FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Zurich scenery for FS9 => Topic started by: harpsi on November 09, 2007, 09:10:08 pm
-
Hi
Since there were a lot of afcad files in the previous thread, I decided to open this one. This is due to the compatibility of the afcad I have done with AES from aerosoft. There are some issues even with the original file from FSdreamteam. Some places where the cars and trucks stay are out of the yellow marks. Even with some more adjustments, the amount of gates available would be more or less the same, which means more 3 or 4 after the correction of these issues.
All the gates were redone in order that the aircrafts fit exactly in the yellow marks, no metres to the left or to the right.
Here is the list of gates available for LSZH with AES:
AES - Working Gates at LSZH according to the present afcad:
Terminal A: A03, A04, A09, A11, A13, A17, A42, A44, A49, A57
Terminal B: B02, B03, B31, B33, B35, B37, B39
Terminal E: E19, E22, E23, E25, E26, E29, E34, E35, E42, E43, E45, E46, E49, E52, E53, E56, E57, E58,
E62, E64, E67
Apron C: C02, C21, C22
Apron D: D01, D12
Apron F: F70, F71, F72, F72, F74, F75, F77, F79
Apron G: G01, G02, G04, G06
Apron H: H11, H12, H13
Apron I: I90, I91, I92, I93, I94, I95, I96, I97, I98
Apron T: T43, T55
Below, the new afcad as well as a read me with gates available.
Have fun. If you have comments, please feel free to do them.
harpsi
P.S.: I changed the file due to changes with the names of the comm frequencies. For those 5 persons who downloaded the file, you can download this new one :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hello Harpsi,
Thanks for news AFCAD of Zurich! But, where is Parking for Cargo? I thing, that is F70 to F75 Parking? And where is B747 Cargo Parking?
As i ask, If Wind from North, can approach AI Traffic to RWY34?
Thanks..
Sebastian
-
Hello Harpsi,
Thanks for news AFCAD of Zurich! But, where is Parking for Cargo? I thing, that is F70 to F75 Parking? And where is B747 Cargo Parking?
As i ask, If Wind from North, can approach AI Traffic to RWY34?
Thanks..
Sebastian
First question: that was my problem as well. Where to park the cargo planes? In fact there is not so much cargo traffic to zurich and as someone told me, cargo planes are parking at the south of the airport, near G apron or T, maybe near those buildings at the back... I never understood where exactly... but you have no FDX, no DHL, no UPS and no TNT. Maybe Empost (coded RUN) and UAE Cargo... F70 to F75 are too small spots. You should not park a B747 there...
Second question: the afcad is prepared to avoid as much as possible the winds from the North. If it happens, maybe in 1 or 2 % of the time, well, you have to live with that... then AI traffic will use 34, 28 and 32. You can use the DVD28/34 afcad file, a simple one which is ready for download in the other thread. I left this file out of question because it would be a file only used during 1 or 2 hours per day maximum... but you can use it and make it better or equal than this one as well. If it is really needed I can transform this new afcad into the DVO file in order to be used for those hours... but then be careful, because if the winds change, you have to use 10, 14 and 16 at the same time, which is not really real...
harpsi
-
Hi harpsi
Thanks for all your efforts and also your PM. I was on vacation until this morning and so didn't check out your work yet. So I just downloaded this version and will look at it.
I trust you have done a good work on the runways. I'll take a look at airline assignments and also the problem of cargo planes. For your reference: the cargo building is the one in front of stands F76-78. However, as you correctly pointed out, there hardly is any traffic from freight-only planes into Zurich. In case they come, they are typically parked at stands T50-T55.
I'll give you feedback as soon as I've installed and tested the scenery and AFCAD.
-
I trust you have done a good work on the runways. I'll take a look at airline assignments and also the problem of cargo planes. For your reference: the cargo building is the one in front of stands F76-78. However, as you correctly pointed out, there hardly is any traffic from freight-only planes into Zurich. In case they come, they are typically parked at stands T50-T55.
That´s what I thought. At those stands it is impossible to park a B747 or even an airbus 300-B4... You have flight plans for Empost and Kuzu Airlines as well as for UAE Cargo... Not much more than these ones.
harpsi
-
Hi harpsi
I have spent the past couple of hours reviewing/correcting/testing your AFCAD. Your work was an excellent basis! It had already done the things that I usually find tedius to do (taxiways, alignment of gates, start locations, etc).
