Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums
Sign in to follow this  
crbascott

Tower!3D Pro - Restarter Incoming Not Triggering Outgoing

Recommended Posts

In testing a custom KSAN schedule I noticed a departure never spawned. Looking at the log I noticed in the restarter section that an incoming plane came in but it never triggered the outgoing plane. The same thing happened tonight when playing the Pro Challenge schedule for JFK - an incoming plane did not trigger an outgoing plane ruining our attempt at a perfect score. :(

As a result, I performed a small test at KSAN using an extract of the RT schedule including only airlines using Terminal_2W. This is the terminal where I noticed the issue and thought it could possibly be a gate issue. I ran the same schedule twice and in both sessions the below incoming restarter airplanes never triggered their outgoing counterpart - while other incoming/outgoing planes worked fine. Also, in both sessions different gates were used by the incoming planes so I don't think it is a gate issue. There doesn't appear to be anything in the log indicating an issue with the incoming planes - they landed plenty early and taxied to the gate without a problem. 

Restarter airplanes /   parent incoming: NKS1105 - 08:06:00    outgoing: NKS308 - 12:59:00
Restarter airplanes /   parent incoming: UAL284 - 07:48:00    outgoing: UAL555 - 10:21:00
Restarter airplanes /   parent incoming: VRD950 - 08:52:00    outgoing: VRD953 - 10:03:00

Open gates are precious commodities, so these planes not departing just clogs up more gates adding to the no free terminal woes. I appreciate FT looking into this. I've attached the logs for both sessions. Thanks!

Craig

PS - I also attached the log from JFK. It is using a custom schedule with the following plane combo having the issue:  incoming: BAW2273 - 19:33:00    outgoing: BAW172 - 20:50:00.

output_log_san1.txt

output_log_san2.txt

output_log_jfk_e46_2.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,


Can you please check if NKS1105 (which was supposed to restart) arrived at all?

 

Thank you

 

Vic

Restarter airplanes /   parent incoming: NKS1105 - 08:06:00    outgoing: NKS308 - 12:59:00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - in both sessions the incoming planes successfully landed. The attached log for session 1 indicates it landed at 8:22:35 and the log for session 2 has it landing at 08:22:49.

Below are a couple of log items for a successful triggering of an outgoing plane:
11:57:51 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => start outgoing: SCX401
11:57:51 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX402 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_TO_TERMINAL to STATE_WAITING

Obviously, the above didn't happen for the three restarter combos I have shared with you.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday we spent a couple of hours on this issue and here is what we found;

This issue came up after the last SP because we got many requests for extending the original 6 hours gameplay to 8 hours. It added more problem with the schedule especially at the restarters. Personally I was against about increasing the 6 hours gameplay because it's absolutely unrealistic, but we got so many requests and we did it. 
Martin has a solution that may help; we could add a system (user selectable) that would remove airplanes that would not restart within a certain time after let's say half an hour of it's arrival.
How would it work; you will see planes disappearing at the terminal after half an hour idle (if they would not restart within a certain time)  allowing more traffic to arrive (and thus restart).

What do you Folks think about it?

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely,  if it improves the possibility to have more incoming flights because of more empty stands then by all means make the change....  User selectable is even better seeing there are a lot of homemade schedules available...

Tnx

Willem

 

P. S.  You guys haven't forgotten about EHAM now have you; -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic,

I'm not sure I agree with the 'half an hour idle' removal of aircraft. It is unrealistic because in RL the majority of aircraft are at gates for a turnround longer than 30 minutes.  How would this work if, for example, a BA 777 arrived at an airport and was due to depart 2 hours later? Would the arrived aircraft disappear after 30 minutes but there would be another BA 777 waiting at another gate as the outbound flight? That doesn't make sense to me or have I misunderstood your intentions?

