FS9 support > Las Vegas FS9
My Afcad, visible markers, texture alpha layers
virtuali:
Harpsi, I don't know what other problem you had, but this is your latest AFCAD, with widths set to 1 ft, ONLY for those links connected to an hold short node, which makes the default hold short drawing to disappear.
As you can see, there's no shortage of traffic, and there's are no problems at the hold zone of AI bunching up, they just flow normally. This is with World of ai at 100% density.
And, because of the width set to 1 ft, there are no default hold short zone appearing.
[attachment deleted by admin]
virtuali:
Here's your latest AFCAD, just modified for the hold short zones widths. It's the one I had in use to take the screenshots above.
Mike...:
That second capture shows aircraft taxiing to the runway. Wait until they all get there and actually have to wait. But as I said before, it may have to do with specific aircraft, FDE's, braking power, etc...
Now back to my latest reply which didn't go through...
I really want to let you get back to fixing the outstanding issues, to finally getting started on the KORD update, etc... But I will not let you question my sanity.
--- Quote ---The parking connector doesn't anything to do with the hold short zones. If it might be an issue there, it doesn't means it's an issue on the hold short zones as well. Which Afcad editor complains about taxiway widths, not in relationship to parkings ? AFCAD and ADE certainly do not.
--- End quote ---
No, it doesn't mean that it's an issue, but it's certainly likely. See this thread for example. Are you saying that width was not an issue there?
--- Quote from: virtuali on April 25, 2009, 02:12:58 pm ---
--- Quote ---Does it have to do with certain effects in FSX that require default ground in order to work? Rain and whatnot? And isn't it so, that in FSX there just happens to be a different kind of hold short node. One that doesn't draw markers... You don't have those in FS9, so your solution was to reduce link widths.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's one reason.
--- End quote ---
Thank you.
--- Quote ---I really don't know what's wrong with you: we said this MANY TIMES in the open. The FS9 version is EXACTLY the same as the FSX one. It's not a native version, is not made with FS9 in mind, and it will not use FS9 at its fullest because of this.
--- End quote ---
I'm not a scenery designer, so even though you have said countless times, it's a port, I do not know if a certain aspect of the scenery has to do with the port back from FSX or not, if it is a side effect. I can only assume that certain aspects of scenery design have not changed going from FS9 to FSX. I don't know what has and what hasn't. So it is completely uncalled for, for you to question whether something is wrong with me. I haven't just released my sloppiest scenery for FS9 ever. I'd concentrate on my own faults if I were you.
--- Quote ---if FS9 users will stop buying the FS9 version because these porting issues are too annoying for them
--- End quote ---
So you port back to save time and resources, which is understandable, nobody should expect getting two separately developed products for the price of one. But where other designers may eventually decide to ask money for both, you refuse to even consider the possibility, you want people to move to FSX, sooner rather than later. It's one thing to trash FS9 and its users verbally, it's one thing to port back, it's another to port back and do nothing else, not even the slightest to iron out some FS9 issues. You put out a substandard product in the hope that people will make the switch?! And there's always the trial a.k.a. beta version you can hide behind.
I still wonder if at a rough ratio of 55:45 in favor of FSX, you can afford dropping FS9 altogether. At the moment, I'd rather you did. You're not doing anyone any favors by not going for it a 100%. Certainly not us, but also not you and your reputation.
--- Quote ---Mike, it would be good to continue this discussion in the afcad topic, so that everyonde can follow the conversation about this topic instead of a lot of posts about the same thing. Just a suggestion...
--- End quote ---
I agree.
harpsi:
Hi virtuali
I changed all taxi widths. Maybe that is not my latest file... And I don´t have default hold short marks as well...
harpsi
virtuali:
--- Quote from: Mike... on April 25, 2009, 04:07:06 pm ---That second capture shows aircraft taxiing to the runway.
--- End quote ---
The picture, obviously, is static. But it shows an airplane that just took off, after having flown normally without any problems over the hold short zone, and the US Airways that is the first in line, is already PAST the position of the AFCAD hold short, meaning it hasn't stopped as well, and was flowing normally after the one that just took off.
--- Quote ---Wait until they all get there and actually have to wait. But as I said before, it may have to do with specific aircraft, FDE's, braking power, etc...
--- End quote ---
I'm running at 4x acceleration for quite some time now, and haven't seen any problems so far, with WOAI models. The only things that stops planes from taking off is what's happening on the runway (eg. if somone is landing, they wait), which is normal, but they just line up correctly and always take off normally.
--- Quote ---See this thread for example. Are you saying that width was not an issue there?
--- End quote ---
I should verify with that specific AFCAD for O'Hare which problem was. However, it might have been an issue there, because there it was referring to taxiway of 1 ft, but at KLAS we have those links flagged as apron routes, not taxiways and, since I don't see any AI taxiing into each others at KLAS, it's possible the 1 ft width is not a problem, if a link is flagged as an Apron link.
--- Quote ---It's one thing to trash FS9 and its users verbally, it's one thing to port back, it's another to port back and do nothing else, not even the slightest to iron out some FS9 issues.
--- End quote ---
We are fixing everything that has reported so far: in fact, most of the fixes ARE for FS9 and, of course, the AFCAD will be finished shortly so, what you are saying that we are not fixing even the slightest for FS9, is obviously wrong.
What we are NOT going to fix, instead, is something that would force redo the FS9 scenery from scratch, like the way the ground is done, for example. However, I still don't see the hold short made that way as being a problem.
Note, that I'm still running FS9 for a while in this very moment, and the only thing I see is airplanes happily taxiing correctly overy the hold short zones without any issues.
--- Quote ---You put out a substandard product in the hope that people will make the switch?!
--- End quote ---
We put the only product that can result from a port from FSX, which is the only way there's a FS9 version to begin with.
--- Quote ---And there's always the trial a.k.a. beta version you can hide behind.
--- End quote ---
Wrong again. The Trial is there in there open. There's nothing to hide.
--- Quote ---I still wonder if at a rough ratio of 55:45 in favor of FSX, you can afford dropping FS9 altogether. At the moment, I'd rather you did. You're not doing anyone any favors by not going for it a 100%. Certainly not us, but also not you and your reputation.
--- End quote ---
And you are not doing any favors to the FS9 cause, by commenting in such way, because it's post like these that really makes you wonder if all this hassle is really worth it...if supporting FS9 would start to become a burden, we'll very well decide to release 2 FSX sceneries in the same time it takes to relase an FSX scenery + an FS9 scenery properly done.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version