What I did do:
1) Displaced some gate locations at the Midfield Dock. Basically, the Midfield Dock needs to be laid out in a way that up to six heavy jets (up to A340 / B777 size) can park there. The way it was done this didn't work, wings collided. So I displaced one gate on the South side of the Midfield Dock. On the North side, I took out two stands and displaced two others. Now there's space for up to six heavies on both sides. This also resolves the problem one user mentioned in the previous thread of not all Swiss A330 and A340 finding a space to park at Midfield. Well, in my corrected AFCAD they don't ALL go there. Actually, what happens is that space is first taken by the other heavies (United, Delta, AA, AC, Singapore, Thai, etc), and the rest by Swiss. At some times of day this means that some Swiss heavies will then go to the maintenance area. At other times, one sees something like ten Swiss heavies at the Midfield. (Can I post pictures here?)
2) I added gate A48 on the South side of the A Pier. ALthough the APSI that I have only shows six gates, I know that there are up to seven narrowbody jets parked on the South side of the A Pier at rush hours.
3) I completely changed airline assignments. I am a perfectionist when it comes to airline assignments. Just can't stand it when airlines park at gates which are not in line with the real world.
4) I tested all of this extensively: I basically load the Cessna, set the time at 5AM, put it in slew mode, slew over the airport to check all planes are parked where they should. Then I change time to 5.30AM and do the same. Then for 6AM, and so on, for the whole day. Like this I can be sure that all airlines that visit the airport that particular day park where they should. Also I can be sure that rush hours can be handled.
After these extensive tests I can vouch that gate assignments are 99% in line with reality. I know the real ZRH very well as I fly in or out of there between three and six times per week.
I will now take a look at runways. I am not a specialist on the runway assignment method, but I want to do some observations.
Thanks!
-
Hello harpsi,
thank you for your work.
I may be a good swiss pilot but unfortunatly i really don't understand how to download your AFCAD. Could you help me ?
Thank you.
Cyril
-
1) Displaced some gate locations at the Midfield Dock. Basically, the Midfield Dock needs to be laid out in a way that up to six heavy jets (up to A340 / B777 size) can park there. The way it was done this didn't work, wings collided. So I displaced one gate on the South side of the Midfield Dock. On the North side, I took out two stands and displaced two others. Now there's space for up to six heavies on both sides. This also resolves the problem one user mentioned in the previous thread of not all Swiss A330 and A340 finding a space to park at Midfield. Well, in my corrected AFCAD they don't ALL go there. Actually, what happens is that space is first taken by the other heavies (United, Delta, AA, AC, Singapore, Thai, etc), and the rest by Swiss. At some times of day this means that some Swiss heavies will then go to the maintenance area. At other times, one sees something like ten Swiss heavies at the Midfield. (Can I post pictures here?)
Sorry. Are you talking about Midfield A, B or E? If you talk about A and B, aircrafts have a lot of space. For terminal E, with the aircrafts I use, I don´t have any colisions. For example, if you go to aircraft editor inside the afcad tool, you have boeing 737 with different parking radius, which can go from 19 to 25. It depends on what you use as AIs maybe... I have a full airport and wings are not having colisions.
About Swiss, it depends also on the schedules you have. There are a lot of flight plans, ones more completed that the others. Anyway, at terminal E, Swiss has the last priority at heavy gates in my afcad because they can park in other places as well. Some of my swiss airplanes are going to maintenance area as well. I never had more than 10 swiss A340+A330 at the airport. Maybe 5 or 7 and the others are arriving from long distances. But when one is arriving maybe two are departing.
2) I added gate A48 on the South side of the A Pier. Although the APSI that I have only shows six gates, I know that there are up to seven narrowbody jets parked on the South side of the A Pier at rush hours.
The problem is: you cannot switch between 6 or 7 gates, unless you change it between 2 afcad files
3) I completely changed airline assignments. I am a perfectionist when it comes to airline assignments. Just can't stand it when airlines park at gates which are not in line with the real world.
OK. You can tell and send me what you did, but as I said it depends a lot on the flight plans you have. There are no schedules from every airline with the same year or even the same weather station of the year. I have flight plans from 2005 mixed with flight plans of 2008, summer FP, fall FP or winter FP.
harpsi
-
OK I just found it ...
sorry
-
Thx ! I m using nothing particular
just the Flight One Ultimate traffic as I still use FS9 is there a better one I could buy ?
