Hello, I've been thinking about this a little more. I understand the complexities of designing and developing a product that will work flawlessly with the multitude of permutations available. I admire you for how well you have achieved this. As I said, I am sure this is something I have caused, especially as I can reproduce it easily and I have not seen another report similar to this.
At first I thought it was due to an aircraft parameter as it seemed to work with the A320 but not the B737. However when I used an A320 configured to use a belt loader at the rear the issue occurred. Subsequently I have been able to reproduce the issue on all tested aircraft with the belt loader and baggage carts whereas an aircraft configured to use the container loaders, the train leaves by a sensible route similar to the train from the front.
If this is an afcad issue, are there any guidelines on their design available? In the case of Exeter depicted in my original post, the design is relatively simple. There is a taxi path behind the parking, just off the image, that runs roughly parallel with the markings at the back of the parking. There is a vehicle path just behind the parking, again roughly parallel with the markings. There is a path from the parking connecting to the vehicle path and on to the taxi path. This follows the yellow line in the image. At the end of the black path I have depicted, the vehicle is on the vehicle path.
What confuses me is that the container train leaves as I would expect, continuing to the rear of the aircraft where it turns right to follow an arc to pick up the vehicle path. However, the baggage carts turn left, to make a 180 degree turn to head back to th centre of the leading edge of the wing where they rotate through 180 degrees to head back, through themselves, to to the vehicle path following a similar route to the front train.
I hope we can resolve this issue and thanks for your help.