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

I just got an email from Martin after I replied; the UAL and the VRD flights didn't land (so they couldn't restart) and the NKS (it landed) never reached the terminal. It may be a bug that can be the reason of this whole issue, but we would need more logs with no restarter where the incoming flight are arrived.
In the same log, you had 12 restarters without any problem.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FeelThere said:

Craig,

I just got an email from Martin after I replied; the UAL and the VRD flights didn't land (so they couldn't restart) and the NKS (it landed) never reached the terminal. It may be a bug that can be the reason of this whole issue, but we would need more logs with no restarter where the incoming flight are arrived.
In the same log, you had 12 restarters without any problem.

 

Vic

I'm sorry to be blunt but Martin is incorrect and needs to look closer at the logs (see excerpts from the log below) - all incoming planes landed. I agree that I had 12 restarter planes that worked, but these 3 didn't and that is what is baffling. All three incoming planes made it to the gate (including NKS1105) and disappeared from the strip. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the log that actually indicates when a plane reaches a gate (see proof below), so I think Martin is making an incorrect assumption saying that NKS never reached the gate.The only way to know for sure is to actually simulate the session - let me know if I need to send you a schedule file. 

This is from the session 1 log file - the incoming planes definitely did land.

COMMAND: UAL284 EXIT AT TAXIWAY B10
08:20:57 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * UAL284 =>   PARSE CMD:  EXIT AT TAXIWAY B10
08:20:57 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * UAL284 =>  TAXIWAY roadcut: EXIT AT TAXIWAY BRAVO ONE ZERO  
08:20:57 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * UAL284 =>  AT  roadcut: EXIT AT TAXIWAY BRAVO ONE ZERO   
08:20:57 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * UAL284 => SAY: EXIT AT TAXIWAY BRAVO ONE ZERO    UNITED TWO EIGHT FOUR
08:20:57 * UAL284 => ADD HISTORY: UAL284: EXIT AT TAXIWAY B10 UAL284
selcmd: #SELECT*NKS858%
SET PlANE: NKS858
CMDTREE: tree_ground_outgoing
08:21:13 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * UAL284 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_LAND to STATE_ESCAPE_RUNWAY
08:21:13 * UAL284 => ADD HISTORY: UAL284 Successful landing. +10 pts

COMMAND: VRD950 RUNWAY 27 CLEARED TO LAND 
08:54:19 alt: 3000 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 =>   PARSE CMD:  RUNWAY 27 CLEARED TO LAND
08:54:19 alt: 3000 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 => RUNWAY roadcut: RUNWAY TWO SEVEN  CLEARED TO LAND 
08:54:19 alt: 3000 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 => SAY: RUNWAY TWO SEVEN  CLEARED TO LAND  REDWOOD NINER FIVE ZERO
08:54:19 * VRD950 => ADD HISTORY: VRD950: RUNWAY 27 CLEARED TO LAND VRD950
08:58:43 alt: 99 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_INCOMING to STATE_LAND
08:58:52 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 => Landing cnt on runway: 27    cnt: 4
08:59:16 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * VRD950 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_LAND to STATE_ESCAPE_RUNWAY
08:59:16 * VRD950 => ADD HISTORY: VRD950 Successful landing. +10 pts

Below are excerpts from the session 1 log file showing that the final log entries for incoming planes. The fist plane (DAL2838)  is not a restarter and you can see there is nothing that indicates it reached the gate. The second plane (SCX401) is a restarter that worked. Very similar log entries, nothing that actually says it reached the gate, but there is a final message stating to start the outgoing plane.

10:48:42 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * DAL2838 => stop gate at: (-2275.9, 1459.8, 0.0)   takeoffgate: null
COMMAND: DAL2838 TAXI TO RAMP 
10:48:44 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * DAL2838 =>   PARSE CMD:  TAXI TO RAMP
10:48:44 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_36 r: 27 * DAL2838 => SAY: TAXI TO RAMP DELTA TWO EIGHT THREE EIGHT
10:48:44 * DAL2838 => ADD HISTORY: DAL2838: TAXI TO RAMP DAL2838
10:48:56 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_36 r: 27 * DAL2838 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_ESCAPE_RUNWAY to STATE_TO_TERMINAL
!10:48:56 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 t: T2_36 r: 27 * DAL2838 => I try to go to terminal! DAL2838
10:48:56 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_36 r: 27 * DAL2838 => Start calc route from: B7  start idx: 4
10:48:56 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_36 r: 27 * DAL2838 => Calc from: B7
DAL2838 => Route is: B7, B, apron_t2, T2_36, 

