New afcad request

[bkircher]

Hi there

I have a request for someone, would it be possible for someone to update the ord afcad and upload it? The current one is missing some gates, I know there was a updated afcad that added them but it really didnt correct some of the airline parking that it was missing. Jetblue is missing for one, Virgin America is missing, Us Airways has new gates, and other things.

Thanks

[virtuali]

The current one is missing some gates

FS9 and FSX both have a limitation of 255 maximum parking stands per airport, and at O'Hare we hit that limit. The BGLCOMP, which is the official tool to compile AFCAD, will simply refuse to compile a file with more than 255 parkings. AFCAD allows >255 parkings, but we think this might create issues in the sim, so we prefer to play safe, at least in our supplied AFCADs.

[whicker]

FS9 and FSX both have a limitation of 255 maximum parking stands per airport, and at O'Hare we hit that limit. The BGLCOMP, which is the official tool to compile AFCAD, will simply refuse to compile a file with more than 255 parkings. AFCAD allows >255 parkings, but we think this might create issues in the sim, so we prefer to play safe, at least in our supplied AFCADs.

That statement is not accurate as per FS9/FSX and I beg to differ

I am not going to address the Gate issues as far as what is missing and what is there but there are other areas that do need fixing.

FS9/FSX does not have a limitation of 255 maximum parking stands per airport. The BGLComp compiler and the .xsd will not allow more then 255 parking stands that have a ICAO airline code embedded within the parking spot. This does not stop any other parking code from compiling.

The newest version AFCAD posted for KORD only has 192 Airline coded parking spots which means you still have 63 available that you could have used.

After you meet the 255 max airline parking then you can continue with all the non coded parking. I have many airports like KATL with 300 + parking spots and compiles just fine with the FS9/FSX compiler.

What I fine very interesting is your need to add as many as 30 ICAO airline codes to one single parking spot.

 <TaxiwayParking
         index="160"
         lat="41.9738261774182"
         lon="-87.8921744227409"
         heading="61.9930000305176"
         radius="47.0M"
         type="RAMP_GA"
         name="GATE_M"
         number="9"
         airlineCodes="AFR, AIC, ANA, AZA, AAR, AUA, BMA,
         BAW, CAL, CCA, CPA, DLH, EIN, IBE, JAL,
         KLM, MPH, KAC, KAL, LOT, MXA, PIA, QFA, RJA,
         SAS, SIA, SWR, TAI, THY, VIR"
         pushBack="BOTH"/> 

FS uses many scoring algorithms for runway selection and parking. In the airport file parking spot properties - a parking code match in the first position (AFR) has a very high score value, the second position (AIC) a lower value, and so on. By the fifth code (AAR) in the parking spot properties the parking code has such a low value that other criteria scores higher for parking and FS goes looking down the XML parking list rather then across the XML list. This causes a severe cascading affect if you do not have more overflow parking available (greater the 255 parking at KORD). You will find many post over the years (since FS9 released) that tells designers that more then 5 ICAO Airline codes in a single parking spot destroys the proper score order and placement of a AI plane regardless if it taxis into the airport parking spot or spawns in the parking spot.

There are other major issues with your most current "official" release.

There is no vehicle traffic road network in combination with the taxiway network. That places all the support vehicles you are generating with certain type parking spots onto all taxiways which interfer with the AI Airplanes when trying to taxi and the User Plane Crashes (resets) when they run into one of these support vehicles if they have Crash Realistic Settings on. Because no vehicle path network exist some of the FSX ground support equipment is also crossing the active runways and any User Plane landing will crash into them and reset FSX. Not something I want after a long overseas flight.

All those Fuel Trucks in a nice side by side line do nothing. FSX will only use one so it is very important to space Fuel Trucks in various locations around large airports. A large airport such as KORD needs a minimum of 20 Fuel Trucks so the User wait time is minimum and AI Planes do not disappear waiting for a Fuel Truck based on FP times.

The taxiway network segmentation that keeps the AI Planes and the User plane flowing properly from and to a Runway as per ATC has been completely removed from your current "official" release.

