NEW AFCAD already checked with AES

[harpsi]

On the runways: well, you may note that my specialty is to get gate assignments right. Runways is less my domain. Still, I think you have done a phantastic job. I have tested the runways at several times and indeed I got landings on 14, smaller landings and smaller departures on 28, and bigger departures on 16. Now the only thing that bothers me with this is that not only B737s but also A319/320/321 should take off from runway 28. If that could be done by tinkering around with the runway length, then things would be really perfect. I have tried tinkering around a bit, but still I have the A319/320/321s take off from 16. Anything you can do to fix that?

OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing. But you can not avoid them at runway 16. Runway 16 is bigger than 28 so AIs can always go there if they go to south destinations... There are some things that are impossible to do in a simulator...

You can take them out from runway 28 but never from runway 16. If jets are going to one runway, smaller planes can also go there as well. I know what you mean: small planes for 28 and big ones for 16. It would be perfect but impossible. You can get small ones for 28 and small plus big ones at 16. No chance to avoid that behaviour. About the rest of the post I will take a look tomorrow and I will see what I can do.

The runway issue I analyzed now because I am sure it can´t be changed...

harpsi

[harpsi]

In relaity, Singapore and Thai are parked at B gates during their layover and only use the E gates to embark and disembark. In my AFCAD, they are at the E gates during their entire stay in Zurich

Well, you know already that this changes are impossible to simulate. Right?

On the runways: well, you may note that my specialty is to get gate assignments right. Runways is less my domain. Still, I think you have done a phantastic job. I have tested the runways at several times and indeed I got landings on 14, smaller landings and smaller departures on 28, and bigger departures on 16. Now the only thing that bothers me with this is that not only B737s but also A319/320/321 should take off from runway 28. If that could be done by tinkering around with the runway length, then things would be really perfect. I have tried tinkering around a bit, but still I have the A319/320/321s take off from 16. Anything you can do to fix that?

OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing. But you can not avoid them at runway 16. Runway 16 is bigger than 28 so AIs can always go there if they go to south destinations... There are some things that are impossible to do in a simulator...

You can take them out from runway 28 but never from runway 16. If jets are going to one runway, smaller planes can also go there as well. I know what you mean: small planes for 28 and big ones for 16. It would be perfect but impossible. You can get small ones for 28 and small plus big ones at 16. No chance to avoid that behaviour. About the rest of the post I will take a look tomorrow and I will see what I can do.

The runway issue I analyzed now because I am sure it can´t be changed...

Another thing: I have used the code CRX but this code doesn´t exist anymore. The airlines are swiss and swiss european.

Darwin and star allliance commuter at I gates >>> already done!

Privatair is parking at E in my simulator.

You forgot one thing: the AES cars and trucks. You have to see what are the movements of all cars... I will look at it and I wil get back to you.

harpsi

[harpsi]

Hi

Ok. After some analyses I decided the following:
- F gates have now SWU code
- E45+E49 disabled >>> we get now E47
- E25+E29 disabled >>> we get now E27
- E22 substituted by E20
- Those new gates are turned into heavy or medium with high parking radius
- CRX codes substituted; now we have SWR and SWU
- Airlines which are going to America now at gates E19 to E35
- B31-B37 gates coded like you requested
- B39 coded MNB; however there are no FP to LSZH at the moment for this airline
- added some airlines to gates C and D
- new codes for T gates
- D gates medium modified to small (heavies were going there and wings were having colisions)

Some considerations:
- I don´t use those codes like DLHX, CRXX, MAHX, ADRX. I only use the real codes. I just play with parking radius. For lufthansa and partners you have RUS, CLH and so on.
- Some airlines you mentioned are already out of service.
- Some airlines you mentioned at some places are cargo airlines.

I have a website where I have all fleets, codes and so on. They make changes almost every week. I am seeing codes and so on in this website.

With your new configuration we lose 3 gates for AES... That´s the bad part of the story.

I didn´t try the file because it is too late but you can try it yourself.

harpsi

[attachment deleted by admin]

[mozart]

OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing.

Really? That's perfect!! How did you manage that?

I don't mind the A32S going to 16 for takeoff, it's just that they ALL go to 16, and none of them goes to 28 for takeoff.

Just a couple of other notes:

1. Indeed, codes are always particular. It's just that my Swiss AI planes are coded CRX, CRXX and so on. So I care a little less about whether codes are up to date in real life than about planes standing at the right gates. If it's an old code that makes them go there then I am fine. My testing showed that I have a 98% realistic result for gate assignments on my setup. It may not work for other users that well.

2. MNG: I have them in a cargo flightplan, but that plan is about 2-3 years old indeed. Still, just three weeks ago I saw an MNG Cargo Airbus A300 parked at ZRH.

3. There are indeed some "old flightplan" issues: SAA no longer serves ZRH. ACA no longer flies to Delhi, so just one plane visits. Air France should have more flights with all the Citiyjet Avros going to LCY. As for the main users (Swiss and subsidiaries, Lufthansa and subsidiaries, Helvetica) the plans are the latest.

I think what I'll do now is that I keep gate assignments as they are for my personal use because they work. However, I'll use and test your file for runway usage. If I can get some of the A32S to use runway 28 for takeoff, then I am perfectly happy.

I'll take a look at everything late tonight when I am back from work.

[harpsi]

OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing.

Really? That's perfect!! How did you manage that?

It depends on the runway lenght only. I didn´t see any 321 there as far as I remember, but I saw a lot of 319 and 320. It is also difficult to see when a 321 is coming, because sometimes they are used alleatory (Ut traffic has the aircraft code 32S, so you just assign all types and you see what is happening)

1. Indeed, codes are always particular. It's just that my Swiss AI planes are coded CRX, CRXX and so on. So I care a little less about whether codes are up to date in real life than about planes standing at the right gates. If it's an old code that makes them go there then I am fine. My testing showed that I have a 98% realistic result for gate assignments on my setup. It may not work for other users that well.