11:54:39 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * SCX401 => stop gate at: (-2275.9, 1459.8, 0.0)   takeoffgate: null
11:54:53 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * SCX401 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_ESCAPE_RUNWAY to STATE_WAITING
COMMAND: SCX401 TAXI TO RAMP 
11:55:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER r: 27 * SCX401 =>   PARSE CMD:  TAXI TO RAMP
11:55:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => STATE CHANGE from STATE_WAITING to STATE_TO_TERMINAL
11:55:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => SAY: TAXI TO RAMP SUN COUNTRY FOUR ZERO ONE
11:55:06 * SCX401 => ADD HISTORY: SCX401: TAXI TO RAMP SCX401
11:55:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => Start calc route from: B7  start idx: 4
11:55:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => Calc from: B7
SCX401 => Route is: B7, B, B10, X, T2_44, 
11:58:06 alt: 0 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER t: T2_44 r: 27 * SCX401 => start outgoing: SCX401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FeelThere said:

Yesterday we spent a couple of hours on this issue and here is what we found;

This issue came up after the last SP because we got many requests for extending the original 6 hours gameplay to 8 hours. It added more problem with the schedule especially at the restarters. Personally I was against about increasing the 6 hours gameplay because it's absolutely unrealistic, but we got so many requests and we did it. 
Martin has a solution that may help; we could add a system (user selectable) that would remove airplanes that would not restart within a certain time after let's say half an hour of it's arrival.
How would it work; you will see planes disappearing at the terminal after half an hour idle (if they would not restart within a certain time)  allowing more traffic to arrive (and thus restart).

What do you Folks think about it?

Vic

Vic,
I don't have a life and follow this forum and Steam pretty closely and obviously missed the requests to expand the 6 hours. Who was asking for this and who plays this for 8 hours straight? Insanity!

I actually create snippet schedules because the 6 (and now 8 apparently) hours of optimization causes too many no free terminal issues. If you look at my KJFK custom schedule post, you can see the difference between playing with a full schedule and a snippet. I think going up to 8 hours is going in the wrong direction.

Personally I think a user configurable option of how many hours of schedule to load would be more of a benefit. 

Also, I'm unclear as to the ultimate benefit of making planes disappear. Wouldn't this ultimately just sacrifice departures for the sake of arrivals?  And the fact that all of a sudden planes disappear from gates - what were you saying about "absolutely unrealistic"?

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic,

I am with Craig on this.  I read all of the forum posts and I have never seen a single post asking for 8 hours, (or even 6). So I cannot push even harder for my earlier post. What is going on? You seem to be scoring own goals (maybe that should be 'safeties' in NFL terms?).

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crbascott said:

Vic,
I don't have a life and follow this forum and Steam pretty closely and obviously missed the requests to expand the 6 hours. Who was asking for this and who plays this for 8 hours straight? Insanity!

Actually, I remember at least one topic from the Steam community wondering why after six hours of playing there were no more departures...

This one: https://steamcommunity.com/app/588190/discussions/0/1488861734115962611/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DeltaVII said:

Actually, I remember at least one topic from the Steam community wondering why after six hours of playing there were no more departures...

This one: https://steamcommunity.com/app/588190/discussions/0/1488861734115962611/

Didn't realize one post on Steam carried that much weight. I'll guess I'll start posting there. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like the user select 2,3,4,5,6 hour drop-down which should be equivalent of the custom schedules.  I think that is a much better solution that deleting planes that may have a longer layover than 30 minutes, the "no free terminal" and the topic of this thread.  It seems that a quick band-aid is creating additional unforeseen issues.  A better solution is needed here.  

... And thank you for listening to our feedback to make this game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, Wayne,

 

You should see our support emails :)
Ventura; it won't happen. We are still patching Tower!3D but we will not likely add new features and it would require re-writing many things. In face we are talking more and more about the new version :)

Craig,

I will ask him to check your report again.

 

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×