Cyril
-
Thx ! I m using nothing particular
just the Flight One Ultimate traffic as I still use FS9 is there a better one I could buy ?
Cyril
It is good what you are using at the moment :)
harpsi
-
Mozart,
OK. I checked now every gate in terminal E and there is just a place where 2 airbuses 340 are really really closed to eachother but wings don´t touch. It is the last east and south gate and the next one to the left: E22 and E26. Outside of this which is not even a colision, nothing happens. As you can see the 2 biggest aircrafts, B747 and A340 don´t touch each other. Very closed but no contact. :) In the other picture you have two winglets of swiis A330 and A340 at E22 and E26.
I was trying a lot of times all kinds of hours and I found 6 or 7 swiss heavies maximum at the whole airport. I never got 10 or so. I tried from 5.00 a.m. until 21.00 pm. on a weekday and in the weekend.
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi Harpsi
I took some snapshots so we can better communicate.
Regarding Pier A: of course I did not mean that AFCAD can switch between six and seven gates at Pier A. I simply said that all the six gates you had put were correct, but that one was missing. And there was the space for the missing one. So what I did:
- I left all your gates and their numbers untouched
- I added gate A48
The result is that now seven narrowbody planes of Star Alliance companies can park at Pier A (see picture below). To show that there was enough space I also attached a picture from above showing that there are no wing collisions.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi
OK. tell me more things. Gate A48 already added. There is some space indeed. :d
When I have all little details complete I can send the file for the next service pack if the team wants to. :)
So, please check every detail which you think that can be improved. I appreciate your colaboration We will have a great file.- :)
harpsi
-
Harpsi
We'll make this perfect... I know what ZRH looks like in reality (I fly to/from there 3-4 times a week on average), and you know how to work the runway star system.
First of all, I have attached my new AFCAD for you to look at.
THen, some explanations of the changes I have done to Midfield Dock (=E Gates):
What I wanted to achieve was a rendering as realistic as possible. Which means the following:
- All flights to North America leaving from gates E19-E35, E43
- Have all Swiss heavies use the gatesE 19-E53
- Have no Swiss narrowbodies use the E gates
Therefore:
- All flights to North America leaving from gates E19-E35, E43 -> in the morning, I need space for several 767s of the North American carriers (UA, DL, AA, AC, CO); for this, having "medium" gates at the Midfield Dock is OK, they are sufficient for the 767s; therefore, for this time of day, it is OK to have some medium gates at Midfield Dock as you did
- Have all Swiss heavies use the gatesE 19-E53 -> when the North American carriers are gone, it's no longer good enough to have "medium" gates, because the Swiss heavies require "heavy" gates; therefore, your solution of "medium" gates is not good, but all gates E19-E53 need to be "heavy"
- Have no Swiss narrowbodies use the E gates -> the priority of CRX needs to be lower on the A gates than at the A gates. Like that, the Swiss narrowbodies will first go to the A gates (where priority is higher), and only the heavy ones will go to the E gates, where they fit
Therefore what I did:
- 1. I changed your "medium" gates at Midfield Dock E into "heavy" gates. -> this led to the problem that some of the A340/A330/B777 wings collided, because the medium gates are too close together
- 2. I modified the AFCAD to represent a "heavy" layout: I looked up in the APSI plan the gates to be used for heavy usage. What I found was that I needed the following gates on the Northern side: E23, 27, 35, 43,47. On the Southern side I needed E20, 26, 34, 42, 46,52. If you look at the APSI plan that I enclosed, you can see these are the gate numbers in the bigger boxes. The FSDT scenery has these gates modelled, so it fits the scenery. Therefore I removed the "medium" gates E25 and E29 (replaced by "heavy" E27), I removed E45 and E49 (replaced by E47), I removed E22 and replaced it by E20. All these gates exist, you can find them on the map enclosed.
The result is the following:
1. in the morning the North American carriers use the right gates (look screenshot "morning" and "morning aerial"). Because I removed some medium gates and replaced them by heavy gates there is of course some wastage and lots of space between the 767s.
2. however, at midday, the North American carriers have gone. The Swiss heavies are more numerous and need "their" stands at the E gates. Now with all the gates E19-E53 turned into "heavy", there is enough space for them and no wing collision. Look at screenshots "midday" and "midday aerial" to see the planes and also how there is just enough spaces for the wings not to collide.
