FSDreamTeam forum
August 31, 2014, 03:11:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: KIAH has been released!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: My Afcad, visible markers, texture alpha layers  (Read 4156 times)
Mike...
Full Member
***
Posts: 108


« on: April 24, 2009, 09:17:09 PM »

I'm pretty much done with my Afcad, which is based on the original one included with the scenery. It is best used with "KLAS_ILS_jv.BGL" from this Avsim package, refer to its readme for installation instructions and notes. Only install that file, not the Afcad.

A couple of comments. I've stripped all aprons from my Afcad. There's one tiny visual anomaly left that I've not been able to remove, but I'm not gonna tell you where you can find it, so you will probably not notice it. ;-p I've not seen anything to indicate the aprons are needed.

I've also changed all runways except 7L/25R to concrete, because that's what they are in real life. Cearly visible in Google Earth, although 7R/25L is still in old style there, it has recently been redone and is about to be reopened.

See my post here about the bunching up problem and its assumed cause. In my Afcad I've made sure that the link widths around the hold short nodes are wide enough. So far I've not seen the bunching up issue return, but then again, the issue has never been consistent for me, I believe it also depends on the kind of AI aircraft the FDE in use.

You won't notice the hold short markers at most runway entries (and only at those runways opened for take-offs, the inner ones), but at 25R you will, because the links do not form a straight line there. I can either make taxiway B1 the runway entry, where there is a straight line or I can look into the alpha layers of the ground textures...

I'm already experimenting with the latter. I edited the alpha layer of KLAS_34.bmp and removed the gray from the area around the hold short node. This removed the transparency and in the sim, the hold short node from the Afcad was no longer visible!

I do not know why the ground textures contain transparency, it probably has to do with FSX and the limited amount of time and resources spent to make the FS9 version, but it is that transparency that causes Afcad elements to be visible. Ideally, if the transparency serves no purpose in FS9, FSDreamTeam should provide ground textures without shades of gray in the alpha layers (black is good). But if they won't, I will, but only those areas that are affected, the hold short markers at 25R being the best example.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 12:00:32 PM by Mike... » Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 12:04:22 AM »

But if they won't, I will, but only those areas that are affected, the hold short markers at 25R being the best example.

Sorry, but that's just not the case. No holding zones are visible in the AFCAD we provided with the product. There were ONLY  double threshold arrows, and this HAS been fixed.

If you are seeing holding zones, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact the are detail textures on top of the AFCAD, it's due to the fact that you forgot to edit some taxipaths close to the holding zone and haven't set width to 1 ft, which is a way to make them invisible in FS9, without affecting the AI (the width it's only used by the visual engine).

Just set the taxiway width on both sides of the hold short nodes to 1 ft, and the hold short zone will disappear. It will disapper in AFCAD as well.
Logged

Mike...
Full Member
***
Posts: 108


« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2009, 09:27:39 AM »

Well, what is causing the bunching up issue then? If I set width to 1, there's bunching up, if set to 100, none... Why is it, that Afcad and other Afcad editors complain when you set the width of a parking connector to 0 or <15ft? Because if set to that and if the link does not line up with the heading of the parking spot, departing AI may not depart at all. So link width matters in certain cases.

What purpose does the transparency serve in FS9? Why is the issue of Afcad elements becoming visible not witnessed in other sceneries I have? No other scenery I have, needs to suppress hold short markers by playing with link widths. Does it have to do with certain effects in FSX that require default ground in order to work? Rain and whatnot? And isn't it so, that in FSX there just happens to be a different kind of hold short node. One that doesn't draw markers... You don't have those in FS9, so your solution was to reduce link widths.

I'm not saying there is a big flaw in the FS9 version, but there's definitely something going on. Something that is not an issue with the dozens of other addon sceneries I have. Not with KORD, no gray in the alpha layers there, only black. And I have a strong suspicion that it has to do with FSX and your desire not to redo the entire scenery for FS9, especially the textures. That may have sounded like a good idea at the time, but I'd say it's generating more issues for you know. So was it really worth it?

Now, we can have a another lengthy discussion, but why not just say, the transparency does not serve a purpose in FS9. The abnormal link width may or may not cause an AI issue. We're not gonna redo all the ground textures, but if you want to may some small adjustments where needed, knock yourself out. And for our next scenery, we may have to rethink how we do the FS9 version...

Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 12:01:33 PM by Mike... » Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2009, 01:12:58 PM »

Well, what is causing the bunching up issue then? If I set width to 1, there's bunching up, if set to 100, none...

I see no bunching here with width set to 0. The airplanes just pause for a couple of seconds on the holding zone, then go to takeoff normally. However, there was just ONE hold short node in our AFCAD (on taxi A7) which was too far from the runway, and that's might be the one creating the issue.


Quote
Why is it, that Afcad and other Afcad editors complain when you set the width of a parking connector to 0 or <15ft? Because if set to that and if the link does not line up with the heading of the parking spot, departing AI may not depart at all. So link width matters in certain cases.

The parking connector doesn't anything to do with the hold short zones. If it might be an issue there, it doesn't means it's an issue on the hold short zones as well. Which Afcad editor complains about taxiway widths, not in relationship to parkings ? AFCAD and ADE certainly do not.


Quote
What purpose does the transparency serve in FS9?

It's obviously serves to create a layer of details, like custom hold short zone, lines, ground patterns, etc.


Quote
Why is the issue of Afcad elements becoming visible not witnessed in other sceneries I have?

There are no other AFCAD elements visible, if you use the AFCAD we supply.


Quote
No other scenery I have, needs to suppress hold short markers by playing with link widths.

Should I need to start a list of "other sceneries you might have" that plays with SOMETHING ELSE, which might not be very common, to overcome any SDK shortcoming and fit with THEIR designing style and methods ?


Quote
Does it have to do with certain effects in FSX that require default ground in order to work? Rain and whatnot? And isn't it so, that in FSX there just happens to be a different kind of hold short node. One that doesn't draw markers... You don't have those in FS9, so your solution was to reduce link widths.

Yes, that's a reason.


Quote
And I have a strong suspicion that it has to do with FSX and your desire not to redo the entire scenery for FS9, especially the textures.

"Strong suspicion" ? We said this MANY TIMES in the open. The FS9 version is exactly the same as the FSX one. It's not a native version, is not made with FS9 in mind, and it will not use FS9 to its fullest because of this.

And, as we said (countless of times), this is EXACTLY (just in reverse) the same situation of 99% of developers out there which instead port FROM FS9 to FSX, and the result is usually an FSX scenery with many issues and glitches, like bad performances, AI disappearing, etc. This is not any different: when something is PORTED from a platform to the other one, you should expect the version begin ported not being as if it were made from scratch with that platform in mind.

It's just that, this time, the port is not made starting with your preferred platform in mind, that's why you see differences compared to other sceneries. The same sceneries that will usually have lots of issue in their FSX versions (if there is one), and it's usually the FSX users that need to live with the inferior version. Here's the opposite. We never hidden this fact.


[quote[That may have sounded like a good idea at the time, but I'd say it's generating more issues for you know. [/quote]

Is still a good idea, of course, and It's either this, or it's not FS9 version anymore. There's a Trial for both versions: FS9 users have all the means of getting to know about the results of this method by themselves, and can always choose not to buy the scenery.


Quote
Now, we can have a another lengthy discussion, but why not just say, the transparency does not serve a purpose in FS9

It does: it gives the scenery the look we wanted, without having to rewrite in from scratch for FS9.


Quote
And for our next scenery, we may have to rethink how we do the FS9 version...

No, it's much more simple: if FS9 users will stop buying the FS9 version because these porting issues are too annoying for them, we'll simply drop the FS9 version...
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 01:53:56 PM by virtuali » Logged

harpsi
Beta tester
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 416


« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2009, 02:43:20 PM »

Hi

I had to change all widths of 1 feet to 100 feet. If they are set to 1 feet, I donīt have traffic on the airport... It is as simple as that...
That was the first thing I noticed in the original afcad. So, I changed everything from this point and no problems at all.

Mike, it would be good to continue this discussion in the afcad topic, so that everyonde can follow the conversation about this topic instead of a lot of posts about the same thing. Just a suggestion...

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2009, 03:00:48 PM »

Harpsi, I don't know what other problem you had, but this is your latest AFCAD, with widths set to 1 ft, ONLY for those links connected to an hold short node, which makes the default hold short drawing to disappear.

As you can see, there's no shortage of traffic, and there's are no problems at the hold zone of AI bunching up, they just flow normally. This is with World of ai at 100% density.

And, because of the width set to 1 ft, there are no default hold short zone appearing.