Right. I have to think about all users as well, the flight plans they have, and so on. My file is let´s say a real but also a "general" one. Anyway I am honest: I din´t test this one yet. I just made it to be available for you.

2. MNG: I have them in a cargo flightplan, but that plan is about 2-3 years old indeed. Still, just three weeks ago I saw an MNG Cargo Airbus A300 parked at ZRH.

I think that right now, at least with the FP I use, we can have two cargo airlines: UAEC (Emirates Sky Cargo) and RUN (kuzu Airlines/Empost)

I expect your comments tonight then.

harpsi

[mozart]

Hi harpsi

I was tinkering around with the AFCAD last night, and when I finished around 1am, I was just too tired to write...

So here's my playing around with the runway:

I wanted to get to the following result:

• Takeoffs from both runway 28 and 16
• Heavies (767s and bigger) to use only runway 16
• All others (321 and smaller) to use a mix of 16 and 28 (I understand that it is not possible to have them use only 28(

So I played around with runway length of 28 a bit. The runway length in your file (1950 meters) didn't give me any Airbusses on 28, so I made it longer. I played around with many many combinations (re-started FS around 40 times), and I now settled for a runway length of 2130 meters. This gives me all heavies on runway 16, and a mixed of use of 16 and 28 of all other planes. The only plane that bothered me was the A321: when I put runway length to 2140 meters, some of the A321s take off from runway 28 - but then so do the B767s, B777s, A330s and A340s. Not acceptable! So I reduce it to 2130 meters, which makes all the B767s and above use runway 16 - but then no A321s on runway 28. I conclude that the A321 are in the same "weight league" as the B767s and bigger, so wherever the A321s go, the heavies go as well. I therefore settled for a situation where A321s all take off from runway 16. Which is OK, given that Swiss has only five or so A321s, so no big deal.

As for landings, I did something else - which works for me, but maybe not for the "general public" whom I know you want to cater to.

I basically play around with runway openings depending on time of day I am operating in and out of Zurich. For most times of the day, the situation is:

Landings: runway 14 -> so I open runway 14/32 for landings only
Take offs: runways 16 and 28 -> so I open runways 16/34 and 28/10 for take offs only

The behaviour I am getting is very close to reality and I am very pleased with it.

In the evenings after 8pm, the situation is a bit different:

Landings: runway 28 -> so I open runway 28/10 for landings only
Take offs: runways 32 and 34 -> I opened them for take offs, but so far take offs go from 16 instead of 34. But I'll play with that tonight in my next testing session.

The behaviour I get: all planes that land in the evening are A320 and smaller, and they all land on runway 28. The only plane bigger than that in the evening is an Emirates A330 - which landed on runway 14. Great! I can live with that.

So my only problem left is how to create the "evening" situation, i.e. take offs from runways 32 and 34 instead of 16. But I think to have that it is not enough to simply open/close runways (which can be done in seconds). The order/labelling of runways has to be changed, which means I need to create a separate AFCAD file. Again, I am not a runway specialist, so I'll try and test. If it doesn't work, I'll stick to the "day" situation at all times.

Let me say again that you have done a superb job on the runway system. How you managed to get the combinations of 14,16 and 28 to work is simply amazing. Thanks a lot for that!

[harpsi]

Hi

I believe that you want to make ir as real as possible, but there is a big difference from a simulator to the real life. In real life you have a "person" who says: you go to this runway or you go to that runway. Here this is not possible. For example with my runway lebght I get a lot of A319 and 320 on runway 28. About the use of runways 28, 32 and 34 at the same time, that takes us to another discussion which was the introduction of a new file called DVO28/34. Unfortunatelly if it would be like that you would need dozens of afcads. That´s not possible at all. There are really a few airports where I play with that and I use more than one afcad: Amsterdam because you have a special way to fly there and yuo have really some combinations, Helsinki because you can do it in two different ways, or KBOS for example. Otherwise it would be impossible to use lots of files for every airport to simulate every hour in real life.

I hope that you like the file and enjoy it, or in other way you can for sure make your changes applied to the traffic you have in your simulator. I think that I can post the last file here, the one I sent to you which will be ready for the next SP.

harpsi

[EDDT-Sebi]

What is news next version AFCAD? I see AI Traffic, wind from 200°, Approach RWY16 or RWY14, but smale aircraft approach to RWY10, sould to RWY28!  and Take off big aircraft to RWY16, and smale aircraft to RWY10! AI Traffik stop after Runways before RWY10! Mhh...!

Sebastian

[harpsi]

What is news next version AFCAD? I see AI Traffic, wind from 200°, Approach RWY16 or RWY14, but smale aircraft approach to RWY10, sould to RWY28!  and Take off big aircraft to RWY16, and smale aircraft to RWY10! AI Traffik stop after Runways before RWY10! Mhh...!

Sebastian

With the afcad included in the package it is impossible to be like that. The two possible combinations are: 14+16+28 or 32+34+10. It is not possible that you have 10 in use together with 14and 16. Even runway 10/28 has much less lenght than normal, so you could not takeoff from there.

harpsi

[Flyingnut]

Is the LSZH.zip that is attached to the 11 November 2007 message the latest and greatest AFCAD for LSZH?

Thanks!

Marty

[harpsi]

Is the LSZH.zip that is attached to the 11 November 2007 message the latest and greatest AFCAD for LSZH?

Thanks!

Marty

The latest yes. The greatest... well, you can make your comments after trying. 

harpsi