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.
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
