AI Traffic bunching problem

[M-Sauce]

OK, have come up for a temporary fix.

I made a dummy AF2 named "AF2_KFL1", and I renamed the AP_KFLL from the latest update to "AF2_KFLL_MCB". Here is what they do:

The "AF2_KFL1" file only contains the cement area that underlies the ground textures. It keeps the default ground from showing and also blocks the "AF2_KFLL_MCB" textures from showing (HS nodes, runway markings).

The "AF2_KFLL_MCB" file contains the airport facility features. It is the default AP_KFLL file from the V1.1 update but with the following changes to it:
 - No cement ramp (not needed, it is in the AF2_KFL1 file)
 - No more 1 meter taxiways (fixes the AI bunch up)
 - Deleted X-Wind runways (Not needed at this airport)
 - Deleted some taxiways that AI will never take for simplification
 - Reposition start locations to be over the runway threshold

The files, along with a screenshots, are attached below. The only side effect of this workarround that I know of is that the displaced threshold arrows and threshold bars are missing, but I think this is an acceptable compromise for me.  

As always, please make sure to back-up the original AP_KFLL file and place it somewhere safe. Then, place both these files included in the ZIP into the Scenery folder for KFLL. That is all.

[virtuali]

This can be rectified fairly simply by modifiying the alpha transparency on the base photoreal but it obviously is in Fsdt's best interest to make the fs9 version crappier than the fsx version.

Wrong. We don't intentionally make the FS9 version look crappier, we just don't make any extra effort to make it better, that would be otherwise required, to overcome FS9 limitations.

However, specific to THIS particular problem, we'll probably work on the solution of having a different alpha, just for FS9, and this is what we are working now, but we need to release the FSX upgrade, because even FSX user has a right to get an update, this is the first time ever we released an upgrade for FS9 first, if anyone had noticed...

[JFKpilot]

This can be rectified fairly simply by modifiying the alpha transparency on the base photoreal but it obviously is in Fsdt's best interest to make the fs9 version crappier than the fsx version.

Wrong. We don't intentionally make the FS9 version look crappier, we just don't make any extra effort to make it better, that would be otherwise required, to overcome FS9 limitations.

However, specific to THIS particular problem, we'll probably work on the solution of having a different alpha, just for FS9, and this is what we are working now, but we need to release the FSX upgrade, because even FSX user has a right to get an update, this is the first time ever we released an upgrade for FS9 first, if anyone had noticed...

I understand the fs9 version is a result of the 1:1 port from the fsx version, the "make it crappier" part was bad exaggeration on my part and I apologize. Also, pending the official update, do you approve of M-Sauce's method as a fix (which he posted just before your reply)? Don't worry about me though, I only fly fs9 about 10% of the time anyway. 

[virtuali]

Also, pending the official update, do you approve of M-Sauce's method as a fix (which he posted just before your reply)?

I'm not sure what do you mean with "approve". You are of course free to download anything made by anyone, as long as you remember to remove it, when we'll release the proper update. Also, this is not just a fix for that problem, but includes several other modifications to the AFCAD, which might be useful or not, you decide (some people would complain not having x-wind runways, for example)

If, by "approve", you mean "use your time to download the file, test it, and suggest it or not" then no, sorry, we'd rather spend time working on the patch itself...

[I.J.]

Hi
That's what I did to solve the bounching problem (at both sides of the RW, of course). No major modification to the original AFCAD's, no additional files. The only thing is that tha traffic holds short closer to the runway but with this airport layout and these FS limitations I couldn't find a better solution.
Iouri

[Mike...]

It may be interesting to read my post here about link widths and suppressing the hold short marker...

[virtuali]

It may be interesting to read my post here about link widths and suppressing the hold short marker...

Everything related to this issue at KFLL is now obsolete, because with the 1.2 we change the ground textures in order not having to use 1 ft taxiway widths in order to suppress the hold short markings, which are now all standard sizes.

[Mike...]

Hey Mariano, I read your post again and I wonder if the sole side effect couldn't be fixed by adding runways with threshold markings to the dummy file?

Dummy file with apron and runways (with displaced threshold markings). The visual Afcad.

Regular Afcad, without apron, with runways that can be widened without showing up in the sim as such, with regular width links, with hold short markers. The non-visual control Afcad.

I've been talking to another forum member about the transparency and removal thereof. The same issue arises, no displaced threshold markings.



Think I'll give your method a shot.

[Mike...]

Nice, it works as expected. Dummy file provides the visuals (and flatten), the other one does the rest without affecting the visuals.

I named the dummy AF2_KFL1.bgl and gave it KFL1 as ICAO code. It was a new Afcad, so without any stock info linked to it, then I simply copied and pasted the apron and the three runways from the finished Afcad. I may need to position the runways a little better still.

The finished Afcad has been freed of the apron and edited to include a three hundred feet wide runway and a three hundred feet wide hold short marker to test. And nothing is showing through!

Give the files a try and see. For testing purposes only, will finalize them later.

The benefit of this approach is its simplicity. It doesn't involve texture editing of any kind, the dummy can be made in a matter of minutes, and the real Afcad can be edited to your heart's content.


Edit: zip removed. Final dummy and Afcad can be found in the Afcad thread shortly.

[M-Sauce]

That is agood idea Mike.

When I made the original dummy file, I just wanted to use the apron in it to remove it from the runways and override all AF2 visual effects. I don't see why leaving the runways in would be a problem, as long as it is another airport name it should not interfere.

I'll adapt it to my dummy file and hopefully will have a completed AF2 file soon.

Mariano 

[Mike...]

I just attached my set to the Afcad thread.

Does FSDreamTeam have an opinion about this refined dummy Afcad method? It takes very little time and effort to make the dummy Afcad and no additional texture editing is needed. Seems like the best compromise so far. Hope you can look at it with an open mind.

[virtuali]

Does FSDreamTeam have an opinion about this refined dummy Afcad method? It takes very little time and effort to make the dummy Afcad and no additional texture editing is needed. Seems like the best compromise so far. Hope you can look at it with an open mind.

We already said that it's no problem for us to update the textures, of course after having verified that your suggested modifications to the hold short zones make sense in the first place, then we'll probably fix our own AFCAD, and this will not use the dummy file. If you prefer to use your method and your own AFCAD, it's your choice.

[Mike...]

If it wasn't clear already, I'm talking about future sceneries.

It takes mere minutes to make the dummy file. And where texture edits only cover specific areas, the dummy covers the entire scenery. It gives the user complete freedom to edit his/her Afcad without any visual side effects or AI related problems.

You keep your design method and FSX effects and you no longer have to edit textures. Minimal effort for you, maximal result for the user. And no more post-release issues and discussions like we've had with the past couple of sceneries.

What do you think?