But, there is one thing you can´t say: that with one afcad for KORD you have real life operations.
Is that your catchphrase or something? "You can't say"... No, I can't say, nor have I said, so why even go there.
And my Afcad is in no way an attack on your way of doing Afcads, so stop defending your decisions. You do what you do, I do what I do. Period. 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. Deal with it.
Your afcad is for sure appreciated, but in the end what I see after looking at it is somehow a combination between my work one the nodes, taxiways and star system; the work of the original afcad for parking specifications with some more improvements about what you think KORD must be according to simulism but not realism.
I only worked with the Afcad that came with the scenery. But at the end of the day, every Afcad designer starts where the previous designer stopped. Whether it be whoever put the initial one together or Microsoft in the case of stock Afcads. So what's your point exactly?
About radius, there are different radius depending on companies. For example FSP airbuses and EvolveAI airbuses have many times different radius and you have to play with all these issues. MDs is the same. Maybe other aircrafts as well.
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?
Well, this was always from the beginning like that so you can not say that this is a change for your afcad specially.
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 don´t think you will need an extra file.
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 saw another big mistake with afcads: you can not close runway 10 for landing, and 28 for takeoff and landing. FS wilil never recognize that. This was already talked for thousand times in all AI foruns.
Don't know if this is directed at me, I can hardly believe you would say that about my Afcad, but in my Afcad 10 and 28 are closed for landings. And both ends are opened for take-offs. What you say is simply not in my Afcad. I know that what you say doesn't work. I think I know a little more about all this than you do.
Another example of coding airlines: you coded E7 to E15 with COAX and JZA, all with radius 19. JZA has only one or maybe two aircrafts from the company at the same time in the airport, so you would need only one gate which actually is known. For COA the smallest aircraft there is a B737 according to the schedules. Well, all 737 have more than radius 20 so I don´t know how you want to park a 737 there. It means at least 3 or 4 gates lost for nothing.
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.
Maybe because there are different tastes and approaches to FS 9.
Bingo! So, why try and attack me for simply catering to a different taste? If you would just take a moment and listen to some of the stuff I say, instead of going on the offense, contradicting yourself, making false statements and posting threads full of this nonsense (more than anything, this is confusing the hell out of the customers...), and focus a little more, you could learn a thing or two and get things done a little quicker. I had hoped the C9 arrogance and general attitude would be ancient history.
Please consider my questions to be rhetorical. For everybody's sake, let's leave it at that and let everybody get on with it. Whether it be flying or spotting.
