I am testing one by one to make more refinements. For example now I am testing plan_R with runway 09R with less 2000 feet than it is (5955 feet instead of 7955 feet) to see what happens to the traffic.
You recomendation is good. I will take that in attention.
harpsi
-
Thanks for the response. Turns out I'm just stupid. ::)
I recently switched back to FSP for the American MD's because the paints are better and the codes were not correctly set for that model. Sorry for wasting your time.
-
Thanks for the response. Turns out I'm just stupid. ::)
I recently switched back to FSP for the American MD's because the paints are better and the codes were not correctly set for that model. Sorry for wasting your time.
Eheh, no problem. It happens. :)
harpsi
-
hey harpsi, did u ever figure out how to fix the problem of "Ground" at Ohare because it should be saying "O'Hare Ground"......
-
hey harpsi, did u ever figure out how to fix the problem of "Ground" at Ohare because it should be saying "O'Hare Ground"......
I will look at this as well.
Does anyone know a peak of departure traffic at KORD? I need to test all files with full departure traffic to improve traffic distribution.
harpsi
-
If I may make some more observations...
I use AFX as well, it works perfectly fine with FS9 (which is all I use), but the Fault Finder is a little overzealous. My recommendation would be to uncheck the Open Links category when finding faults with AFX. If you do want to look for open links (and it can be helpful every now and then), use Afcad for it (uncheck everything but Open Links). Try and use only one program for the actual editing though!
As for the missing frequencies. They are still there, that's why the Navaid List is fine. But try and double-click on a couple of runways. I've checked myself and several of them have an empty ILS Ident field. The GPS receiver for example will not show the frequency for an ILS if the link between runway and ILS is broken. Map view should still show everything though. And the ILS should still work if tuned to the proper frequency.
In AFX you can edit the Ident field, you would simply enter the correct ident for that runway end. In Afcad, the only option is to delete and then re-insert the runway. That should restore the link between runway and ILS.
the problem of "Ground" at Ohare because it should be saying "O'Hare Ground"......
Open the Afcad and go to Lists > Comm Frequencies. There's one ground frequency called CHICAGO. In the stock Afcad it's called O'HARE. Try and change it to that and see what happens.
-
Hi
So Mike, everything works fine then? I have this problem about the ILS deleted if you click on thr runway. You know why? Because I had to delete those ILSs in some files in order to make inverted runways for the crosswind star system. 3 files have inverted runways, one of them has the two runways 04/22s inverted and for the other two, 04/32s are inverted. Only one file has no inverted runways, which is plan W.
harpsi
-
Hi
I need to know from you how much runway lenght needs a 747 in order to play with runway lenghts.
harpsi
-
What file should this AFCAD be placed in?
-
What file should this AFCAD be placed in?
You should place the afcad at FSdreamteam\Ohare\scenery.
harpsi
-
Hi
I need to know from you how much runway lenght needs a 747 in order to play with runway lenghts.
harpsi
That's hard to flat out answer, as it depends on takeoff weight and outside temperature. Given the massive size of the 747, either of these can drastically change numbers.
From my charts, a 747 at MTOW, PACKS ON, anti-ICE OFF, standard altimeter, 15C OAT, 0 kts headwind, flaps 20 and a dry runwy without takeoff derate needs about 11,100' of runway for a takeoff. Note that this is not the length of the takeoff roll, but the full length needed for a takeoff with RTO at V1, but that's how necessary takeoff distance is calculated. Hence the reasons internationals almost always depart 32L full length at KORD.
A 747 at MLW, PACKS ON, anti-ICE off, standard altimeter, 15C OAT, flaps 30 manual approach, 0 kt headwind, autobrakes 4 and a dry runway needs 6,800' of runway for landing (plus 1000' displaced TD zone for most operations = 7,800').
I know you're doing this for AI which doesn't have nearly as many considerations, but I figured I'd give the worst case scenerios as something to work with. By comparison, an empty 747, but all other conditions the same, needs 4,400' for takeoff (50,000 lbs of fuel) and 4,600' for landing (with 24,000 lbs of fuel per FAR min. reserve fuel). As you can see, quite a difference. Technically, these numbers are also specific to O'Hare, as aiport elevation will change density altitude. Unless you're heading to some place like KDEN though, they won't change that much.
-
Hi
Well, concerning that this is for AI purpose, I already checked and with an 8000 feet runway they need 4/5 of the runway more or less. I believe that they depart from 32 L full runway. The problem is: 32 L is one of the most closed runways from the aprons. If it has full lenght, no matter what crosswind star system you have because all aircrafts will go to the longest and closest runway. So, I am making experiences will short runways, and for this purpose, 32 L has to be naturally the sacrified one. Anyway I can provide original files and another set of files for people who want a more equitative distribution of the traffic.
harpsi
-
Hi
Well, concerning that this is for AI purpose, I already checked and with an 8000 feet runway they need 4/5 of the runway more or less. I believe that they depart from 32 L full runway. The problem is: 32 L is one of the most closed runways from the aprons. If it has full lenght, no matter what crosswind star system you have because all aircrafts will go to the longest and closest runway. So, I am making experiences will short runways, and for this purpose, 32 L has to be naturally the sacrified one. Anyway I can provide original files and another set of files for people who want a more equitative distribution of the traffic.
harpsi
More than understandable. Like I said, I know a lot of those things aren't involved in the AI performance. I'm not even sure what they do regarding weights.
-
More than understandable. Like I said, I know a lot of those things aren't involved in the AI performance. I'm not even sure what they do regarding weights.
We have 3 choices:
- 32 L completely opened and traffic at T12:
a) advantages: good for heavies; heavies behaviour like real life
b) disadvantages: long queues to 32 L; all traffic will go there because it is one of the longest and closest runways; you can not have small traffic at T10, because you can only have one entrance and not two
- 32 L parcially opened and traffic at T10:
a) advantages: behaviour like real life specially for small traffic
b) disadvantages: long queues to 32 L and a lot of traffic will disappear due to the long waiting time; all traffic will go there because even with 2/3 opened, you have still the longest and closest runway
- 32 L parcially opened (more or less 5500 feet) and traffic at T10:
a) advantages: good distribution of the traffic; no long queues to any runway; small traffic still depart there;
b) disadvantages: since you don´t have the longest runway anymore, heavies need to choose another runway which is maybe not so real
What is on the files which use 32 L as a departure runway, is option 2. What I am working now is to have aircrafts behaving like option 3.
harpsi
-
I think I'm doing something wrong. The parking assingments are really strange. International airlines are parking at Concourse C which is United's. And there are airplanes parking in all kinds of wierd places on the airport. Ameican's planes are not where they should be either. I have SimFlyer's KORD which I removed thru the Scenery Library before I installed your scenery. I also recompliled the traffic BGL in Ultimate Traffic. Maybe a conflicting AFCAD? The paking is not "real world" as it is now.
Chris Courtney
-
I think I'm doing something wrong. The parking assingments are really strange. International airlines are parking at Concourse C which is United's. And there are airplanes parking in all kinds of wierd places on the airport. Ameican's planes are not where they should be either. I have SimFlyer's KORD which I removed thru the Scenery Library before I installed your scenery. I also recompliled the traffic BGL in Ultimate Traffic. Maybe a conflicting AFCAD? The paking is not "real world" as it is now.
Hi
You have double afcads or you have not the correct assignements or even missing assignements in some aircrafts.
harpsi
-
Hi
Almost ready the files with shortened runways. Just for example, what I am doing now is to have the simulator opened 30 minutes for each file at least and to see if the traffic is will distributed. I testes plans R and W already and the results with ground colisions and no long queues are good. For example, for file W, I got these:
- 22L: 23 departures - 27L: 7 landings
- 32L: 16 departures - 28 : 10 landings
- 32R: 14 departures - 22R: 5 landings
It means that the traffic is more or less distributed now. I will go to the third file.
harpsi
-
the problem of "Ground" at Ohare because it should be saying "O'Hare Ground"......
Open the Afcad and go to Lists > Comm Frequencies. There's one ground frequency called CHICAGO. In the stock Afcad it's called O'HARE. Try and change it to that and see what happens.
After having landed at the new KORD for the first time, it looks like you need to change the 129.05 ground frequency and not the other one, although perhaps you can change both. No idea what they say in real life, but that should get the problem sorted.
By the way, I've found some great websites about KORD's runway usage:
- Go to
http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois
Click on the left part of your screen to the West Directory
Click to expand ZAU
On the little map, click on ORD
Your screen should be all of the various runway use plans at ORD, and the aircraft acceptance rates that each plan nominally provides. Plans B, X, and Wierd are the somewhat normal use plans, winds low with decent weather. Throw in some winds, wet runways (for no LAHSO), or low IFR, and it goes to hell in a handbasket really quick.
- Another good website is www.bigairport.com
Click on "pilot info", and then "runway config". It'll give you just about every situation that might arise.
Posts made on Airliners.net.
-
For the problem of "ground" the solution is to sort the list of frequency and set the frequency with 121.675 called "CHICAGO" same first, this trick has resolved the problem on fsx afcad.
Alessandro.
-
Hi
Which frequencies to change exactly? Someone who posted asked me to change some frequencies. I have here a list but everything is like the list, but there are a lot of them with the same name...
harpsi
-
Hi
About the plans for runway usage, the website you mentioned is very nice. However there are here a lot of different types of approaches and you must decide between 2 or 3 files. These board would need more than 7 or 8 afcads. It would be impossible to play with all of them. You would need to change every hour or less. This is a simulator. We can improve things with 3, 4 afcads, but not with all the possibilities. Anyway thanks for the tips.
harpsi
-
- 22L: 23 departures
- 32L: 16 departures
- 32R: 14 departures
How do you get so many departures on 22L? I opened up 32L, 32R and 22L for departures, just to see if I could make two different Afcads instead of the one I use now, but except for occasional intl. terminal flights, nothing departs 22L. (And that makes sense based on what we know about departure runway selection.) Have you shortened both 32's in that configuration? Think I'm just gonna stick to the one file... Simulism rather realism.
-
- 22L: 23 departures
- 32L: 16 departures
- 32R: 14 departures
How do you get so many departures on 22L? I opened up 32L, 32R and 22L for departures, just to see if I could make two different Afcads instead of the one I use now, but except for occasional intl. terminal flights, nothing departs 22L. (And that makes sense based on what we know about departure runway selection.) Have you shortened both 32's in that configuration? Think I'm just gonna stick to the one file... Simulism rather realism.
Hi
I am testing the last one. Yes, I have now all files with shortened runways :) :)
Now I get something like between 30-40% of the total traffic for every runway. I am decreasing every 1000 or 500 feet for the runways I want, and then I test the file.
harpsi
-
Ok, so what is the consensus for the best realistic AFCAD?? Right now im using Plan W
-
Hi
There is no best realistic afcad... Go to that website and you will see a lot of runway configurations. I keep it with 4 because these 4 afcads make almost 92 or 93 % of all possibilities for KORD traffic. Plan X is the most used one, but most used means only arround 40 %.
I am now testing the 4 files with shortened runways. I am in the last one. I will upload the same package with shortened runways in the first post, for people who prefer more equal traffic distribution., but the initial one will be maintained for now. Then you can comment these files as well.
harpsi
-
Hi all,
In the first post there are now 2 packages, one of them (the original one) with non-shortened runways, but according to real flight configurations in use at KORD. The second package has the same files with shortened runways which will allow a better distribution of the traffic at KORD to the runways available for each file. Try it and feel free to comment.
Reported issues like aircraft assignements or COMM frequencies weren´t touched until I get more information from you. In any case after hours of tests I don´t find big conflicts except in the first 20 minutes where all traffic is still a little bit messy.
Have fun. ;D
harpsi
-
Hi Harpsi, thank you for all your hard work, it is appreciated :)
I had a suggestion for the two biggest KORD residents, AAL and UAL. I think no matter how many gates they have, you will always have planes scattered arround the airport cause these airlines have more flights scheduled than they have gates for! (Normal ops at the US of A. I've waited hours for gates!)