I have done a couple of other things. Most of all, Assigned all airlines to the gate area they use. These are some highlights:
- All airbridge stands are coded
- Put the Swiss Avros ("CRXX") with priority to the F gates
- Put Darwin and the Star Alliance commuter planes to the I gates
- Put some A gates for use only by Swiss narrowbody, others for both Star Alliance mainline jets and Swiss narrowbody
- Something that probably only works for me: assigned "MIL" code to some gates. That's where military and VIP jets go
- Coded some of the maintenance area stands to be used by Swiss, Edelweiss and Belair
- Assigned the B and C gates to the airlines using them
I have tested these gate assignments for hours today. I am an absolute perfectionist, so I have to be honest that they only represent reality by 98%. What is different to reality:
- For some reason, I can't get the Privatair B737W to park at the E gates. It always parks at the D area
- In relaity, Singapore and Thai are parked at B gates during their layover and only use the E gates to embark and disembark. In my AFCAD, they are at the E gates during their entire stay in Zurich
- In reality, Edelweiss use the E gates and sometimes also the A gates. In my AFCAD, they sometimes use the E gates (as in reality), but never the A gates. Instead, I have given them space in the C, D and G area
- In reality, in the morning there sometimes is a Swiss heavy parked at B, but rarely more than one. In my AFCAD, in the morning, there are sometimes two.
Quite frankly, to me these flaws are acceptable.
I have included my AFCAD and the APSI with the gate numbering at ZRH for your reference along with the screenshots.
On the runways: well, you may note that my specialty is to get gate assignments right. Runways is less my domain. Still, I think you have done a phantastic job. I have tested the runways at several times and indeed I got landings on 14, smaller landings and smaller departures on 28, and bigger departures on 16. Now the only thing that bothers me with this is that not only B737s but also A319/320/321 should take off from runway 28. If that could be done by tinkering around with the runway length, then things would be really perfect. I have tried tinkering around a bit, but still I have the A319/320/321s take off from 16. Anything you can do to fix that?
Let me know what you think.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
On the runways: well, you may note that my specialty is to get gate assignments right. Runways is less my domain. Still, I think you have done a phantastic job. I have tested the runways at several times and indeed I got landings on 14, smaller landings and smaller departures on 28, and bigger departures on 16. Now the only thing that bothers me with this is that not only B737s but also A319/320/321 should take off from runway 28. If that could be done by tinkering around with the runway length, then things would be really perfect. I have tried tinkering around a bit, but still I have the A319/320/321s take off from 16. Anything you can do to fix that?
OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing. But you can not avoid them at runway 16. Runway 16 is bigger than 28 so AIs can always go there if they go to south destinations... There are some things that are impossible to do in a simulator...
You can take them out from runway 28 but never from runway 16. If jets are going to one runway, smaller planes can also go there as well. I know what you mean: small planes for 28 and big ones for 16. It would be perfect but impossible. You can get small ones for 28 and small plus big ones at 16. No chance to avoid that behaviour. About the rest of the post I will take a look tomorrow and I will see what I can do. :)
The runway issue I analyzed now because I am sure it can´t be changed...
harpsi
-
In relaity, Singapore and Thai are parked at B gates during their layover and only use the E gates to embark and disembark. In my AFCAD, they are at the E gates during their entire stay in Zurich
Well, you know already that this changes are impossible to simulate. Right? :)
On the runways: well, you may note that my specialty is to get gate assignments right. Runways is less my domain. Still, I think you have done a phantastic job. I have tested the runways at several times and indeed I got landings on 14, smaller landings and smaller departures on 28, and bigger departures on 16. Now the only thing that bothers me with this is that not only B737s but also A319/320/321 should take off from runway 28. If that could be done by tinkering around with the runway length, then things would be really perfect. I have tried tinkering around a bit, but still I have the A319/320/321s take off from 16. Anything you can do to fix that?
OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing. But you can not avoid them at runway 16. Runway 16 is bigger than 28 so AIs can always go there if they go to south destinations... There are some things that are impossible to do in a simulator...
You can take them out from runway 28 but never from runway 16. If jets are going to one runway, smaller planes can also go there as well. I know what you mean: small planes for 28 and big ones for 16. It would be perfect but impossible. You can get small ones for 28 and small plus big ones at 16. No chance to avoid that behaviour. About the rest of the post I will take a look tomorrow and I will see what I can do. :)
The runway issue I analyzed now because I am sure it can´t be changed...
Another thing: I have used the code CRX but this code doesn´t exist anymore. The airlines are swiss and swiss european.