[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 03:04:44 PM by virtuali » Logged

virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2009, 03:03:10 PM »

Here's your latest AFCAD, just modified for the hold short zones widths. It's the one I had in use to take the screenshots above.

* AF2_KLAS.bgl (60.02 KB - downloaded 100 times.)
Logged

Mike...
Full Member
***
Posts: 108


« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2009, 03:07:06 PM »

That second capture shows aircraft taxiing to the runway. Wait until they all get there and actually have to wait. But as I said before, it may have to do with specific aircraft, FDE's, braking power, etc...

Now back to my latest reply which didn't go through...

I really want to let you get back to fixing the outstanding issues, to finally getting started on the KORD update, etc... But I will not let you question my sanity.

Quote
The parking connector doesn't anything to do with the hold short zones. If it might be an issue there, it doesn't means it's an issue on the hold short zones as well. Which Afcad editor complains about taxiway widths, not in relationship to parkings ? AFCAD and ADE certainly do not.

No, it doesn't mean that it's an issue, but it's certainly likely. See this thread for example. Are you saying that width was not an issue there?

Quote
Does it have to do with certain effects in FSX that require default ground in order to work? Rain and whatnot? And isn't it so, that in FSX there just happens to be a different kind of hold short node. One that doesn't draw markers... You don't have those in FS9, so your solution was to reduce link widths.

Yes, that's one reason.

Thank you.

Quote
I really don't know what's wrong with you: we said this MANY TIMES in the open. The FS9 version is EXACTLY the same as the FSX one. It's not a native version, is not made with FS9 in mind, and it will not use FS9 at its fullest because of this.

I'm not a scenery designer, so even though you have said countless times, it's a port, I do not know if a certain aspect of the scenery has to do with the port back from FSX or not, if it is a side effect. I can only assume that certain aspects of scenery design have not changed going from FS9 to FSX. I don't know what has and what hasn't. So it is completely uncalled for, for you to question whether something is wrong with me. I haven't just released my sloppiest scenery for FS9 ever. I'd concentrate on my own faults if I were you.

Quote
if FS9 users will stop buying the FS9 version because these porting issues are too annoying for them

So you port back to save time and resources, which is understandable, nobody should expect getting two separately developed products for the price of one. But where other designers may eventually decide to ask money for both, you refuse to even consider the possibility, you want people to move to FSX, sooner rather than later. It's one thing to trash FS9 and its users verbally, it's one thing to port back, it's another to port back and do nothing else, not even the slightest to iron out some FS9 issues. You put out a substandard product in the hope that people will make the switch?! And there's always the trial a.k.a. beta version you can hide behind.

I still wonder if at a rough ratio of 55:45 in favor of FSX, you can afford dropping FS9 altogether. At the moment, I'd rather you did. You're not doing anyone any favors by not going for it a 100%. Certainly not us, but also not you and your reputation.

Quote
Mike, it would be good to continue this discussion in the afcad topic, so that everyonde can follow the conversation about this topic instead of a lot of posts about the same thing. Just a suggestion...

I agree.
Logged
harpsi
Beta tester
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 416


« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2009, 03:11:39 PM »

Hi virtuali

I changed all taxi widths. Maybe that is not my latest file... And I donīt have default hold short marks as well...

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2009, 03:42:02 PM »

That second capture shows aircraft taxiing to the runway.

The picture, obviously, is static. But it shows an airplane that just took off, after having flown normally without any problems over the hold short zone, and the US Airways that is the first in line, is already PAST the position of the AFCAD hold short, meaning it hasn't stopped as well, and was flowing normally after the one that just took off.


Quote
Wait until they all get there and actually have to wait. But as I said before, it may have to do with specific aircraft, FDE's, braking power, etc...

I'm running at 4x acceleration for quite some time now, and haven't seen any problems so far, with WOAI models. The only things that stops planes from taking off is what's happening on the runway (eg. if somone is landing, they wait), which is normal, but they just line up correctly and always take off normally.

Quote
See this thread for example. Are you saying that width was not an issue there?

I should verify with that specific AFCAD for O'Hare which problem was. However, it might have been an issue there, because there it was referring to taxiway of 1 ft, but at KLAS we have those links flagged as apron routes, not taxiways and, since I don't see any AI taxiing into each others at KLAS, it's possible the 1 ft width is not a problem, if a link is flagged as an Apron link.