Anyway, I think a realistic solution to this would be to make relief gates for these carriers at their respective Maintenance ramps. Both American and UAL have maintenance hangars/ramps where this could be done. And as a last resort, you could make some uncoded parking gates at the hold penalty box locations through-out the airport. This is where ATC puts you out of the way as soon as you find out from Ramp Control that your gate is occupied.
Hope that helps.
Mariano
-
Harpsi I was coming in for a landing at 27L with a listed ILS frequency of 110.50. The actual frequency for 27L's ILS is 111.10. Why is 110.50 listed in FS9's data base (if you open the default map and then click on the airport) as runway 27L's ILS frequency? :-\
-
Harpsi I was coming in for a landing at 27L with a listed ILS frequency of 110.50. The actual frequency for 27L's ILS is 111.10. Why is 110.50 listed in FS9's data base (if you open the default map and then click on the airport) as runway 27L's ILS frequency? :-\
In the list some posts above everything is correct. I will see if for FS purposes that can be changed as well.
harpsi
-
Hi Guys,
You have done an unbeleivable job on O'hare. The detail is second to none! I have been out to O'hare several times to watch planes land and takeoff and find that you can use 2 afcads for your flying needs. My plan is to use plan X in the winter season since most of the time the winds come out of the north and off the lake. I will change to plan W in the summer since the winds are from the west southwest. I find this is the most realalistic for the seasons. And Harpsi a Big Thank You for creating this airport and taking the time to perfect it. For someone not from the area and not to familiar with O'hare you sure did one hell of a job!
Ed
-
Hi Guys,
You have done an unbeleivable job on O'hare. The detail is second to none! I have been out to O'hare several times to watch planes land and takeoff and find that you can use 2 afcads for your flying needs. My plan is to use plan X in the winter season since most of the time the winds come out of the north and off the lake. I will change to plan W in the summer since the winds are from the west southwest. I find this is the most realalistic for the seasons. And Harpsi a Big Thank You for creating this airport and taking the time to perfect it. For someone not from the area and not to familiar with O'hare you sure did one hell of a job!
Ed
Thank you for your kind words. You can even use all the 4 afcads in the package. If you think that there is one from the other 7 or 8 configurations left that you or someone wants to use for bad weather conditions, please, teel me and I will make on more file for you or for someone who needs. :)
harpsi
-
Thank you for your kind words. You can even use all the 4 afcads in the package. If you think that there is one from the other 7 or 8 configurations left that you or someone wants to use for bad weather conditions, please, teel me and I will make on more file for you or for someone who needs. :)
harpsi
I wouldn't worry about it, but I was surprised to see Plan B over Plan C. My understanding is that >95% of good weather ops consist of Plan X, W and C (roughly in that order). Hardly do I think it's a big missing piece, but if you get bored, I'd think this is the one to add in. As for me, I'll be happy with out it.
-
Thank you for your kind words. You can even use all the 4 afcads in the package. If you think that there is one from the other 7 or 8 configurations left that you or someone wants to use for bad weather conditions, please, teel me and I will make on more file for you or for someone who needs. :)
harpsi
I wouldn't worry about it, but I was surprised to see Plan B over Plan C. My understanding is that >95% of good weather ops consist of Plan X, W and C (roughly in that order). Hardly do I think it's a big missing piece, but if you get bored, I'd think this is the one to add in. As for me, I'll be happy with out it.
Hi
I am testing plans A, C and D. Maybe in 4 or 5 hours I have them ready.
harpsi
-
I've been to KORD many times whether it be flying in or passing on the freeway. From what I saw and have experienced Plan 'W' was always used for ops around the airport. I had the experience a few times of flying jumpseat on FedEx's DC10 aircraft from KMSP to KORD (flight 1197 I believe). We always landed on either 27L or 27R. It's hard to believe Plan 'X' is the most used approach/departure plan at KORD... :)
-
I've been to KORD many times whether it be flying in or passing on the freeway. From what I saw and have experienced Plan 'W' was always used for ops around the airport. I had the experience a few times of flying jumpseat on FedEx's DC10 aircraft from KMSP to KORD (flight 1197 I believe). We always landed on either 27L or 27R. It's hard to believe Plan 'X' is the most used approach/departure plan at KORD... :)
Based on my experience I'd say it's a toss up between plan X and W. They tend to be a bit seasonal though, as the winds around Chicago tend to blow one direction or another depending on the time of year.
-
Has anyone tried these new afcads with bad weather? When you delete the stock ILS' (there really is no reason to do that) you break the ATC when it comes to below minimums. FS9 does not recognize custom ILS' once the default ones are deleted as far as I know. I understand some people are obsessed with using fs9 not as a flight sim but as a passenger and spotter sim, but this is being taken a little too far. breaking features for it? all I wanted was a lot more parking with the correct parking codes, and all the missing nodes fixed.
-
Has anyone tried these new afcads with bad weather? When you delete the stock ILS' (there really is no reason to do that) you break the ATC when it comes to below minimums. FS9 does not recognize custom ILS' once the default ones are deleted as far as I know. I understand some people are obsessed with using fs9 not as a flight sim but as a passenger and spotter sim, but this is being taken a little too far. breaking features for it? all I wanted was a lot more parking with the correct parking codes, and all the missing nodes fixed.
Yes, that´s true. Many people do FS spotting. Me as well. We have to attend to all the kinds of tastes :P
harpsi
-
Guys, I'm just about done with my own Afcad, although there's always room for improvement. It's one file for all conditions. Two take-off runways and four (!) landing runways. I'll look at it once more and then attach it to this thread for anyone who may prefer to keep it simple.
-
FS9 does not recognize custom ILS' once the default ones are deleted as far as I know.
Don't worry about this. It's not that FS9 doesn't recognize custom ILS, it's the AFCAD program that doesn't handle instrumental procedures, but they can be put back by acting at the source code level.
When Harpsi will finally consider these AFCAD as more or less final, we'll revised them all, adding all the proper navigation stuff, like ILS procedures and all other instrumental procedures that are currently missing, also due to the renaming of the runways that happened compared to default KORD.
-
FS9 does not recognize custom ILS' once the default ones are deleted as far as I know.
Don't worry about this. It's not that FS9 doesn't recognize custom ILS, it's the AFCAD program that doesn't handle instrumental procedures, but they can be put back by acting at the source code level.
When Harpsi will finally consider these AFCAD as more or less final, we'll revised them all, adding all the proper navigation stuff, like ILS procedures and all other instrumental procedures that are currently missing, also due to the renaming of the runways that happened compared to default KORD.
The problem is when you invert the runway to make the star system. FS 9 will think that you have for example 2 ILS systems for runway 14 L but no ILS for runway 32 R. When I just click on it, it seems that I delete it. It is there but it is the only way to invert a runway.
Ok, Umberto, fine. But don´t forget to make the changes and send the files again to me to see if something gets wrong with the star system, because if you delete a runway to change this, maybe the star system is lost and if so, I need to do it again. I never tried to delete a runway.
harpsi
-
Hi
Just to inform you that I am testing now plan A. Plans C and D are complete. I think that to keep it simple for people, I would do 2 packages. The first one would have just the two more common files which are X and W with complete runways, which means that it would be reduced in number of files. The second package will contain 7 files: A, B, C, D, R, W and X, all of them with shortened runways for all different tastes and purposes, like flying, spotting or whatever you like to do with FS, in order to have a better traffic distribution specially for the runways available for take off. After the packages are done, I will send them to Umberto, in order to correct those little issues like deleted ILS frequencies. After that he would send the packages to me again, just to confirm that the star system is still there and working, and to improve more things if needed. Finally, the uploaded package would be placed again in the first post. That would be my intention. What do you think about this idea?
If you have some more questions about assignments and so on, please post here.
harpsi
-
Guys, I'm just about done with my own Afcad, although there's always room for improvement. It's one file for all conditions. Two take-off runways and four (!) landing runways. I'll look at it once more and then attach it to this thread for anyone who may prefer to keep it simple.
Mike this is what I was asking for all along, one Afcad file for the scenery like most other sceneries out there. I actually like Plan 'W' as that's the conditions I've seen at KORD most of the time in the real world but runway 10 departure is something else I like as you takeoff with the city skyline to the right. If you do one nice decent Afcad I for one will greatly appreciate it. It makes it simple when flying into any airport to have one Afcad file that does it all (well mostly). ;)
-
Guys, I'm just about done with my own Afcad, although there's always room for improvement. It's one file for all conditions. Two take-off runways and four (!) landing runways. I'll look at it once more and then attach it to this thread for anyone who may prefer to keep it simple.
Mike this is what I was asking for all along, one Afcad file for the scenery like most other sceneries out there. I actually like Plan 'W' as that's the conditions I've seen at KORD most of the time in the real world but runway 10 departure is something else I like as you takeoff with the city skyline to the right. If you do one nice decent Afcad I for one will greatly appreciate it. It makes it simple when flying into any airport to have one Afcad file that does it all (well mostly). ;)
Sorry, you can have one afcad as your own preference. However, you can not say that with just one afcad you can simulate all types of configurations that happen in real life. I give you another example: EHAM. At EHAM, one side of the runway is always only for takeoff and the other side mostly opened only for landing. This can never be simulated with FS 9 and I think with FSX as well. That´s why I made some afcads for all tastes. You are just one user. There are a lot of users you may want to switch. I always switch afcads and you can never say that what I do is wrong. There are users who like flying, I like spotting as well. You can never say that you can´t do spotting with FS. There are users who are happy with FS 9 ATC. For me, FS 9 ATC is just horrible and I only fly online at vatsim. For example at vatsim you may have all the AIs from other pilots. However there is no rule that says you can´t have AI traffic without multiplayer session. I always stay without a multiplayer session because I prefere Evolve AIs that all those models from Squawk Box. As you see, there are a lot of possibilities for all tastes: different plans, complete runways, shortened runways, different crosswind star systems, and so on. I am providing all there when possible. :)
harpsi
harpsi
-
Where is your EHAM Afcads, I'd like to try them out??? :o
Do you have them listed like KORD where the most used real world configuration is an option?
I hadn't thought of asking about EHAM even though you guys did that airport... :)
-
I've just installed KORD, and noticed all the AI aircraft taxiing and parking over each other. Having read a few posts on this thread I see that this is a bug.
What do I need to do to correct this? I don't want to have to be installing AFCAD's all the time as the wind changes.
Ben
-
I've just installed KORD, and noticed all the AI aircraft taxiing and parking over each other. Having read a few posts on this thread I see that this is a bug.
What do I need to do to correct this? I don't want to have to be installing AFCAD's all the time as the wind changes.
Ben
Hi
Just install plan X or plan W. It should solve your issues.
harpsi
-
Where is your EHAM Afcads, I'd like to try them out??? :o
Do you have them listed like KORD where the most used real world configuration is an option?