Darwin and star allliance commuter at I gates >>> already done!
Privatair is parking at E in my simulator.
You forgot one thing: the AES cars and trucks. You have to see what are the movements of all cars... I will look at it and I wil get back to you.
harpsi
-
Hi
Ok. After some analyses I decided the following:
- F gates have now SWU code
- E45+E49 disabled >>> we get now E47
- E25+E29 disabled >>> we get now E27
- E22 substituted by E20
- Those new gates are turned into heavy or medium with high parking radius
- CRX codes substituted; now we have SWR and SWU
- Airlines which are going to America now at gates E19 to E35
- B31-B37 gates coded like you requested
- B39 coded MNB; however there are no FP to LSZH at the moment for this airline
- added some airlines to gates C and D
- new codes for T gates
- D gates medium modified to small (heavies were going there and wings were having colisions)
Some considerations:
- I don´t use those codes like DLHX, CRXX, MAHX, ADRX. I only use the real codes. I just play with parking radius. For lufthansa and partners you have RUS, CLH and so on.
- Some airlines you mentioned are already out of service.
- Some airlines you mentioned at some places are cargo airlines.
I have a website where I have all fleets, codes and so on. They make changes almost every week. I am seeing codes and so on in this website.
With your new configuration we lose 3 gates for AES... That´s the bad part of the story.
I didn´t try the file because it is too late but you can try it yourself.
harpsi
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing.
Really? That's perfect!! How did you manage that?
I don't mind the A32S going to 16 for takeoff, it's just that they ALL go to 16, and none of them goes to 28 for takeoff.
Just a couple of other notes:
1. Indeed, codes are always particular. It's just that my Swiss AI planes are coded CRX, CRXX and so on. So I care a little less about whether codes are up to date in real life than about planes standing at the right gates. If it's an old code that makes them go there then I am fine. My testing showed that I have a 98% realistic result for gate assignments on my setup. It may not work for other users that well.
2. MNG: I have them in a cargo flightplan, but that plan is about 2-3 years old indeed. Still, just three weeks ago I saw an MNG Cargo Airbus A300 parked at ZRH.
3. There are indeed some "old flightplan" issues: SAA no longer serves ZRH. ACA no longer flies to Delhi, so just one plane visits. Air France should have more flights with all the Citiyjet Avros going to LCY. As for the main users (Swiss and subsidiaries, Lufthansa and subsidiaries, Helvetica) the plans are the latest.
I think what I'll do now is that I keep gate assignments as they are for my personal use because they work. However, I'll use and test your file for runway usage. If I can get some of the A32S to use runway 28 for takeoff, then I am perfectly happy.
I'll take a look at everything late tonight when I am back from work.
-
OK. I have airbuses 319 to 321 at runway 28 for both TO and landing.
Really? That's perfect!! How did you manage that?
It depends on the runway lenght only. I didn´t see any 321 there as far as I remember, but I saw a lot of 319 and 320. It is also difficult to see when a 321 is coming, because sometimes they are used alleatory (Ut traffic has the aircraft code 32S, so you just assign all types and you see what is happening)
1. Indeed, codes are always particular. It's just that my Swiss AI planes are coded CRX, CRXX and so on. So I care a little less about whether codes are up to date in real life than about planes standing at the right gates. If it's an old code that makes them go there then I am fine. My testing showed that I have a 98% realistic result for gate assignments on my setup. It may not work for other users that well.
Right. I have to think about all users as well, the flight plans they have, and so on. My file is let´s say a real but also a "general" one. Anyway I am honest: I din´t test this one yet. I just made it to be available for you.
2. MNG: I have them in a cargo flightplan, but that plan is about 2-3 years old indeed. Still, just three weeks ago I saw an MNG Cargo Airbus A300 parked at ZRH.
I think that right now, at least with the FP I use, we can have two cargo airlines: UAEC (Emirates Sky Cargo) and RUN (kuzu Airlines/Empost)
I expect your comments tonight then. :)
harpsi
-
Hi harpsi
I was tinkering around with the AFCAD last night, and when I finished around 1am, I was just too tired to write...