A, A as per the default taxiway network structure was A-4 and A-48. You now have A-92 and A-0
The 3 E's per the default network were E-1, E-9, E-5 which you eliminated and now have E-36, E-0, E-0. There is a lot more to making a airport look good as a 3rd party Design Group but what good is it if you destroy the basic fundamental FSX code that makes the airport work properly.

RWY 14L has been shortened to less then 9000 ft (default 10,005ft) and a displaced threshold added. The Glide Slope antenna was not moved so now the Glide Path that intersects the runway is on the Blastpad that has all the Chevron lines.

You added many fake runways (in the runway list) to activate the crosswind runway technique but failed to assign a FSX default runway as the deciding wind direction runway. However it is probably a good thing the Crosswind Runway Technique is not working since they are 95NM from KORD sitting in Lake Michigan instead of the North Pole where they are suppose to be. At 95NM which is inside the Visual AI Zone Sectors for KORD you would have a real headace on your hands with all those UAL trying to land in Lake Michigan.

Many Users do not find fault with the hard work that you put into making a airport look good but there is also the goal to make the airport work as per the default FSX airport or better then.

Jack   

[virtuali]

After you meet the 255 max airline parking then you can continue with all the non coded parking. I have many airports like KATL with 300 + parking spots and compiles just fine with the FS9/FSX compiler.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarly mean , just because we could create 300 parking spots, it might be a good idea to use all of them, because otherwise, with a busy schedule, the number of AI present will be such high, that it will kill the fps nonetheless, regardless of any care we might undertaken in order to optmize the scenery.

Since we simply can't anticipate if the user HAS a good set of AI models, all highly optimized, we simply can't risking to have the scenery look like a slide show because, to most users, slow fps is *always* a fault of the scenery.

There is no vehicle traffic road network in combination with the taxiway network. That places all the support vehicles you are generating with certain type parking spots onto all taxiways which interfer with the AI Airplanes when trying to taxi and the User Plane Crashes (resets) when they run into one of these support vehicles if they have Crash Realistic Settings on

This might be valid for another scenery, but our ground support vehicles are NOT FSX default AI, we generate them with the Addon Manager using Simconnect. They aren't ground AI, they are not affected by the FSX Ground AI slider. In fact, is just easier if you simply put that slider off at O'Hare.

This means, anything related to ground vehicles at O'Hare, is not related to AFCAD tracks or parking stands at all, we supply *our* waypoints, start/end positions, which of course match the ground design of the scenery, and nothing inside the AFCAD will affect them.

And that's why the parking stands are not labeled as "Gate", so the default ground vehicles will not start from there, so we don't have funny looking situations (as seen on other sceneries) with ground vehicles buried inside the terminals.

Because no vehicle path network exist some of the FSX ground support equipment is also crossing the active runways and any User Plane landing will crash into them and reset FSX.

FSX default ground traffic is probably better to be put to 0, this might be a good suggestion for the manual.

However, even with the ground traffic enabled, you shouldn't see many of them, because parking stands are not flagged as "Gate" type, so they will not appear. NOTE, you might see some moving ground vehicles that *look* like default ones, becuase we might have called their object, but that doesn't mean they *are* default (meaning, following AFCAD tracks and rules), they might be default ground vehicles visually, but we move them under our control.

All those Fuel Trucks in a nice side by side line do nothing. FSX will only use one so it is very important to space Fuel Trucks in various locations around large airports.

We are planning something a little bit better. Since, as for regular ground vehicles, we bypass the FSX engine entirely in order not to be limited by AFCAD rules, we intend to do the same for refuel operations.

The recently released script engine that comes with JFK will allow us to do things like that entirely under our own control, without caring for any of the AFCAD limitations.

At 95NM which is inside the Visual AI Zone Sectors for KORD you would have a real headace on your hands with all those UAL trying to land in Lake Michigan.

,

Are you sure of this ? Because in the latest version, we moved the fake runways somewhere in the middle of the south Atlantic Ocean. Please, check again with the latest version.

[whicker]

Yes, but that doesn't necessarly mean , just because we could create 300 parking spots, it might be a good idea to use all of them, because otherwise, with a busy schedule, the number of AI present will be such high, that it will kill the fps nonetheless, regardless of any care we might undertaken in order to optmize the scenery.