I hadn't thought of asking about EHAM even though you guys did that airport... :)
It is from cloud 9. There is a "zero file" which means NO real configuration, all runways opened, star system will all runways functioning. Then there is a double package of files depending on the wind settings and according to runway preference. These last ones are intended to simulate real operations, day and night. It is something like this I am trying here at KORD.
harpsi
-
So your Afcad's are included with the EHAM scenery from Cloud9. I own this scenery so I'll look for it... :)
-
So your Afcad's are included with the EHAM scenery from Cloud9. I own this scenery so I'll look for it... :)
Yes, my afcads are the ones included in the package.
harpsi
-
Hi
Guys, the final afcad package is now sent to Umberto. He will correct issues like deleted ILS or other small issues and then I expect to see the corrections and to test all files again just one time to be sure that star system is functioning. After that, Umberto may upload the package to the first post when he wants. :)
Like I said and after seeing some posts here, there will be 9 files: plan X and W (more common) with no shortened runways, and plans A, B, C, D, R, W and X with shortened runways, for a better traffic distribution. Feel free to use the one you like more or the one you find more appropriate to the situations you have.
harpsi
-
Here's my Afcad package. It includes one Afcad, one approach file and one readme. Read the readme... and enjoy. ;)
-
Thanks Mike... ;)
-
Thanks Harpsi, and thanks Mike! I will check this file out
-
Hi
Mike, it is of course always appreciated the work every user do because it is done with pleasure. But, there is one thing you can´t say: that with one afcad for KORD you have real life operations. Even in one of my plans (D, if I remember) with star system, you can not simulate this real life procedure like it is. And another thing: I understand codings like USAX or ULAX. I coded airlines in both ways for people who have different parking codes. I myself like to code airlines like they are and in fact, Mesa is ASH and not UALX or USAX. Of course they can work for more than one big airline company and just in this case you may have a problem. You just have to see all flight plans to see how to code airlines. I coded them for you, but for my personal afcads I use codes LOF, TCF, SKW or ASH and not DALX, USAX or UALX. You have other examples: ANS instead of IBEX for Air Nostrum, CLH for lufthansa cityline instead of DLHX or TYR for Austrain Arrows instead of AUAX. All airlines have their own codes, so you can not say that regional airlines must end in X.
Then you say in your read me: "And as I understand it, people want a good Afcad now." which means that I was working during 4 days and almost 4 nights non-stop for nothing...
Your afcad is for sure appreciated, but in the end what I see after looking at it is somehow a combination between my work one the nodes, taxiways and star system; the work of the original afcad for parking specifications with some more improvements about what you think KORD must be according to simulism but not realism.
About radius, there are different radius depending on companies. For example FSP airbuses and EvolveAI airbuses have many times different radius and you have to play with all these issues. MDs is the same. Maybe other aircrafts as well.
You say in your readme:One last thing, there have been some runway name changes at O'Hare, 9R/27L is now 10/28. And 9L/27R is now 9R/27L, I kid you not. The Afcad in this package includes all the necessary changes.
Well, this was always from the beginning like that so you can not say that this is a change for your afcad specially. I don´t think you will need an extra file. At least I can land there with no problems and AI also land and take off from there. And to talk about the missing ground name is just a little issue which is going to be corrected of course. That one I know that it is not corrected yet.
I saw another big mistake with afcads: you can not close runway 10 for landing, and 28 for takeoff and landing. FS wilil never recognize that. This was already talked for thousand times in all AI foruns.
Another example of coding airlines: you coded E7 to E15 with COAX and JZA, all with radius 19. JZA has only one or maybe two aircrafts from the company at the same time in the airport, so you would need only one gate which actually is known. For COA the smallest aircraft there is a B737 according to the schedules. Well, all 737 have more than radius 20 so I don´t know how you want to park a 737 there. It means at least 3 or 4 gates lost for nothing.
These are just 3 or 4 examples to prove you that my work was hard and not in vain. I was even measuring all types of wings from all aircraft types to avoid aircraft wing colisions, almost one by one.
I am sure everybody appreciates your work as well as mine, but some things must be said in other way maybe, because all these users can think why was so much time lost and there are so much posts for afcad files when just one afcad was needed and Mike has done it? So, why was that guy (harpsi) thinking and losing time with 7 or 9 files? Maybe because there are different tastes and approaches to FS 9. I can even inform you that many times I just do spotting and take screens, like many other people I know. Your natural answer would be: sorry, but the FS 9 is to fly and not to stay on the ground seeing traffic. I would immediately ask: is that so? Why? I can explore all the capacities of the sim, even staying on the ground, doing spotting or even take a car to drive through the airport as well. We have to attend and to choose all possibilities.
For the purposes you talked, you have two afcads: X and W. All the other files ended with _s are for users who prefer realism rather than simulism, like me.
harpsi
-
Harpsi I would like to thank you for all the hard work you've done but in the world of FS, realism is not always the best thing when it creates a more cumbersome process. Anytime I have to close down and restart FS for each wind change is too much. Somehow Aces was able to simulate some since of KORD with one Afcad. The trend of six different Afcad's for one scenery is not a trend I hope catches on. I applaud Mike for his effort in bringing back simplicity. It may not be realistic but when the winds call for rwy 10 I'll be cleared for that runway. If the winds call for 27R I'll come in on that runway. Harpsi we need to return to one Afcad if at all possible with most sceneries... :)
-
ok after this post: everything remains as it is -> AF2_KORD_PLAN_X ;D
-
Harpsi I would like to thank you for all the hard work you've done but in the world of FS realism is not always the best thing when it creates a more cumbersome process. Anytime I have to close down and restart FS for each wind change is too much. Somehow Aces was able to simulate some since of KORD with one Afcad. The trend of six different Afcad's for one scenery is not a trend I hope catches ons. I applaud Mike for his effort in bringing back simplicity. It may not be realistic but when the winds call for rwy 10 I'll be cleared for that runway. If the winds call for 27R I'll come in on that runway. Harpsi we need to return to one Afcad if at all possible with most sceneries... :)
But you can use one afcad or let´s say two. You choose plan X or W which are the most common ones. Anyway this serves the purpose of AI traffic. As a user, with one afcad or seven afcads you can always land on the runways you want. I fly with VATSIM and when they clear me for one runway, I just land and that´s it. So, at the end I just give you all the needed options you want: spotting, flying long of small flights, touch an go, offline, online in a network, shortened runways to better distribution of the traffic, no shortened runways at all, lots of plans according to real life configurations, and so on...
harpsi
-
So, lemme get this straight: If I'm flying only on VATSIM and don't care beans about AI, I don't have to be concerned with all this AFCAD business, right?
-
You need some sort of Afcad if you want AI to follow taxiways properly and not park inside buildings. Whatever option you go with here the underlying element is you need something.
-
Yes, but for a online flyer that uses live ATC and Live traffic, a generic AFCAD with correct position and correct navaids will do just fine, without being too much concerned about all the tweaks.
-
I have to agree some with the thoughts of seeing one AFCAD. I understand that many people like extreme realism, but for me, the AI is there for eye candy. I could care less what runway they land on, as long as I have something to look at and they don't run into me while taxiing. As long as I'm not cleared by a computer ATC (Radar Contact for me) to land with a tail wind, I'm happy. After all, that is the point of all of these plans, simply to get aircraft into some sort of headwind. True, you'll see different traffic patterns at times, reducing realism of a one purpose serves all. But computer based ATC pretty much already sucks in this regard, so I can let that go. I'd highly suggest that one AFCAD be made that has all the right parking, taxi coding, etc. and opens up several (i.e. all) runways to relieve congestion. Beyond that, the work that Harpsi has done is great, but for me will likely not be used because of the cumbersome process of switching AFCADS. This is not to say there is anything wrong with these AFCADS for people who want increased realism with AI, but a single AFCAD with all the parking, navaids and taxi correct I think is an aboslute must for a scenery (on that note, I've had very few problems with the default, just need to open up more than the 22's/04's). After that, all is fair game. I cannot see only using plan X or W singly, as if winds are 270 at ORD at the start and change to 090 by my approach, I'll be forced to land with a tail wind. And when it comes to flying my one singular aircraft, I am very obsessed with realism.
-
But, there is one thing you can´t say: that with one afcad for KORD you have real life operations.
Is that your catchphrase or something? "You can't say"... No, I can't say, nor have I said, so why even go there.
And my Afcad is in no way an attack on your way of doing Afcads, so stop defending your decisions. You do what you do, I do what I do. Period. If I say, use the X variation for regional carriers, then that is my right. I can't say? Yes I can, and I have. Deal with it. ;)
Your afcad is for sure appreciated, but in the end what I see after looking at it is somehow a combination between my work one the nodes, taxiways and star system; the work of the original afcad for parking specifications with some more improvements about what you think KORD must be according to simulism but not realism.
I only worked with the Afcad that came with the scenery. But at the end of the day, every Afcad designer starts where the previous designer stopped. Whether it be whoever put the initial one together or Microsoft in the case of stock Afcads. So what's your point exactly?
About radius, there are different radius depending on companies. For example FSP airbuses and EvolveAI airbuses have many times different radius and you have to play with all these issues. MDs is the same. Maybe other aircrafts as well.
Yes. And I say, make sure all of them match the recommended radius spec (the goal of which is to provide a much needed standard). Again, what's your point?
Well, this was always from the beginning like that so you can not say that this is a change for your afcad specially.
The ILS names were not like that from in the beginning. You even acknowledged that in response to this post of mine (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=443.msg2942#msg2942). So yes, I changed them for this Afcad specifically.
I don´t think you will need an extra file.
Yes you do. If you want AI to continue to use the changed runways for landings in IFR conditions. The ILS will still work for the user, but listen to ATIS without the extra file with visibility less than 3NM. You won't hear ATIS say, ILS 10 or ILS 28, because FS knows no approach code for those runways. Ergo, it will not clear AI to use those approaches, which makes the runways useless if conditions are bad. Surely you have heard of Jim Vile and his files in the Avsim Library. Download a couple and read what he says...
I saw another big mistake with afcads: you can not close runway 10 for landing, and 28 for takeoff and landing. FS wilil never recognize that. This was already talked for thousand times in all AI foruns.
Don't know if this is directed at me, I can hardly believe you would say that about my Afcad, but in my Afcad 10 and 28 are closed for landings. And both ends are opened for take-offs. What you say is simply not in my Afcad. I know that what you say doesn't work. I think I know a little more about all this than you do.
Another example of coding airlines: you coded E7 to E15 with COAX and JZA, all with radius 19. JZA has only one or maybe two aircrafts from the company at the same time in the airport, so you would need only one gate which actually is known. For COA the smallest aircraft there is a B737 according to the schedules. Well, all 737 have more than radius 20 so I don´t know how you want to park a 737 there. It means at least 3 or 4 gates lost for nothing.
I never said my Afcad was perfect, quite on the contrary in my readme... And for your information, there are COA coded gates of ample size at the other side of the same concourse... Too many of them, I know, sue me. :P
By the way, why 19? That's the radius of the E170 used by various regional carriers (such as Shuttle America in the case of United). Lately I've been using 19m as radius for most "regional gates". To make sure those aircraft park there.
Maybe because there are different tastes and approaches to FS 9.
Bingo! So, why try and attack me for simply catering to a different taste? If you would just take a moment and listen to some of the stuff I say, instead of going on the offense, contradicting yourself, making false statements and posting threads full of this nonsense (more than anything, this is confusing the hell out of the customers...), and focus a little more, you could learn a thing or two and get things done a little quicker. I had hoped the C9 arrogance and general attitude would be ancient history.
Please consider my questions to be rhetorical. For everybody's sake, let's leave it at that and let everybody get on with it. Whether it be flying or spotting. ;)
-
So, lemme get this straight: If I'm flying only on VATSIM and don't care beans about AI, I don't have to be concerned with all this AFCAD business, right?
Right.
harpsi
-
Yes, but for a online flyer that uses live ATC and Live traffic, a generic AFCAD with correct position and correct navaids will do just fine, without being too much concerned about all the tweaks.
Of course I have to agree 100%.
harpsi
-
Hi All,
Long thread.
Although I appreciate fidelity, please provide a 'golden' AFCAD file for non-VATSIM/hardcore users. I think one file will be plenty for many users of KORD.
Or if this is not possible, can someone point out which AFCAD has all the known fixed in it and provides decent TO/LDG for AIs? I can always open/close runways later w/ AFCAD if something doesn't look right. Key careabout is NAVAIDs have to work with PMDG/LDS type planes.
Thanks,
Pat
-
Hi All,
Long thread.
Although I appreciate fidelity, please provide a 'golden' AFCAD file for non-VATSIM/hardcore users. I think one file will be plenty for many users of KORD.
Or if this is not possible, can someone point out which AFCAD has all the known fixed in it and provides decent TO/LDG for AIs? I can always open/close runways later w/ AFCAD if something doesn't look right. Key careabout is NAVAIDs have to work with PMDG/LDS type planes.