Quote
It's one thing to trash FS9 and its users verbally, it's one thing to port back, it's another to port back and do nothing else, not even the slightest to iron out some FS9 issues.

We are fixing everything that has reported so far: in fact, most of the fixes ARE for FS9 and, of course, the AFCAD will be finished shortly so, what you are saying that we are not fixing even the slightest for FS9, is obviously wrong.

What we are NOT going to fix, instead, is something that would force redo the FS9 scenery from scratch, like the way the ground is done, for example. However, I still don't see the hold short made that way as being a problem.

Note, that I'm still running FS9 for a while in this very moment, and the only thing I see is airplanes happily taxiing correctly overy the hold short zones without any issues.

Quote
You put out a substandard product in the hope that people will make the switch?!

We put the only product that can result from a port from FSX, which is the only way there's a FS9 version to begin with.


Quote
And there's always the trial a.k.a. beta version you can hide behind.

Wrong again. The Trial is there in there open. There's nothing to hide.


Quote
I still wonder if at a rough ratio of 55:45 in favor of FSX, you can afford dropping FS9 altogether. At the moment, I'd rather you did. You're not doing anyone any favors by not going for it a 100%. Certainly not us, but also not you and your reputation.

And you are not doing any favors to the FS9 cause, by commenting in such way, because it's post like these that really makes you wonder if all this hassle is really worth it...if supporting FS9 would start to become a burden, we'll very well decide to release 2 FSX sceneries in the same time it takes to relase an FSX scenery + an FS9 scenery properly done.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 03:44:22 PM by virtuali » Logged

virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2009, 03:45:33 PM »

I changed all taxi widths. Maybe that is not my latest file... And I donīt have default hold short marks as well...

Keep in mind that you don't have to change all the widths to 1 ft, just the ones connected to an hold short node.
Logged

harpsi
Beta tester
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 416


« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2009, 03:54:53 PM »

I changed all taxi widths. Maybe that is not my latest file... And I donīt have default hold short marks as well...

Keep in mind that you don't have to change all the widths to 1 ft, just the ones connected to an hold short node.

It is exactly in the opposite way. I changed all of them from 1 to 100 and not the opposite. I donīt have any problem with the scenery, and also with AI traffic as well after those changes.

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 16561



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2009, 03:56:10 PM »

It is exactly in the opposite way. I changed all of them from 1 to 100 and not the opposite. I donīt have any problem with the scenery, and also with AI traffic as well after those changes.

I see double hold short zones with your AFCAD, if I don't change those links to 1 ft. And this is what is supposed to happen. I don't see any difference with AI behaviour, regardless of the width.
Logged

harpsi
Beta tester
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 416


« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2009, 04:04:06 PM »

Hi

In my original afcad: width of 1 feet = to NO traffic! Thatīs why I changed this from the beginning: AI traffic return and no problems with scenery and AI traffic behaviour after that...

harpsi

Logged
Mike...
Full Member
***
Posts: 108


« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2009, 04:10:49 PM »

Never test AI at a rate other than 1x. But anyway, you're obviously not seeing anything, so it doesn't really matter.

Quote
We are fixing everything that has reported so far: in fact, most of the fixes ARE for FS9 and, of course, the AFCAD will be finished shortly so, what you are saying that we are not fixing even the slightest for FS9, is obviously wrong.

I never said such a thing, read again and please differentiate between fixing things after the release and doing a proper release in the first place.

Quote
Wrong again. The Trial is there in there open. There's nothing to hide.

Just because you see the word "hide" in a sentence, doesn't mean it suggests that you have something to hide. That's the problem, you're not hiding anything, you're not being very subtle... What I meant, was that everytime someone brings up something, sometimes a genuine problem, sometimes a side effect, you say, we have a trial. Having a trial is not a deus ex machina.

Quote
And you are not doing any favors to the FS9 cause, by commenting in such way, because it's post like these that really makes you wonder if all this hassle is really worth it...if supporting FS9 would start to become a burden, we'll very well decide to release 2 FSX sceneries in the same time it takes to relase an FSX scenery + an FS9 scenery properly done.

You already aren't doing the FS9 version properly, as you've stated MANY TIMES, it's a direct port with no extra effort ("EXACTLY the same"). So dropping FS9 now shouldn't give you time to do two FSX sceneries instead of one, should it?

Really, if it is such a burden, then just say thanks to the 45%, but no thanks.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!