FSDreamTeam forum
November 22, 2014, 05:19:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: KIAH has been released!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Updated Approach file for AI flying the Canarsie approach  (Read 9049 times)
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« on: September 19, 2008, 10:52:31 PM »

There was a small problem in the approach.bgl file for the Canarsie approach. Update this file in your FSDreamTeam\JFK\scenery folder, and AI should now fly the Canarsie approach correctly.

Starting from tomorrow, the installer will already include it.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: September 20, 2008, 12:04:53 AM by virtuali » Logged

virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2008, 04:27:47 PM »

Hello there, can you please help.   The Afcad you have available here seems to have issues.  This has nothing to to with the Carnasi Approach.

If, by "available here" you are refering to the file posted just above this message, that's NOT an AFCAD! Or, more precisely, it's not a standard AFCAD in the common meaning of the term, it's a partial AFCAD file containing just approaches, and nothing else. This way, regardless of the utility used, one can edit and tweak the main AFCAD without fear to lose the approaches. This is specifically valid if using the old AFCAD program.

The regular AFCAD is named AF2_KJFK.BGL and is installed with the product.

If, instead, by "available here", you are refering to the AFCAD files posted by Harpsi, keep in mind Harpsi it's just an user that likes to post AFCADs for our product, but these are not really part of the product.


Quote
2) What program do you use to build, save, edit your afcad?  AFX or Afcad v2...

We use the old AFCAD just to place parkings and taxiways, then we decompile only those sections, then we write the rest by hand in XML, that gets compiled by the default MS BGLCOMP compiler.


Quote
3) Did you test this Afcad?

Yes, of course.


Quote
4) Can you make another?  using afcad v2.

I guess so, AFCAD are usually tweaked a lot after product release. We had plenty of them for Zurich and O'Hare


Quote
5) Why does these seem so difficult. KORD works fine with triple the amount of runways?

Right now, the top priority is to be sure the program works for everyone, without crashes that, as we have seen, are 99% of the times caused by something else. After the dust is settled, we'll go back to the AFCAD. We had 3 PATCHES for Zurich, and most of the work was, in fact, the AFCAD. And you'll find a lot of AFCAD discussion in the KORD forum as well. Once we find what can be considerable a stable release from all the discussion that comes along in the forum, we usually merge all together in an "official" AFCAD that, even without using all tricks for enabling multiple runways and such, can be used as a good compromise for everyone.


Quote
6) Why does it seem the afcad becomes corrupt when edited.

What do you mean with corrupted ? It can't be opened anymore ? It shows up wrong data after being saved ?


Quote
7)  Why are airplanes landing on hidden runway 34 way out in the middle of the city, then proceed to take city streets to taxi to the terminal?Huh

I can't see this, not with the AFCAD we provide as default.


Quote
9) Can this circle to Land approach be cancel for now and can you send files that just have regular stright in approaches?

Of course. As explained on the manual, there are two approach files we provided: one for the Canarsie approach, the other for the regular straight ILS13. Just look at the two sub-folder under  JFK\Scenery.

Quote
10) Can you include the default afcad in the next set of down loads?

If, by "default" AFCAD you mean our own, instead the one on the forum, it has been always included.


Quote
Since it seems the answers from the owners seem to take awhile can anybody help me out?  I will take the default Afcad for now...

If by "answers from the owners seem to take awhile" you mean there's not enough support on this forum, can you please make an example of a support forum with a faster response time than this one ? I would be interested, because it is probably manned by robots...

If, instead, by "answers from the owners seem to take awhile", you only mean regarding the AFCAD, I've already said that we usually wait a little bit to see were all the AFCAD discussions leads to, before updating the official one that comes with the product.


P.S.
I removed your other messages, because you posted copies of the same message in all forums. One it's enough...
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 05:07:13 PM by virtuali » Logged

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


« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2008, 06:12:01 PM »

Quote
I removed your other messages, because you posted copies of the same message in all forums. One it's enough...

And he wrote to me directly about all these issues. I already gave my answer as well. Some private phrases were a little bit unpolite...Thatīs my comment.

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


« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2008, 07:45:45 PM »

Hi Umberto

I am sorry but this new fie didnīt change anything. I have 0 % of aircrafts landing on the runway Sad
They fly almost perfect the Kai Tak approach so I believe thatīs not really all flight models...

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2008, 07:59:33 PM »

I am sorry but this new fie didnīt change anything. I have 0 % of aircrafts landing on the runway

I already posted a list of aircraft which flies the canarsie approach correctly. On my system, it's about 70% of the AI I tested.

Quote
They fly almost perfect the Kai Tak approach so I believe thatīs not really all flight models...

It's not *only* the flight model, nobody said that. It's a combination of flight model, tweaks to approach file AND (if you followed all the discussions) AFCAD and even frame rate on the machine used.

This doesn't mean the approach file can't be improved, but the dependency of a flight model remains.
Logged

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


« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2008, 08:02:11 PM »

Quote

I already posted a list of aircraft which flies the canarsie approach correctly. On my system, it's about 70% of the AI I tested.


But from your list of AIs no one flies it on my machine which is very good for FS 2004...

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2008, 08:08:12 PM »

Quote
But from your list of AIs no one flies it on my machine which is very good for FS 2004...

Why, because of graphic models being too complex ? What the flight model has to do with the graphics ? Can't you simply try their .AIR/.CFG files with your models, or vice-versa ?

Logged

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


« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2008, 02:44:29 AM »

Hi

The question is: I use some of your AI flight models. What I am trying to understand is why they fly good with you and bad with me.

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2008, 11:24:58 AM »

The question is: I use some of your AI flight models. What I am trying to understand is why they fly good with you and bad with me.

First, without comparing .AIR files and aircraft.cfg files, you can't be sure we are using the same AI. And, if you read one of the message Jim Vile posted, even the same AI might perform differently, depening on the frame rate.
Logged

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


« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2008, 07:32:50 PM »

The question is: I use some of your AI flight models. What I am trying to understand is why they fly good with you and bad with me.

First, without comparing .AIR files and aircraft.cfg files, you can't be sure we are using the same AI. And, if you read one of the message Jim Vile posted, even the same AI might perform differently, depening on the frame rate.

I have good frame rates concerning that I am using FS9. It is supposed that the best frame rate you have, the best AIs will fly and not the opposite...

harpsi
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17056



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2008, 10:00:49 PM »

I have good frame rates concerning that I am using FS9.

The AI that I've listed to be working, were tested in FS9, of course.

Quote
It is supposed that the best frame rate you have, the best AIs will fly and not the opposite...

Of course. And where, exactly, did I said otherwise ?
Logged

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


« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2008, 02:31:15 AM »

I see. This is really strange :|

harpsi
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!