Thanks,
Pat
Well, like it has been said, decent is one thing, real is another thing. If you want decent you have some of them. If you want real that´s another story but like you said you can also close and open the runways you want. :) Plan X or Y would be the ideal ones.
harpsi
-
The ILS names were not like that from in the beginning. You even acknowledged that in response to this post of mine. So yes, I changed them for this Afcad specifically.
I posted a picture which showed that all ILS were correct.
Yes. And I say, make sure all of them match the recommended radius spec (the goal of which is to provide a much needed standard). Again, what's your point?
But then the only way is to simple change radius in the aircraft editor. That´s what I did for myself and everyone should do it for himself.
If I say, use the X variation for regional carriers, then that is my right. I can't say? Yes I can, and I have.
But you can´t say that´s the best way to do it, but just one way to do it. That´s why I coded them in two ways. If you use my afcad with your specifications it will work because you have coded your aircrafts in one way and the afcad matches this. The opposite is not true because for me MESA is ASH and not UALX, like Austrian Arrows is TYR, so these mesa aircrafts will be parked anywhere. And of course you can´t say that to code these aircrafts with UALX is more correct than to code them ASH.
Yes you do. If you want AI to continue to use the changed runways for landings in IFR conditions. The ILS will still work for the user, but listen to ATIS without the extra file with visibility less than 3NM. You won't hear ATIS say, ILS 10 or ILS 28, because FS knows no approach code for those runways. Ergo, it will not clear AI to use those approaches, which makes the runways useless if conditions are bad. Surely you have heard of Jim Vile and his files in the Avsim Library. Download a couple and read what he says...
I know the files from Jim Vile… But what I know as well, is that on my FS runways 10/28 and 09R/27L are being used all the time by AI.
I think I know a little more about all this than you do.
Well, no comments. ;D
I never said my Afcad was perfect, quite on the contrary in my readme... And for your information, there are COA coded gates of ample size at the other side of the same concourse... Too many of them, I know, sue me.
By the way, why 19? That's the radius of the E170 used by various regional carriers (such as Shuttle America in the case of United). Lately I've been using 19m as radius for most "regional gates". To make sure those aircraft park there.
Well, what I see here after trying it, is 4 empty gates when we need a lot of gates everywhere because there aren´t enough for all airlines. If you go to schedules there are only 737s going there and these gates have COAX and JZA. But you said that they work for UAL and not for COA… so something is missing then. Maybe you should add that code UALX as well for this 5 gates.
I had hoped the C9 arrogance and general attitude would be ancient history.
From who? Me? Well, would you ever do an Amsterdam afcad, just one only and which can work like real life exactly? I already have the answer: No, because it is not possible with one afcad. The is no arrogance until you right in your readme: "And as I understand it, people want a good Afcad now.", which is the same to say in non-polite words: until now there was no good afcad. After a little diversion from mr. harpsi with the afcads, let´s do finally something good. Fortunately that you corrected yourself some lines after, so contradictions are not coming from this side :P
But let´s end this discussion. I would point out more mistakes because I was just ginving three or four examples of them, and for sure that you can try to find more things on my files as well. I just said to users: choose whatever you want for all purposes. I didn´t say: choose my files. But it is difficult to hear some things after some days and nights just standing here, working on the afcads, day after day, answering every post more or less 5 or 10 minutes after each user has posted and so on. It seems like it was work for nothing.
harpsi
-
Hi
For all you I just modified the initial afcad package which now consists in nine files: seven files ended in _s with shortened runways, for people who asked more different plans for KORD and the other two files, X and W for people who care less about runways and realism. COMM frequencies are now corrected. The only thing which is probably not yet perfect and probably needs later correction, is the missing ILSs in the runway boxes, even when they are shown on the general board.
Have fun.
harpsi
-
I think we both suffer from a severe case of last worditis. But there are some untrue statements I just can't let pass.
I posted a picture which showed that all ILS were correct.
Yes and? I can show you a picture as well. Does that mean that the ILS names in the Afcad that came with the scenery were correct? No. And in fact, they were not.
But then the only way is to simple change radius in the aircraft editor. That´s what I did for myself and everyone should do it for himself.
I totally agree. :o
I know the files from Jim Vile… But what I know as well, is that on my FS runways 10/28 and 09R/27L are being used all the time by AI.
Turn down the visibility to say 1NM. Then change the time ahead say five minutes so that the sim and more specifically the ATC and AI can't adapt to the visibility change. You will see that AI will no longer be cleared to land on 10 or 28. Because no approach code exists for those runways. Only visual approaches, but those don't work under poor conditions. I think that 9R/27L may work, because approach code does exist for "a" 9R/27L, just not the right one. How that works out in the sim, I do not know.
But you said that they work for UAL and not for COA…
No, I didn't. Try and actually read and understand what I said.
Well, would you ever do an Amsterdam afcad, just one only and which can work like real life exactly? I already have the answer: No, because it is not possible with one afcad.
Again, you must differentiate between what you think I say and what I actually say. I agree with you, the answer is no. But then again, I never said anything to the contrary. So this is just one more moot point brought into an already bloated discussion.
But now that you mention the Amsterdam scenery, two files, 765 downloads, zero complaints... (http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=111753) Far from perfect, I'm sure. :P
-
The only thing which is probably not yet perfect and probably needs later correction, is the missing ILSs in the runway boxes, even when they are shown on the general board.
I mentioned in the other thread I think the method to properly flip runways, to avoid precisely this kind of issue. You said you did just that, but then how did this issue come about, I wonder... Anyhoo, simply delete and re-insert the runways and the boxes should be filled, you may have to screen capture some settings for later reference. AFX lets you edit those fields. So if you want, I can fix it all for you and just that, I would leave the rest of your masterpiece alone. :P
-
Does that mean that the ILS names in the Afcad that came with the scenery were correct? No. And in fact, they were not.
You forgot one thing: the first afcad was not done by me. I come along with my work much time after, and when I am still in the middle of my work the scenery is suddenly released.
Turn down the visibility to say 1NM. Then change the time ahead say five minutes so that the sim and more specifically the ATC and AI can't adapt to the visibility change. You will see that AI will no longer be cleared to land on 10 or 28. Because no approach code exists for those runways. Only visual approaches, but those don't work under poor conditions. I think that 9R/27L may work, because approach code does exist for "a" 9R/27L, just not the right one. How that works out in the sim, I do not know.
How that works out in the sim, you don´t know, but how it works on my sim I already know, and what I see is 10/28 in use under very very poor conditions (the old 09R/27L to avoid misunderstandings from me). But I will try again with your exactly conditions to see what are the results.
But now that you mention the Amsterdam scenery, two files, 765 downloads, zero complaints... Far from perfect, I'm sure.
Far from perfect but it doesn´t mean realistic, but OK, it is just a kind of approach: you prefer “simulism”, I prefer realism. You have all tastes like I said and you have persons who don´t mind to see a lot of landings on 09 or even 36 L at EHAM just for example. That´s possible, but it happens never in real life so I would try to avoid it. I have flown to EHAM during for years, many times in the cockpit the whole flight, and I was leaving closed to EHAM during that time, so I know traffic there quite well. For you this is maybe not a confusion, for many users as well, for me it is and for many other users as well. I am sure that I have a lot of downloads as well, since the my afcad package came inside with the scenery. But let´s say that for example I posted my new files some minutes ago and in 5 minutes there were 5 downloads. Well, 4 days and 4 nights were not completely lost, excluding the initial work, just the split in 4 different files. ;)
I mentioned in the other thread I think the method to properly flip runways, to avoid precisely this kind of issue. You said you did just that, but then how did this issue come about, I wonder... Anyhoo, simply delete and re-insert the runways and the boxes should be filled, you may have to screen capture some settings for later reference. AFX lets you edit those fields. So if you want, I can fix it all for you and just that, I would leave the rest of your masterpiece alone.
I know it can be done, but after 4 days and 4 nights I need some time to rest as well. To look for landings and take offs and counting them one by one to distribute the traffic to all runways after shortening some of them with less 500 after 500 feet (30 or 45 minutes to each file), to see gates and measuring wings from AI one by one to avoid colisions, to make all those nodes on taxiway intersections with aircrafts following all the yellow lines on the ground, which means looking to a monitor 16 hours a day with no interruption, needs some hours of stop. I know I can delete the runways and so on, but I need to redo the ILSs and bla bla. I just need one or two days more, but I didn´t want users to wait more time, since afcad is a constant evolution and there will be always issues to correct. And by the way, I use afcad 2.21. It solves me all problems.
harpsi
-
You forgot one thing
I did not forget it, it's not relevant. ;)
but it happens never in real life so I would try to avoid it.
And you will see no such behavior in my EHAM files, unless you use the wrong one for the wrong wind conditions. By the way, I was born and raised in the Netherlands, Schiphol is my home airport. I've taken several flights there. Taxiing to and from 36L/18R takes a while. ;)
-
unless you use the wrong one for the wrong wind conditions
So, like I said before in one of my previous posts, if you take the same file for the wrong wind conditions... let´s think what happens. ::) I think I already know the answer for this one :P Which means that with only one afcad it is impossible to solve it. KORD is the same, EBBR the same but much easier, LFPO another difficult one even with 3 runways in use, LEBL the same because 20 is for TO and 02 for landing, LEMD let´s see what happens but it is much easier, LPPT my home airport even with two runways is not easy, because 17 is only used for TO and 35 for landing, rarely for TO. So, here are some examples which only one afcad, I mean real life operations afcad and not for simulation purposes, can not simulate. For simulation I can leave both ends opened but then it takes some minutes and it is very easy to do an afcad like that.
About KORD I will do even another thing in some days. I will try to simulate plan R beginning on one runway 04/22 and to complete the star until I reach the other runway 04/22 which will be renamed 22/04. I will have two opposite runways working. 04 L for take off and in the opposite way, 22 L for take off as well. Really strange but it is described as well with winds calm and LAHSO configuration :o
harpsi
-
Yeah, we kinda already established that. ;D Didn't we? ??? :P
How that works out in the sim, you don´t know, but how it works on my sim I already know, and what I see is 10/28 in use under very very poor conditions (the old 09R/27L to avoid misunderstandings from me). But I will try again with your exactly conditions to see what are the results.
I checked and even in good conditions you can hear ATIS say visual runway 28, without an approach file. That's the telltale sign that something's wrong. Visual in good conditions, means no go in bad. The new 9R/27L does continue to work, that is because "its" approaches already exist, as I said.
-
Yeah, we kinda already established that. ;D Didn't we? ??? :P
How that works out in the sim, you don´t know, but how it works on my sim I already know, and what I see is 10/28 in use under very very poor conditions (the old 09R/27L to avoid misunderstandings from me). But I will try again with your exactly conditions to see what are the results.
I checked and even in good conditions you can hear ATIS say visual runway 28, without an approach file. That's the telltale sign that something's wrong. Visual in good conditions, means no go in bad. The new 9R/27L does continue to work, that is because "its" approaches already exist, as I said.
I don´t use FS ATC, sorry. I hate it. What I know is that I am placed on the ground and I am seeing all the aircrafts descending like a beautiful indian queue for all runways in use for landing, when there is a lot of traffic of course. ;D
harpsi
-
Harpsi KORD?
Nah, it's too easy.
-
Harpsi, getting back on topic I decided to go back to your latest 'Plan' W afcad only to find once again American Airlines parking everywhere but at their terminal. You fixed the issue where they were parking at the FedEx ramp closest to runway 10 but there's still a huge problem with them parking everywhere but the AA terminal (I'm talking they are parking at the International terminal, United Terminal, and east cargo area). There must be a serious issue with American Airlines and Afcad in FS9. :(
-
Hi All,
Long thread.
Although I appreciate fidelity, please provide a 'golden' AFCAD file for non-VATSIM/hardcore users. I think one file will be plenty for many users of KORD.
