Author Topic: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD  (Read 180807 times)

harpsi

  • Beta tester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #90 on: March 18, 2008, 04:29:19 am »
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
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 04:31:55 am by harpsi »

Mike...

  • Guest
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #91 on: March 18, 2008, 12:43:54 pm »
Here's my Afcad package. It includes one Afcad, one approach file and one readme. Read the readme... and enjoy. ;)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 03:11:36 pm by Mike... »

Dillon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #92 on: March 18, 2008, 03:44:36 pm »
Thanks Mike...  ;)

b742f

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #93 on: March 18, 2008, 08:31:52 pm »
Thanks Harpsi, and thanks Mike! I will check this file out

harpsi

  • Beta tester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #94 on: March 18, 2008, 09:30:39 pm »
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:
Quote
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

« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 09:46:21 pm by harpsi »

Dillon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #95 on: March 18, 2008, 09:46:32 pm »
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...  :)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 03:16:01 am by Dillon »

EDDK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #96 on: March 18, 2008, 09:49:59 pm »
ok after this post: everything remains as it is -> AF2_KORD_PLAN_X  ;D

harpsi

  • Beta tester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #97 on: March 18, 2008, 10:14:01 pm »
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
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 10:17:00 pm by harpsi »

Mike Phyrio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #98 on: March 18, 2008, 11:13:51 pm »
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?

Dillon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #99 on: March 18, 2008, 11:17:54 pm »
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.

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #100 on: March 18, 2008, 11:24:48 pm »
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.

ESzczesniak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #101 on: March 18, 2008, 11:45:18 pm »
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.

Mike...

  • Guest
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #102 on: March 19, 2008, 01:12:10 am »
Quote
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. ;)

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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. So yes, I changed them for this Afcad specifically.

Quote
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...

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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. ;)

harpsi

  • Beta tester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #103 on: March 19, 2008, 02:05:21 am »
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

harpsi

  • Beta tester
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: NEW AFCAD PACKAGE FOR KORD
« Reply #104 on: March 19, 2008, 02:06:18 am »
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