So here's my playing around with the runway:
I wanted to get to the following result:
- Takeoffs from both runway 28 and 16
- Heavies (767s and bigger) to use only runway 16
- All others (321 and smaller) to use a mix of 16 and 28 (I understand that it is not possible to have them use only 28(
So I played around with runway length of 28 a bit. The runway length in your file (1950 meters) didn't give me any Airbusses on 28, so I made it longer. I played around with many many combinations (re-started FS around 40 times), and I now settled for a runway length of 2130 meters. This gives me all heavies on runway 16, and a mixed of use of 16 and 28 of all other planes. The only plane that bothered me was the A321: when I put runway length to 2140 meters, some of the A321s take off from runway 28 - but then so do the B767s, B777s, A330s and A340s. Not acceptable! So I reduce it to 2130 meters, which makes all the B767s and above use runway 16 - but then no A321s on runway 28. I conclude that the A321 are in the same "weight league" as the B767s and bigger, so wherever the A321s go, the heavies go as well. I therefore settled for a situation where A321s all take off from runway 16. Which is OK, given that Swiss has only five or so A321s, so no big deal.
As for landings, I did something else - which works for me, but maybe not for the "general public" whom I know you want to cater to.
I basically play around with runway openings depending on time of day I am operating in and out of Zurich. For most times of the day, the situation is:
Landings: runway 14 -> so I open runway 14/32 for landings only
Take offs: runways 16 and 28 -> so I open runways 16/34 and 28/10 for take offs only
The behaviour I am getting is very close to reality and I am very pleased with it.
In the evenings after 8pm, the situation is a bit different:
Landings: runway 28 -> so I open runway 28/10 for landings only
Take offs: runways 32 and 34 -> I opened them for take offs, but so far take offs go from 16 instead of 34. But I'll play with that tonight in my next testing session.
The behaviour I get: all planes that land in the evening are A320 and smaller, and they all land on runway 28. The only plane bigger than that in the evening is an Emirates A330 - which landed on runway 14. Great! I can live with that.
So my only problem left is how to create the "evening" situation, i.e. take offs from runways 32 and 34 instead of 16. But I think to have that it is not enough to simply open/close runways (which can be done in seconds). The order/labelling of runways has to be changed, which means I need to create a separate AFCAD file. Again, I am not a runway specialist, so I'll try and test. If it doesn't work, I'll stick to the "day" situation at all times.
Let me say again that you have done a superb job on the runway system. How you managed to get the combinations of 14,16 and 28 to work is simply amazing. Thanks a lot for that!
-
Hi
I believe that you want to make ir as real as possible, but there is a big difference from a simulator to the real life. In real life you have a "person" who says: you go to this runway or you go to that runway. Here this is not possible. For example with my runway lebght I get a lot of A319 and 320 on runway 28. About the use of runways 28, 32 and 34 at the same time, that takes us to another discussion which was the introduction of a new file called DVO28/34. Unfortunatelly if it would be like that you would need dozens of afcads. That´s not possible at all. There are really a few airports where I play with that and I use more than one afcad: Amsterdam because you have a special way to fly there and yuo have really some combinations, Helsinki because you can do it in two different ways, or KBOS for example. Otherwise it would be impossible to use lots of files for every airport to simulate every hour in real life. ;D
I hope that you like the file and enjoy it, or in other way you can for sure make your changes applied to the traffic you have in your simulator. I think that I can post the last file here, the one I sent to you which will be ready for the next SP. :)
harpsi
-
What is news next version AFCAD? I see AI Traffic, wind from 200°, Approach RWY16 or RWY14, but smale aircraft approach to RWY10, sould to RWY28! :( and Take off big aircraft to RWY16, and smale aircraft to RWY10! AI Traffik stop after Runways before RWY10! Mhh...!
Sebastian
-
What is news next version AFCAD? I see AI Traffic, wind from 200°, Approach RWY16 or RWY14, but smale aircraft approach to RWY10, sould to RWY28! :( and Take off big aircraft to RWY16, and smale aircraft to RWY10! AI Traffik stop after Runways before RWY10! Mhh...!
Sebastian
With the afcad included in the package it is impossible to be like that. The two possible combinations are: 14+16+28 or 32+34+10. It is not possible that you have 10 in use together with 14and 16. Even runway 10/28 has much less lenght than normal, so you could not takeoff from there. :P
harpsi
-
Is the LSZH.zip that is attached to the 11 November 2007 message the latest and greatest AFCAD for LSZH?
Thanks!
Marty
-
Is the LSZH.zip that is attached to the 11 November 2007 message the latest and greatest AFCAD for LSZH?
Thanks!
Marty
The latest yes. The greatest... well, you can make your comments after trying. ;D
harpsi