Agreed entirely. I doubt many of us will be swapping AFCAD's every time we look to fly in or out of KORD, but a single, accurate rendition of the more common flight operations would be just fine. Given this thread is hard to keep up with, will there be some sort of pinned announcement when that point has been reached? It gets tough searching through "upteen" pages to find the most recent file.
Thanks for the continued work.
-
Hi Harpsi
I have been following this thread with interest. I only have one observation at this time and that is after downloading the standard "W" afcad with full length departures from 32L amongst others, the aircraft are in fact still departing from T10. It's just me but I would like to see my AI going from full length. Any thoughts or help please. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks for a superb looking KORD and all your hard work resolving issues. You must have the patience of a saint dealing with us lot!
best regards
rooster
-
Hi Harpsi
I have been following this thread with interest. I only have one observation at this time and that is after downloading the standard "W" afcad with full length departures from 32L amongst others, the aircraft are in fact still departing from T10. It's just me but I would like to see my AI going from full length. Any thoughts or help please. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks for a superb looking KORD and all your hard work resolving issues. You must have the patience of a saint dealing with us lot!
best regards
rooster
There is one problem. If you want full lenght, then all traffic will go to this runway and crosswind system makes no sense. Why? Aircrafts prefer: the longest runway and the closest runway to the terminal. So, 32 L will win this battle between all the others. I think plan W with non-shortened runways works like you want. :)
harpsi
-
Harpsi, getting back on topic I decided to go back to your latest 'Plan' W afcad only to find once again American Airlines parking everywhere but at their terminal. You fixed the issue where they were parking at the FedEx ramp closest to runway 10 but there's still a huge problem with them parking everywhere but the AA terminal (I'm talking they are parking at the International terminal, United Terminal, and east cargo area). There must be a serious issue with American Airlines and Afcad in FS9. :(
There are let´s say 2 types of American Airlines: the American ones and the Eagle ones. Try to add the code EGF to the embraer 145 from American Eagle to see what happens, and tell me your result.
harpsi
-
If you would just take a moment and listen to some of the stuff I say, instead of going on the offense, contradicting yourself, making false statements and posting threads full of this nonsense (more than anything, this is confusing the hell out of the customers...)
I have to clarify one thing that probably has gone missing:
Harpsi is NOT part of FSDreamTeam!
He's a passionate user, just like you are, that does all of this entirely for free (except that, being a tester, he's got a free copy of KORD), and we thank him for the work he does, because surely there are users who appreciate it.
His AFCAD are available here as an added value to our sceneries, they aren't really part of the product itself.
Once we'll consider his work more or less stable, we'll might add some missing bits to make them more consistent with the supplied one and we'll use some of his bugs corrections and stands/airline assignments to include in our "official" AFCAD
So please, let's keep the discussion as friendly as possible, and don't forget you are talking to another user like you are.
I apologize for this, since it should have been clarified earlier.
-
I have to clarify one thing that probably has gone missing:
Harpsi is NOT part of FSDreamTeam!
He's a passionate user, just like you are, that does all of this entirely for free (except that, being a tester, he's got a free copy of KORD), and we thank him for the work he does, because surely there are users who appreciate it.
His AFCAD are available here as an added value to our sceneries, they aren't really part of the product itself.
Once we'll consider his work more or less stable, we'll might add some missing bits to make them more consistent with the supplied one and we'll use some of his bugs corrections and stands/airline assignments to include in our "official" AFCAD
So please, let's keep the discussion as friendly as possible, and don't forget you are talking to another user like you are.
I apologize for this, since it should have been clarified earlier.
Umberto is absolutely correct. Cloud 9 for example, decided to add my packages like they were built by me. FsDreamteam did the same to Zürich and one only afcad was needed. For KORD, the can do the same or maybe not because it is more difficult to simulate reality with just one file. In any case, my work stays for everybody who wants to use it.
harpsi
-
I don´t use FS ATC, sorry. I hate it. What I know is that I am placed on the ground and I am seeing all the aircrafts descending like a beautiful indian queue for all runways in use for landing, when there is a lot of traffic of course.
Just like you said earlier, that there are people who want realism and there are people who want simulism, that there are people who use EGF and there are people who use AALX, there are people who don't use FS ATC and there are people that do... The people that do, will notice something's not right. Now, have you even listened to ATIS? Don't look at the traffic landing, listen to ATIS... Oy vey!
Harpsi is NOT part of FSDreamTeam!
The Afcad that came wih the scenery has a few issues. So naturally, people are gonna focus on it. And who is working on Afcads? Harpsi. So inevitably he gets put in the spotlight and he will be associated with FSDreamTeam. Whether or not he's technically part of the team, makes little difference at the end of the day.
Seems like I can accomplish little more here, I only hope some things are remembered when the Afcad for the next scenery has to made.
:)
-
If you would just take a moment and listen to some of the stuff I say, instead of going on the offense, contradicting yourself, making false statements and posting threads full of this nonsense (more than anything, this is confusing the hell out of the customers...)
I have to clarify one thing that probably has gone missing:
Harpsi is NOT part of FSDreamTeam!
He's a passionate user, just like you are, that does all of this entirely for free (except that, being a tester, he's got a free copy of KORD), and we thank him for the work he does, because surely there are users who appreciate it.
His AFCAD are available here as an added value to our sceneries, they aren't really part of the product itself.
Once we'll consider his work more or less stable, we'll might add some missing bits to make them more consistent with the supplied one and we'll use some of his bugs corrections and stands/airline assignments to include in our "official" AFCAD
So please, let's keep the discussion as friendly as possible, and don't forget you are talking to another user like you are.
I apologize for this, since it should have been clarified earlier.
Well this surely changes things. Harpsi I more than before would like to thank you for your effort. FSDReamteam if your using any aspect of Harpsi work in your release version of the product he should be getting paid. Every copy that has some remnant of Harpsi's work he should get financial credit for. Harpsi your putting so much time into this it is your just due. Again thank you for your effort as I truly don't know what many of us would do without the fine job your doing... :)
-
Just like you said earlier, that there are people who want realism and there are people who want simulism, that there are people who use EGF and there are people who use AALX, there are people who don't use FS ATC and there are people that do... The people that do, will notice something's not right. Now, have you even listened to ATIS? Don't look at the traffic landing, listen to ATIS... Oy vey!
Like I said, the answer is no. But I will test your option from yesterday as well and for the second time, because of the landings on runway 10/28 and after that we will talk. About AALX and EGF you just see that I use both codes in parking spots, for the ones who want EGF and for the others who want AALX.
The Afcad that came with the scenery has a few issues. So naturally, people are gonna focus on it. And who is working on Afcads? Harpsi. So inevitably he gets put in the spotlight and he will be associated with FSDreamTeam. Whether or not he's technically part of the team, makes little difference at the end of the day.
Seems like I can accomplish little more here, I only hope some things are remembered when the Afcad for the next scenery has to made.
versus
Well this surely changes things. Harpsi I more than before would like to thank you for your effort. FSDReamteam if your using any aspect of Harpsi work in your release version of the product he should be getting paid. Every copy that has some remnant of Harpsi's work he should get financial credit for. Harpsi your putting so much time into this it is your just due. Again thank you for your effort as I truly don't know what many of us would do without the fine job your doing...
Well, fortunately or not, we have to opposite opinions on these posts. Mike for sure would like the substitution of mr. harpsi, maybe by him or by another one. Dillon thinks that mr. harpsi puts so much effort on this work that he even must be paid for that work.
Well, my opinion is the following: I don´t want to get paid for this work or even any future work, as far as I get just the scenery for free and I can help in everything like beta testing, afcads and so on. I make this with pleasure, for all you, so you can ask all plans for KORD, you can ask all questions to me. I will have all the patience to you, even to answer sometimes in 5 minutes or less. However I think beside some details about comm frequencies or ils which are missing, there is no doubt about the quality of the work from the two guys which made KORD afcad files for the community.
Just one note about realism concerning runway usage. If you have on real life one runway X or Y, for example 03/21 where 03 is only for take off and 21 is only for landing and you have more than one or two runways, it is likely OBVIOUS that one simple afcad will never solve the problem of having real life procedures, except if is so obvious that 03 has no ILS and it is closed to the aprons and 21 is too far comparing with other runways from the scenery and has an ILS for landing.
It is like Amsterdam where, to make it simple and without exceptions, runways rotate like a clock where one side is always for landing and the other side only for takeoff.
What I was doing at KORD to distribute traffic and the same ammount of it to all runways was this: suppose that you have file X where 32 L, 04 L, 09 R and 32 R are for take off. 32 R is only used in peak hours so the "secret" will be don´t touch this runway or delete some feet of it; 32 L is the longes and closest one so all traffic will go there. We don´t want it and we don´t want long queues at T 10. So, let´s take 2000 feet out and see what happens to the traffic. After the first 45 minutes where I have a paper and I am writing all the Take offs from all runways, I see that 32 L has still 80 or 90 % of the traffic because it is the longest and closest one to the aprons. Ok, Let´s take more 2000 feet out and now just 60 % of tha traffic goes there. Well, now I stop because maybe in real life it would more or less like that. But then you see that there is more traffic to 32 R instead of 04 L and 09 R. OK, let´s take 1000 feet out of 32 R for example. And voilá, in the end the traffic is better organized to all runways, something like: 50 % for 32 L, 25 % for 04 L, 20 % for 09 R and just 5 % or less to 32 R since it is just used on peak hours. This is an example in one file and only for runway configuration. For the other files it is the same. So, as you can see, it is a lot of work but you can see the result while you are flying.
A very patient but passionate work as you see, without rewards needed. :) ;D
Just more one word for the user ESzczesniak. You wrote in this thread below that to switch afcads is time consuming and you will not use that system, but it is strange that you were the one which asked for plan A when it was not done yet. :( See below:
>>>>> Beyond that, the work that Harpsi has done is great, but for me will likely not be used because of the cumbersome process of switching AFCADS.
harpsi
-
Wow, that is alot of AFCADS! Nice work Harpsi, but I have to ask a simple question. Say a guy like me who uses real world weather, 100% AI and does not care about "realistic runway use" but would like to land (or take off) with out an AI plan crossing my runway.
What AFCAD would be best for me?
-
Wow, that is alot of AFCADS! Nice work Harpsi, but I have to ask a simple question. Say a guy like me who uses real world weather, 100% AI and does not care about "realistic runway use" but would like to land (or take off) with out an AI plan crossing my runway.
What AFCAD would be best for me?
Well, let´s analyse this question. Real world weather I also use, 100 % AI as well. Now, the non-realistic runway use problem. For this you can use X or W files. You can do one thing more or I can do it for you: take the V out from the closed runways and you have all of them opened. But avoiding traffic that´s something you can´t control. Or let´s say for example that you want to take off from 04 L. You hope that winds are for example 040/05. But suppose that you have winds 220/05. Maybe you will expect that aircrafts are taking off from 22s. But then you choose 22s as well. There are just some points where you can get traffic confusion fogetting better runway usage: one near the entrance of runway 32 R, another big area near 04 L and 09 R and the confluence between 32 L and 10. I don´t know if I understood your question or if I answered it as well. Maybe you have to explain yourself mwith an example, so that I can make a better explanation for you.
harpsi
-
hey harpsi, this is kinda off subjet about the AFCAD, but i saw in a screenshot of your traffic tool that you have the callsign "acey" for Atlantic southeast, did u find that somewhere? and i have another question, my FS says "line up and wait" is there any way to change it to "Position and hold"?