Since we simply can't anticipate if the user HAS a good set of AI models, all highly optimized, we simply can't risking to have the scenery look like a slide show because, to most users, slow fps is *always* a fault of the scenery.

Adding additional parking spots (including 500) has nothing to do with FPS. Its only when all those parking spots has a AI Plane sitting in them. That would be based on the Users computer power and if some have a strong computer then we set the amount of AI Planes per our FP percent slider value on what will or will not show. I understand your concern with FPS but just wanted to point out that the 255 max is based on airline parking spots only and not the total.

This might be valid for another scenery, but our ground support vehicles are NOT FSX default AI, we generate them with the Addon Manager using Simconnect. They aren't ground AI, they are not affected by the FSX Ground AI slider. In fact, is just easier if you simply put that slider off at O'Hare.

This means, anything related to ground vehicles at O'Hare, is not related to AFCAD tracks or parking stands at all, we supply *our* waypoints, start/end positions, which of course match the ground design of the scenery, and nothing inside the AFCAD will affect them.

And that's why the parking stands are not labeled as "Gate", so the default ground vehicles will not start from there, so we don't have funny looking situations (as seen on other sceneries) with ground vehicles buried inside the terminals.

It is also valid for your scenery. I understand why you labeled Parking Stands the way you did to keep the 3 vehicles (pushback tug, conveyor belt, and baggage cart) from showing up and also the ground support animated parking spot to parking spot equipment will not run around the airport. However FSX also generates a percentage of animated vehicles based on all your Cargo Stands. Cargo stands produce 2 things. A pushback tug and a percent of animated support vehicles that will run around on the taxiways since no vehicle path network is in place. Even if I turn down the slider as you suggest that is not going to stop the Fuel Trucks from using the default AFCAD taxiway paths.

Are you sure of this ? Because in the latest version, we moved the fake runways somewhere in the middle of the south Atlantic Ocean. Please, check again with the latest version.

I am using the AFCAD you posted at the top of the

Updated AFCAD for FSX
« on: May 24, 2008, 01:47:24 PM »
       
The AFCAD is Dated 5/23/2008 3:41 pm

The CW runways are at

N43 17.082111
W086 26.649182

which is just west of the KMKG airport on the NW side of Michigan. That is 91 NM to the OBK VOR.

When working with the CW runway technique it is always best to listen to ATIS which will tell you if they nested properly in the runway list and the list shows you which is the decision runway based on the winds. It has been noted on other froums that ADE handles adding the CW's automatically and positions them at the North Pole based on the Author of the technique.

Jack

[virtuali]

Adding additional parking spots (including 500) has nothing to do with FPS. Its only when all those parking spots has a AI Plane sitting in them.

That's fairly obvious. Likewise, it's obvious that, at the same AI level, an airport with 500 parking spot WILL attract more AI than a 200 one.

if some have a strong computer then we set the amount of AI Planes per our FP percent slider value on what will or will not show.

That doesn't work, unfortunately, because too many users simply crank the slider all to the right, then complain why the scenery is slow comparing to default, when the default maybe had only 30 parking stands so, quite clearly, it would never ever be able to show more than 30 AI in any case, regardless of AI package and schedule used.

However FSX also generates a percentage of animated vehicles based on all your Cargo Stands. Cargo stands produce 2 things.

Not if the Ground traffic slider is set to zero, that's why I've said it would be probably best to suggest to use it like that.

I am using the AFCAD you posted at the top of the Updated AFCAD for FSX

That's the issue. You are not using the latest AFCAD. That message is from May. After that, we had another update for the scenery that includes the latest AFCAD as well. The newest files are *always* to be found in the official installer. If an official installer is newer than a forum post, the official installer always takes the precedence. I might update the forum post as well.

I confirm that, in the installer that is available online, the approaches have the star runways at Lat -37.5 Lon -22.5

It has been noted on other froums that ADE handles adding the CW's automatically and positions them at the North Pole based on the Author of the technique.

North Pole or thousand miles away from O'Hare in the middle of the Atlantic, like in the current version of the file that is available in the installer, doesn't make any difference in this regard.