The ILS names were not like that from in the beginning. You even acknowledged that in response to this post of mine. So yes, I changed them for this Afcad specifically.
I posted a picture which showed that all ILS were correct.
Yes. And I say, make sure all of them match the recommended radius spec (the goal of which is to provide a much needed standard). Again, what's your point?
But then the only way is to simple change radius in the aircraft editor. That´s what I did for myself and everyone should do it for himself.
If I say, use the X variation for regional carriers, then that is my right. I can't say? Yes I can, and I have.
But you can´t say that´s the best way to do it, but just one way to do it. That´s why I coded them in two ways. If you use my afcad with your specifications it will work because you have coded your aircrafts in one way and the afcad matches this. The opposite is not true because for me MESA is ASH and not UALX, like Austrian Arrows is TYR, so these mesa aircrafts will be parked anywhere. And of course you can´t say that to code these aircrafts with UALX is more correct than to code them ASH.
Yes you do. If you want AI to continue to use the changed runways for landings in IFR conditions. The ILS will still work for the user, but listen to ATIS without the extra file with visibility less than 3NM. You won't hear ATIS say, ILS 10 or ILS 28, because FS knows no approach code for those runways. Ergo, it will not clear AI to use those approaches, which makes the runways useless if conditions are bad. Surely you have heard of Jim Vile and his files in the Avsim Library. Download a couple and read what he says...
I know the files from Jim Vile… But what I know as well, is that on my FS runways 10/28 and 09R/27L are being used all the time by AI.
I think I know a little more about all this than you do.
Well, no comments.
I never said my Afcad was perfect, quite on the contrary in my readme... And for your information, there are COA coded gates of ample size at the other side of the same concourse... Too many of them, I know, sue me.
By the way, why 19? That's the radius of the E170 used by various regional carriers (such as Shuttle America in the case of United). Lately I've been using 19m as radius for most "regional gates". To make sure those aircraft park there.
Well, what I see here after trying it, is 4 empty gates when we need a lot of gates everywhere because there aren´t enough for all airlines. If you go to schedules there are only 737s going there and these gates have COAX and JZA. But you said that they work for UAL and not for COA… so something is missing then. Maybe you should add that code UALX as well for this 5 gates.
I had hoped the C9 arrogance and general attitude would be ancient history.
From who? Me? Well, would you ever do an Amsterdam afcad, just one only and which can work like real life exactly? I already have the answer: No, because it is not possible with one afcad. The is no arrogance until you right in your readme: "And as I understand it, people want a good Afcad now.", which is the same to say in non-polite words: until now there was no good afcad. After a little diversion from mr. harpsi with the afcads, let´s do finally something good. Fortunately that you corrected yourself some lines after, so contradictions are not coming from this side
But let´s end this discussion. I would point out more mistakes because I was just ginving three or four examples of them, and for sure that you can try to find more things on my files as well. I just said to users: choose whatever you want for all purposes. I didn´t say: choose my files. But it is difficult to hear some things after some days and nights just standing here, working on the afcads, day after day, answering every post more or less 5 or 10 minutes after each user has posted and so on. It seems like it was work for nothing.
harpsi