-
Another thing and just as an example, maybe a thought. It is almost known that FsDreamteam has more sceneries coming. After kappa posted a picture with Manhattan island, everybody thought: it is JFK finally! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;
Ok, suppose that it is JFK indeed. I already looked at it. I dont´t know which ends are opened for take off or landing, but thinking that there is an ILS on both sides of all runways, all of them can be used for all types of operations. It means that it will be not the big confusion of KORD. But still, you need more afcads, but just two. One of them would have the possibility to use 4s in combination with 13s and on the opposite side, 22s in combination with 31s, and another one, in which you use 4s in combination with 31s and 22s in combination with 13s. No file for 4s + 22s together obviously! Except for the fact that you have one runway opened for TO in one end and for LDG on the other end, this one is easy to do with 2 files just and you can just make an option from one of the too. The tailwind you get if you choose the "wrong" one is not more than 45 degrees probably.
harpsi
-
hey harpsi, this is kinda off subjet about the AFCAD, but i saw in a screenshot of your traffic tool that you have the callsign "acey" for Atlantic southeast, did u find that somewhere? and i have another question, my FS says "line up and wait" is there any way to change it to "Position and hold"?
First question: I just wrote in the aircraft.cfg what was in the package for atlantic southeast. I didn´t modify anything.
Second question: Sorry, I don´t see those messages on my FS so it is difficult to answer you.
harpsi
-
Mike for sure would like the substitution of mr. harpsi, maybe by him or by another one.
No, I want you to be willing to learn and not discard any and all commentary with the same rhetoric. In your latest post you again start about how certain setups can never be accomplished in one Afcad. I never disagreed with you on that one nor is that the point of this entire discussion. There is no right or wrong approach. Only different approaches that work differently for different people.
But... there are some mechanisms and aspects that, even thought you may not be confronted with them on your personal setup, are fundamental to the sim. Such as the runway names, which are embedded in the Afcad, and the approaches for those runways, which are embedded in the stock Afcad. If you change the names, the approach code must be changed as well. If not, the link between renamed runways and their approach code will be broken. Another example, the empty Ident fields of the runway properties. The Ident field directly controls what the GPS receiver displays for that particular runway end.
Now, it may not influence your enjoyment of the scenery, but it will for some people result in unwanted behavior. It's fine that you want to recreate as many true life plans as possible. That you want to go beyond a simple file for all conditions. If you spend countless hours trying to get that right, then I can respect that. But build on the by MS defined foundation and understand how it all works. In any case, an Afcad should work correctly with the default ATC, with the default GPS receiver, ATIS, etc... And if someone points out what the deal is or how to do something, take it seriously and try and understand what is being said exactly. Don't jump to conclusions, don't repeat what you've said previously, don't take it personally and go on the offense, etc... Because sometimes, someone else is right and you are wrong. Hey, I have no problem admitting it when I'm wrong, just look here (http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=494.0) for a recent example. ::) And when I offer to fix that Ident problem, I don't hear you answer... Well, not then. *Shrugs*
First question: I just wrote in the aircraft.cfg what was in the package for atlantic southeast. I didn´t modify anything.
Apparently that change happened ages ago, see an interesting thread here (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2659687/). Think I'll go and update my traffic now... ;D
Second question: Sorry, I don´t see those messages on my FS so it is difficult to answer you.
With the program EditVoicepack (http://www.editvoicepack.com/), you can switch between those phrases. If you go to update the voicepack, you can choose between FAA and ICAO phraseology. If you choose FAA, you'll get Position and Hold. This is for the default ATC by the way.
:)
-
With the program EditVoicepack, you can switch between those phrases. If you go to update the voicepack, you can choose between FAA and ICAO phraseology. If you choose FAA, you'll get Position and Hold. This is for the default ATC by the way.
That´s why I don´t hear those messages. Vatsim has no such messages. ;D ;D ;D
Mike, did you see the thread about KJFK? Are you happy with the fact that this one can be perfectly done with 2 afcads only, if this is the next scenery on board and if I am chosed again as "the afcad man"?
harpsi
-
Mike,
I was using your AFCAD for KORD for the the SImflyer's scenery. The one that had changed the runway idents. If I keep that file in the Scenery..World...Scenery folder, will that resolve the issues that are being discussed?
Rick
-
From my Simflyers packages, only use the KORD.bgl file (not the Afcad) and only the one from the phase two package, the phase one file only corrects 9R/27L to 10/28. By the way, it goes in Scenery/Generic/scenery. But yeah, if you have that file and use any Afcad specifically for this new scenery, it should all work.
Mike, did you see the thread about KJFK? Are you happy with the fact that this one can be perfectly done with 2 afcads only, if this is the next scenery on board and if I am chosed again as "the afcad man"?
Two Afcads will do. Personally, I'm using just one right now (for the FRF scenery) and have no plans to change. This has to do with the other airports in the area. KEWR and KLGA. All three airports use a star in my sim. For KEWR this is from 11 to the 4's. For KLGA this is from 13 to 4. For KJFK, this is from the 13's to the 4's. Just so that New York traffic will more or less go in the same direction. Although it's pretty much all over the place. ;D I dunno, maybe it's just foolish, but it gives me piece of mind. Am looking forward to a new KFJK though!
-
I just wish someone did a high quality PANC airport scenery!
-
Two Afcads will do. Personally, I'm using just one right now (for the FRF scenery) and have no plans to change. This has to do with the other airports in the area. KEWR and KLGA. All three airports use a star in my sim. For KEWR this is from 11 to the 4's. For KLGA this is from 13 to 4. For KJFK, this is from the 13's to the 4's. Just so that New York traffic will more or less go in the same direction. Although it's pretty much all over the place. ;D I dunno, maybe it's just foolish, but it gives me piece of mind. Am looking forward to a new KFJK though!
I use La Guardia from Imagine Sim but I don´t use KEWR from Simflyers. I simply don´t fly too much in that area. But if a JFK comes out, ok, like I said in some posts before, there will be tastes for afcad A (13 > 4) or afcad B (31 > 4). If winds are changing like for example 360/16, you will have a file for 04s and 13s in which you have tail wind at 13s, and if the sim chooses the opposite option, 22s and 31s you will have tail wind as well for 22s. Here the file 31 > 04 would help for sure, to eliminate the tail wind component.
harpsi
-
Just more one word for the user ESzczesniak. You wrote in this thread below that to switch afcads is time consuming and you will not use that system, but it is strange that you were the one which asked for plan A when it was not done yet. :( See below:
>>>>> Beyond that, the work that Harpsi has done is great, but for me will likely not be used because of the cumbersome process of switching AFCADS.
harpsi
I believe in the same post you will find:
As for me, I'll be happy with out it.
I was mentioning it only in acknowledging that it is often used and those who want extreme realism might want it. For me, I don't want to deal with possibilities of changing weather during a flight and a poor selection of runways as a result.
-
With the program EditVoicepack, you can switch between those phrases. If you go to update the voicepack, you can choose between FAA and ICAO phraseology. If you choose FAA, you'll get Position and Hold. This is for the default ATC by the way.
That´s why I don´t hear those messages. Vatsim has no such messages. ;D ;D ;D
Mike, did you see the thread about KJFK? Are you happy with the fact that this one can be perfectly done with 2 afcads only, if this is the next scenery on board and if I am chosed again as "the afcad man"?
harpsi
JFK may not be as simple as it may seem because they use many different runway procedures sometimes all in the same day. Runway ops vary depending on time of day (crazy traffic in the mornings and evenings-to-night *rush hour*), it also varies depending on weather conditions (serious IFR conditions causes separation issues and brings ATC to its knees because of the proximity of LGA and EWR air traffic).
For example,
1) There are times when 31L is used for takeoffs only and 31R is for landings only with 4R/22L being inactive (similar to simwings' EGLL) *see link* http://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/1188136/M/
2) At other times while using the same runways (31L/31R) both sides are used for dual ops (arrv. and dep.), and during rush hours 4R/22L is opened as well for landings while 4L/22R is left inactive.
That's two afcads already for eg. 1 and 2. Example 1 wouldn't be the most popular among simmers because (believe it or not) the 13R curved approach (which would be closed for landings in eg.1) is much, much more exciting than the VOR 13L because the turn is much sharper and at a lower altitude as the end of the turn is almost literally right over the Runway threshold (experienced it for real in an Air Jamaica A321 at night and it was just as thrilling as it was nervewracking).
3) From my experience in travelling and from listening to ATC when they use the 4s and 22s: runway 4L/22R is used as a takeoff only runway while 4R/22L is only used for landings while the 13s and 31s are inactive and used for taxiing heavies (especially A340-500/600s ;D they normally feel the wrath of ATC as they are too long for the tight taxiway turns in the area where the 13s/31s intersect 4L/22R).
I am guessing that a single regular non-star afcad could cater for 1) and 3) even though it would eliminate the 13R approach in 1) if the winds are blowing that way. But what about those who would want example 2) without the star system (no 4s/22s usage); wouldn't that be another afcad in itself. From my count that's 3 afcads already and that's not all the runway combos that are used.
So it might not be as simple as it seems, but I think if you just want one afcad as most users do then the best option (in my opinion) is to just make a regular non-star afcad using the parallels only with both L/R sides used for dual operations (meaning if the 13s/31s are in use then open both rnwys for takeoffs and landings, and when using the 4s and 22s do the same).
Just my 2 cents.
@Virtuali,
If the next airport is JFK can we get an afcad or JFK forum as we have unintentionally taken over the KORD forum with JFK posts :).
-
Harpsi, I'm a little confused regarding those AFCADS.
Which one of them is the closest one to real world aviation?
-
Harpsi, I'm a little confused regarding those AFCADS.
Which one of them is the closest one to real world aviation?
All of them. Just go to http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/ (http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/) and you will find everything.
harpsi
-
JFK may not be as simple as it may seem because they use many different runway procedures sometimes all in the same day. Runway ops vary depending on time of day (crazy traffic in the mornings and evenings-to-night *rush hour*), it also varies depending on weather conditions (serious IFR conditions causes separation and issues brings ATC to its knees because of the proximity of LGA and EWR).
For example,
1) There are times when 31L is used for takeoffs only and 31R is for landings only with 4R/22L being inactive (similar to simwings' EGLL) *see link* http://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/1188136/M/
2) At other times while using the same runways (31L/31R) both sides are used for dual ops (arrv. and dep.), and during rush hours 4R/22L is opened as well for landings while 4L/22R is left inactive.
That's two afcads already for eg. 1 and 2. Example 1 wouldn't be the most popular among simmers because (believe it or not) the 13R curved approach (which would be closed for landings) is much, much more exciting than the VOR 13L because the turn is much sharper and at a lower altitude as the end of the turn is almost literally right over the Runway threshold (experienced it for real in an Air Jamaica A321 at night and it was just as thrilling as it was nervewracking).
3) From my experience in travelling and from listening to ATC when they use the 4s and 22s: runway 4L/22R is used as a takeoff only runway while 4R/22L is only used for landings while the 13s and 31s are inactive and used for taxiing heavies (especially A340-500/600s ;D they normally feel the wrath of ATC as they are too long for the tight taxiway turns in the area where the 13s/31s intersect 4L/22R).
I am guessing that a single regular non-star afcad could cater for 1) and 3) even though it would eliminate the 13R approach in 1) if the winds are blowing that way. But what about those who would want example 2) without the star system (no 4s/22s usage); wouldn't that be another afcad in itself. From my count that's 3 afcads already and that's not all the runway combos that are used.
So it might not be as simple as it seems, but I think if you just want one afcad as most users do then the best option (in my opinion) is to just make a regular non-star afcad using the parallels only with both L/R sides used for dual operations (meaning if the 13s/31s are in use then open both rnwys for takeoffs and landings, and when using the 4s and 22s do the same).
Hi Dre
All the possibilities you mentioned are not problematic to simulate in 2 afcads because you can just put the V out of the square. For FS purposes, the problem starts when one side of the runway is ONLY used for takeoff and the other side of the runway ONLY for landing. For example you have 04R/22L at JFK. When the winds are set for 04R you just land there and when they are set for 22L you just land there also. The problem would be if you set the winds for 04R and you just use it for landing and you set the winds for 22L and you only use that runway for takeoff and not for landing, or in the opposite way arround, because when you just change the winds, FS will move traffic to the opposite side, but since you can only have the V before the square just for one type of operation, you would be a non-real life procedure. The 2 afcads is just for the beginning of the star. You can make it like this:
04/22 (real runways)
05/23 (fake)
06/24 (fake)
...
...
13/31 (real runways)
and hier you can use 04+13 or 22+31 but never 04+31 or 22+13,
or you can have this:
31/13 (real runways)
32/14 (fake)
33/15 (fake)
...
...
04/22 (real runways)
and hier you can use 31+04 or 13+22, but never 31+22 or 04+13.
This is how the star system is made.
For KORD if you go to http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/ (http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/) you will see that plan R has
- Land:14R/10
- TO : 22L/9R/4L
You may ask: how is possible to have 04L and 22L at the same time when they are going in opposite directions? SImple: you must have light winds of course, otherwise you would take off with tail wind. I left this experience out on my afcad files for now, which means that 04L is closed for plan R, but it can be done. You just begin the star like this:
04L/22R (real)
05/23 (fake)
...
until you reach the last runways which are 14/32s (real). After you reach 14/32s you continue the star:
15/33 (fake)
16/34 (fake)
until you reach 22/04 again with the runway left which will be 22L/04R.
I am almost sure that this can be done and then you have for example 04L for take off and you move down and you have 22L for take off as well. ;D ;D
This is the reason of several afcads which sometimes are needed if you just want real life operations.
I am happy that you also not dislike this way of viewing things. It is a question of realism versus "simulism". When some people say that they don´t want to change afcads between flights, they are right of course, but it is a little bit unlucky if you would need that in a flight with 45 minutes or even 2 hours. Of course if you make a departure from Paris or Munich to KORD, after that you are going to make your dinner or to read a book, and you just come for landing in the next morning after a flight with 6 or 8 hours, maybe the winds have already changed of course. :P
harpsi
-
you dont really need several afcads for that... why not just find out the wind direction, open up the afcad program, and close both ends depending on what type of ops you want. Yes if users dont know how to use an afcad program the need for multiple afcads is there... but why not one base afcad with all the features, and a readme saying "if winds are X then open up X runway for departures and close X runway for landings.
-
I'm looking for one 'decent' AFCAD, I don't want to be fiddling round with 14 different ones...that's a bit ridiculous.
I installed AFCAD X, and whilst on approach for 27L, I had an aircraft on the runway taking off (and I wasn't told to go around), I had two aircraft crossing the runway in front of me as I was landing, and everyone seemed to be taking off in various directions and across each other.
Surely there must be a better solution than this?!
Ben
-
I'm looking for one 'decent' AFCAD, I don't want to be fiddling round with 14 different ones...that's a bit ridiculous.
I installed AFCAD X, and whilst on approach for 27L, I had an aircraft on the runway taking off (and I wasn't told to go around), I had two aircraft crossing the runway in front of me as I was landing, and everyone seemed to be taking off in various directions and across each other.
Surely there must be a better solution than this?!
Ben
Maybe there are users which don´t find it ridiculous... did you think about it?
About taking off in various directions, that´s how it works in real life. The only solution in which I can disagree for some of the files is the application of the diamon technic. What you said is a consequence of it. You have to live with that even with an afcad with all runways opened and non-shortened.
harpsi
-
you dont really need several afcads for that... why not just find out the wind direction, open up the afcad program, and close both ends depending on what type of ops you want. Yes if users dont know how to use an afcad program the need for multiple afcads is there... but why not one base afcad with all the features, and a readme saying "if winds are X then open up X runway for departures and close X runway for landings.
I explain you why not just to close the runways with the V before the square. FS chooses runways depending on a certain number of items. If you just want to take off from 32 L, 04 L and 09 R at the same time and with non-shortened runways, aircrafts will prefer the longest one and the closest one to the aprons. If you just change the winds, maybe they will prefer 32 L for landing when the runway is used just for take off and everything will be a mess after that. Well, just try yourself and you will see the results.
harpsi
-
I'm all up for realism, but I find fiddling about with files embedded in the heart of FS DURING a flight to be completely unrealistic. Surely you want to turn up at an airport and be assigned your approach as you would in the real world?!
Anyway, the AFCAD that came with the original in terms of runways that were used seemed fine, is there anyway that could be modified to include the correct parking spots and to get rid of aircraft running over each other?
-
I'm all up for realism, but I find fiddling about with files embedded in the heart of FS DURING a flight to be completely unrealistic. Surely you want to turn up at an airport and be assigned your approach as you would in the real world?!
Anyway, the AFCAD that came with the original in terms of runways that were used seemed fine, is there anyway that could be modified to include the correct parking spots and to get rid of aircraft running over each other?
Just follow all teh discussion and you will find the answer ;)
harpsi
-
Just a note to BBriscoe. I am sooooooooo with you on this one my friend. I do not wish to detract from Harpsi's superb effort, indeed, as you see from my previous post I thought he was a member of the team. There is no doubt that this is an excellent product but the AFCAD question needs to be sorted and I think BBriscoe has hit the nail on the head with his posts above. I believe that this is all most simmers would want, including me, so perhaps a modification to the original AFCAD is the best way forward to achieve this.
Best regards
Rooster
-
Those who want an alternative, can get it here (http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=118914).
-
Those who want an alternative, can get it here (http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?DLID=118914).
Thanks Mike, works like a charm! As far as I can tell, AES seems to be working with it too! ;D
-
You're welcome. ;)
-
harpsi, sorry to say that, but your afcads are really messed up.
I requested rwy 32R for t/o and was given that one.
But ATC didn't sent me to rwy's end but to the middle of it. How can that be?
I'm using plan B afcad.
-
harpsi, sorry to say that, but your afcads are really messed up.
I requested rwy 32R for t/o and was given that one.
But ATC didn't sent me to rwy's end but to the middle of it. How can that be?
I'm using plan B afcad.
1. Afcads are made specially for AI traffic purposes and not really for own aircraft purposes. Plan B as well as all the other files have shortened runways, proper to AI traffic use...
2. Plan B doesn´t use 32 R in any ocasion. Don´t try 32 L. It doesn´t use it as well... Read the explanations inside about runways in use and wind settings as well, please. For your information here it is:
Plan B [AF2_KORD_B_s.bgl]:
- Departure runways: 22L, 28 and 14L at peak hours
- Landing runways: 14R, 22R and 22L at peak hours
harpsi
-
Hi Harpsi,
Thank you for the brilliant afcad files! They work fine for me.
However, I modified the length of 32L because with my custom ai only CRJs used this runway for departure. Now also ERJs, B737s, A320s are using this runway.
However, in order to prevent queues and to make ai traffic more fluid I have a question regarding departure from RW 32L.
How can it be achieved that aircrafts use multiple entries to a runway, i.e. not only T10 but T9 as wel in this casel? In simwings afcad for London Heathrow aircrafts can use three different intersections to enter runway 27L, which I think is quite realistic.
Your help is appreciated!
Regards, Goetz
-
I'll give a try...
-
Hi Harpsi,
Thank you for the brilliant afcad files! They work fine for me.
However, I modified the length of 32L because with my custom ai only CRJs used this runway for departure. Now also ERJs, B737s, A320s are using this runway.
However, in order to prevent queues and to make ai traffic more fluid I have a question regarding departure from RW 32L.
How can it be achieved that aircrafts use multiple entries to a runway, i.e. not only T10 but T9 as wel in this casel? In simwings afcad for London Heathrow aircrafts can use three different intersections to enter runway 27L, which I think is quite realistic.
Your help is appreciated!
Regards, Goetz
Very easy. They come from the 3 intersections but the beginning of the runway is only on the first confluence of the 3 taxiways, otherwise they would choose just the first point where the runway starts.
In this bad picture you have three situations. The first one you can enter the runway via 3 taxiways. In the second situation aircrafts will choose only the two taxiways on the left and never the third one on the right. In the last situation, the aircraft will choose only the most closed one to the end of the runway. I hope you understand this bad picture :D
About 32 L on T 10, if you want to have some airbuses for take off, it is just a question of adding some more runways meters. But then you will have a lot of traffic on 32 L because this is the closest runway to the aprons.
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for your reply harpsi,
my traffic now uses multiple intersections to enter RW 32L.
Regards, Goetz
-
Harpsi:
About taking off from 32L, I've had some time to use your AFCAD, the W version by itself, and ai traffic approaches the runway for takeoff and we basically end up with two lines forming, one coming from the direction of the United terminals, and another from American's. Is the AI ground control smart enough to recognize this and alternate which line has clearance to takeoff? I'm seeing one queue or the other getting the clearance while the other just sits. Am I doing something wrong, or this just a limitation of AI in FS 9?
Also, I'm going to ask your opinion on someone else's AFCAD who posted on here. Would it be realistic to see departures on 14R and 10 concurrently while arrivals are landing on 9R? Seems like a mid-air and/or ground collision in the making. Not picking on anyone, I just want to know if that scenario would be real-world likley as I honestly have no idea. With spacing tightly controlled by the tower I imagine it might be? I totally understand the "simulism" vs. "realism" argument, but I maybe leaning towards realism. Thanks.
Chris
-
Harpsi:
About taking off from 32L, I've had some time to use your AFCAD, the W version by itself, and ai traffic approaches the runway for takeoff and we basically end up with two lines forming, one coming from the direction of the United terminals, and another from American's. Is the AI ground control smart enough to recognize this and alternate which line has clearance to takeoff? I'm seeing one queue or the other getting the clearance while the other just sits. Am I doing something wrong, or this just a limitation of AI in FS 9?
I see your point. I think it is maybe a limitation of FS 9 itself. Remember that the "american line" is much closer from T10 than the "United Line". So, I believe that you see that the american line is getting smaller much faster than the other one. Anyway this has to do with a lot of factors which can´t be controlled at all. That´s my opinion but I think that maybe a person like Jim Vile has more knowledge than me to answer your question.
Also, I'm going to ask your opinion on someone else's AFCAD who posted on here. Would it be realistic to see departures on 14R and 10 concurrently while arrivals are landing on 9R? Seems like a mid-air and/or ground collision in the making. Not picking on anyone, I just want to know if that scenario would be real-world likley as I honestly have no idea. With spacing tightly controlled by the tower I imagine it might be? I totally understand the "simulism" vs. "realism" argument, but I maybe leaning towards realism. Thanks.
Chris
Now, about this one, I totally agree with you. That´s why I did a lot of afcads thinking in a lot of tastes. In fact, there is no chance to see 14 R and 10 together in real life, both with aircrafts taking off. You just see 10 in one plan and together with 09 R. Also, you notice that 14 R is only for landing and never for take off. If you have one of the 14s runways for take off, it will be the left one. So, you are absolutely right. I also prefer realism. Otherwise I would "play" quake 3 or god of war III instead of FS 9. Good that you are with me on this one ;)
Just follow this webpage: http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/ (http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/)
harpsi
-
Harpsi: Using Plans X & W, runways not shortned, I'm still getting the traffic wanting to takeoff from 32 L at T10 causing the multiple queue issue. I was thinking with using either W or X they would taxi to the end of 32L and takeoff from there. But that's not what I'm getting. I use either W or X by themselves, no multiple AFCADS. They should proceed to taxi to T12 shouldn't they in a non-shortned AFCAD?
Chris
-
Harpsi: Using Plans X & W, runways not shortned, I'm still getting the traffic wanting to takeoff from 32 L at T10 causing the multiple queue issue. I was thinking with using either W or X they would taxi to the end of 32L and takeoff from there. But that's not what I'm getting. I use either W or X by themselves, no multiple AFCADS. They should proceed to taxi to T12 shouldn't they in a non-shortned AFCAD?
Chris
Sorry. I forgot to explain a little thing: runway 32 L is the only only shortened on all files. There is no file with complete 32 L, unless if the runway in use is 14 R. If you want I can complete the runway for you. It is just 5 minutes of work. ;D
harpsi
-
Harpsi: Using Plans X & W, runways not shortned, I'm still getting the traffic wanting to takeoff from 32 L at T10 causing the multiple queue issue. I was thinking with using either W or X they would taxi to the end of 32L and takeoff from there. But that's not what I'm getting. I use either W or X by themselves, no multiple AFCADS. They should proceed to taxi to T12 shouldn't they in a non-shortned AFCAD?
Chris
Sorry. I forgot to explain a little thing: runway 32 L is the only only shortened on all files. There is no file with complete 32 L, unless if the runway in use is 14 R. If you want I can complete the runway for you. It is just 5 minutes of work. ;D
harpsi
Sure, if you have time. :)
-
Sure, if you have time. :)
Here it is: plan W with runway 32L/14R complete. :)
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Cool, Thanks
Chris
-
Also, you notice that 14 R is only for landing and never for take off. If you have one of the 14s runways for take off, it will be the left one.
Not sure if you are talking about a specific Afcad now or about real world operations, but here (http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boeing_747-400-Airline_United_Airlines_Aviation_Video-9728.html)'s a United 747 taking off from 14R.
-
Not sure if you are talking about a specific Afcad now or about real world operations, but here (http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boeing_747-400-Airline_United_Airlines_Aviation_Video-9728.html)'s a United 747 taking off from 14R.
About real world operations but concerning a specific afcad in those circunstances only. The word "never" is applied to the afcad which is in discussion.
harpsi
-
Hi
After a short break, I am posting here something about one issue that was discussed about KORD: "simulism" versus "realism". I just want to mention that it seems I am not the only one producing several afcad files for all tastes. Simwings has done it recently and for the first time with Madrid Barajas 2008. Indeed Madrid needs two files, one for north config and another one for south config. I am very happy that, after EHAM from cloud 9, and KORD from FS Dreamteam, and even LSZH from FS Dreamteam in the very early beginning (DVO28 and DVO34 files), I am not alone in this discussion. :)
harpsi
-
However those weather-depending AFCADs are quite senseless when u use it along with Active Sky and the wind suddenly changes...
-
Hey Harpsi just a word of advice; in the future if it's not too much work continue to make the multiple afcads for those who want real life operations as well as make a single use afcad that caters to the "longhaul real weather" pilots. Especially for JFK as most of the flights there tend to be long haul.
-
Hey Harpsi just a word of advice; in the future if it's not too much work continue to make the multiple afcads for those who want real life operations as well as make a single use afcad that caters to the "longhaul real weather" pilots. Especially for JFK as most of the flights there tend to be long haul.
That´s what I did with EHAM (cloud 9). About KORD we can almost say the same if you use plan X or W and you just take out the V from the closed runways which is 30 seconds work. :)
Anyway I will take care of that as well if the team asks me to do KJFK.
harpsi
-
Hi Harpsi,
First of all I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for all the effort put into the development of a decent AFCAD for use with this wonderful scenery.
I started to read the thread in order to understand what's been put in place to accomodate everyone taste- but I have to admit that it is very long indeed and I got lost at page # 5
Would you please breafly describe what the latest update does for each AFCAD, smtgh like MZBS did for LEMD 2008
for instance:
wind from west uses AFCAD #....
wind from East uses AFCAD #... Etc..
Thanks,
160LH
-
Never mind harpsi !!!
I found the info I was looking for...
160LH
-
Never mind harpsi !!!
I found the info I was looking for...
160LH
You were faster than me ;)
harpsi
-
just wondering if the 28 ILS is fixed...
axiom
-
just wondering if the 28 ILS is fixed...
axiom
yes
harpsi
-
im sorry, i ment for FSX, visual 28 all the time even in no visibilty and can't choose ILS 28 when requesting diffrent vectors because its not listed as one of the options, only visual.
axiom
-
How do I install this? do I use all the AFCAD???
-
Do these AFCADs take care of the airline displacement at various terminals? Also, just a quick question, but over all which one is the most reliable AFCAD for smooth AI flying realistic or not. Thanks for your help.
-
Do these AFCADs take care of the airline displacement at various terminals? Also, just a quick question, but over all which one is the most reliable AFCAD for smooth AI flying realistic or not. Thanks for your help.
For realistic approach, use one of them according to each situation. For a "simulism" approach just use the afcad file which comes with version 1.1.
harpsi
-
Is anyone seeing Continental, US AIRWAYS, and, to a lesser extent, NWA aircraft parking at United's terminal while leaving open gates along the E and F concourses? For whatever reason, there always seems to be a pair of CO737s and US733s along the wrong concourses. All the other gate assignments, however, seem to functioning perfectly. I've tried to use the X and A files, but haven't seen a difference in either file. Any suggestions?
Great scenery, btw. Absolutely brilliant :-D
-
Is anyone seeing Continental, US AIRWAYS, and, to a lesser extent, NWA aircraft parking at United's terminal while leaving open gates along the E and F concourses? For whatever reason, there always seems to be a pair of CO737s and US733s along the wrong concourses. All the other gate assignments, however, seem to functioning perfectly. I've tried to use the X and A files, but haven't seen a difference in either file. Any suggestions?
Great scenery, btw. Absolutely brilliant :-D
Plan A [AF2_KORD_A_s.bgl]: (less used)
- Departure runways: 28 and 32R
- Landing runways: 27L and 32L
Plan X [AF2_KORD_X_s.bgl]:
- Departure runways: 32L from “T10”, 04L, 09R and 32R at peak hours
- Landing runways: 04R, 10 and 09R at peak hours
About the first issue it is difficult to explain: in can be due to a lot of aircrafts on the airport, schedule issues, and so on. On my FS I don´t see this issue and I have let´s say 99 % of the possible airlines at KORD.
harpsi
-
Hmm...I recently download a new UAL AI package from ProjectAI, but I wouldn't think that would have made a difference. When I had the old package, however, I rarely had a stray AC. But E1-E14 is empty with a few CO jets positioned around C20 and C14. Just for kicks, I think I'm going to uninstall the scenery and reinstall it just to see if any difference is made.
-
btw thanks for the quick response!
-
After a reinstall, there's no effect. A CO733, CO737, and a US319 were still parked at UA's concourse during early morning, with gates available at the F concourse (I think E was full this go around, which would explain the COs). If I were to dedicate ramp parking areas to CO and US, would that solve the problem?
-
Yes, if you assign them with COA in first place and if you put them before the other ones. However, if they are available the first COA aircrafts arriving at the airport will park there as well.
harpsi
-
Ok, I have read this entire thread and have some questions...
I have modified the original AFCAD to tailor it to how I want to see AI traffic operate. The main things that I am trying to do is prevent traffic from crossing any active runway in an attempt to prevent backups. So, having said that, on a few of the runways I have selected "closed for TO" on one end and "closed for landing" on the other. FS seems to not like this and I always get assigned an easterly oriented runway by ATC regardless of wind direction.
For example- see below. I have developed a graph w/ two colums- one for takeoff and one for landing. The x represents "closed".
Takeoff Landing
4L X
4R X
9L X
9R X
14L X X
14R X
22L X
22R X
27L X
27R X
32L X
32R X
This setup prevents aircraft that are taxiing for takeoff to cross any runway that is being used for either takeoff or landing. It also prevents (for the most part) landing aircraft from crossing active runways as well.
When I use this setup with winds 270 @ 16 knots, FS assigns easterly oriented runways only. No matter what direction the winds come from, only the easterly runways are assigned by ATC.
Here are my questions:
1. Why is this happening?
2. How can I fix it?
3. Is there a way to only use 1 AFCAD and have the setup above?
Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated. I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable AFCAD user so if I dont understand something I'll figure it out.
-
Ok, I have read this entire thread and have some questions...
I have modified the original AFCAD to tailor it to how I want to see AI traffic operate. The main things that I am trying to do is prevent traffic from crossing any active runway in an attempt to prevent backups. So, having said that, on a few of the runways I have selected "closed for TO" on one end and "closed for landing" on the other. FS seems to not like this and I always get assigned an easterly oriented runway by ATC regardless of wind direction.
For example- see below. I have developed a graph w/ two colums- one for takeoff and one for landing. The x represents "closed".
Takeoff Landing
4L X
4R X
9L X
9R X
14L X X
14R X
22L X
22R X
27L X
27R X
32L X
32R X
This setup prevents aircraft that are taxiing for takeoff to cross any runway that is being used for either takeoff or landing. It also prevents (for the most part) landing aircraft from crossing active runways as well.
When I use this setup with winds 270 @ 16 knots, FS assigns easterly oriented runways only. No matter what direction the winds come from, only the easterly runways are assigned by ATC.
Here are my questions:
1. Why is this happening?
2. How can I fix it?
3. Is there a way to only use 1 AFCAD and have the setup above?
Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated. I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable AFCAD user so if I dont understand something I'll figure it out.
Hi
This issue has already been discussed for several times (well, let´s say for several years as well :P). You can never assign 4L for take off only and 22R for landing only, just as an example. FS will not recognize it. So, you can NEVER assign one side of the runway for one operation and the other side of the runway to another type of operation or even both operations. You can just assign the runway for TO or for landing, but both sides and not just one side.
So, in your schema 4L/22R won´t work, as well as 4R/22L, 14R/32L, 14L/32R. Only 9R/27L and 9L/27R will work properly.
harpsi
-
With regard to flyboy4165 's situation of COA aircraft parking at United's terminal, it might unintentionally be more realistic then you think! I just flew out of ORD on Continental, and for the following reason, Continental now uses Gates B1-B4. Apparently more gate changes are also on tap.
http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/page/Continental+moves+to+new+gates+at+O%E2%80%99Hare
-
where do I find the reworked AFCAD for KORD? do I have to reinstall the scenery? the problem I am finding currently is that there is only one active runway for example RWY10
mattix
-
Harpsi, could you please re-upload your latest AFCAD for KORD as well ?
-
Harpsi, could you please re-upload your latest AFCAD for KORD as well ?
Hi
Yes, I will do it today in the first post.
harpsi
-
place all files afcad it works properly or has fs9 afcad that takes forever?
-
Hello
said me the girlfriends this was quiet nornal to see devices of passenger stationer in the freighters the airports
KORD? .
If I install AFCAD the prôblème goes correct according to you.
thank you Didier Chabanne
-
Ya' gotta admire his persistence, I guess. :D
-
Can any one help me. They seems to be an issue with each side of the taxi ways the ground is very very blurry. I have tried to adjust my setting within FS9 can any one tell me what i should have turned off and what I should have turned on to make it look better. I have tried everything to make it look like there is grass or snow but have failed. I have tried to up my extremely dense Etc but if I turn them up on highest when i leave the runway and am skyborn everything looks shiny and does not look so good. If any one has had trouble with this same issue would like some feedback thanks. :- :)
-
Can any one help me. They seems to be an issue with each side of the taxi ways the ground is very very blurry.
It's not an issue: is how the scenery is made. Not all ground is covered with a 2nd detail texture layer to give the illusion of increased resolution, but only the parts you are supposed to be on, like taxiways. Not the grass.
However, "very very blurry" is really a vague term. The most effective setting, is the Global max texture size slider, that should be at Max, and the MipMap setting, that should be at least at 5, or even more. And, your video card setting should use Anisotropic filtering, at least at 8x.
-
Hi everyone,
Can someone please attach the most active afcad which allows runways besides 9L/R and 27L/R to be active?
Thanks!
-
HI There,
I have a question On KORD when I am hovering above the airport there is a line that goes across the whole airport its like someone put it together but there is seam what can i do to fix that problem. Thanks
Edwin
-
I have a question On KORD when I am hovering above the airport there is a line that goes across the whole airport its like someone put it together but there is seam what can i do to fix that problem.
Can you indicate the location ?
-
Can someone please make an AFCAD update for KORD (fs9)
-
Do these work in v2 for FS9?
-
I believe v2 is for P3D only....
Jim