Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pdubya last won the day on March 15 2019

Pdubya had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About Pdubya

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday June 3

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Transportation, railroads primarily as well as airlines. Games. PCs, both using and building. Ships (former US Navy).

Recent Profile Visitors

1,038 profile views
  1. Vic: Mostly what I am referring to is when inbound flights are on final touchdown and have ignored or given a "negative" radio response. They then proceed to turn off the runway into a taxiway that is already occupied by an outbound A/C waiting for the inbound A/C to taxi by... they end up nose to nose and a delete is necessary most cases because the runway is obstructed. I guess what I am asking after is that inbound A/C to have virtual eyes that when the crew decides to turn off, it can (usually) "see" that there is a big honkin' A/C already sitting just off the runway in taxiway X and pointed at the runway- so choose another exit please because following is not possible! Autonomous meaning the A/C (game) should accomplish this on its own w/o player intervention to avoid a crisis. Perhaps this would work different in fog or storm/rain conditions. I get that humans aren't infallible, but under normal circumstances we manage just fine. This is why I am interested in more time or a different method to assign an A/C on final exit and taxi instructions. Of course the whole 'gate, gate, who has the gate' game must be fixed. Not knowing until very late in the approach/final is not helping matters with all this stuff above. Does that make sense? Let me know if not. Sorry it took so long to get back to you Vic. Cheers!
  2. I would add that a thorough file structure analysis is key. Seems like you are doing that Vic, but it doesn't hurt to emphasize it. I agree with crbascott on his many points. The whole game package arrangement and inter-related workings needs re-thinking. An eye towards efficiency with regards to how the various parts underneath the Tower "hood" work, individually and as a whole. Obviously you still need to make enough with the package structure to ensure the Tower series thrives, both in sales and ease of improvements/updates. 1. Aggressive minimization of game parameters/functions duplicated in multiple folders or applications. (To help ease the effort required to both ensure accuracy and troubleshooting) 2. Some way to avoid blatant taxi collisions that under normal weather conditions would be avoided. (i.e., A/C MUST know where other aircraft are on the ground if they could see it IRL). I would like to see a new, improved taxi aspect to Tower with both autonomous critical avoidance as well as more user options for commands. 3. Adequate + % of safety factor in gate/tarmac/ramp design to ensure A/C can fit and pushback properly w/o collisions. Also, built-in gate-specific A/C size restrictions. 4. Voice commands: Either a whole new system of voice recognition, or more time and/or leeway for players to ensure A/C acknowledges a command; on final or at the end of the runway doesn't cut it, too many rejected commands result in bad gameplay and frustration. Current voice command system isn't robust enough.
  3. I believe another reason this happens is due to scale, buffer space and alignment issues in the game. A good example is New York JFK Intl. The south side of the tower has a narrow ramp I nicknamed Tin Pan Alley due to the diminutive size and aircraft antics that go on there. Planes either barely miss each other on pushback and taxi, or they outright go through one another. It doesn't help that at times larger aircraft than are probably wise to stuff into a ramp are there based on the traffic setup. My hunch is that the scale of the aircraft and airport in the game make pushback coding a real pain in the neck. In real life there are wingwalkers to protect the surrounding aircraft, combined with v. slow tow movement, this keeps collisions from happening. There is no such luxury for Vic; he has said that the next version will have a completely re-written pushback code module. Meanwhile he will likely do the best he can to tweak the EDDM code so it isn't a complete immersion-breaker.
  4. Not to mention the fact that the plane livery usually is rather fuzzy, although that might be more a limitation of the chosen design engine, etc. Hoping this is one of the things Vic can address with the next version. Based on his "bone" pics I would think so, but making assumptions with programming and what "should" be possible is like the proverbial rabbit hole. Craig, I do think we really scored with Vic's agreement that files need to exist in one place instead of for each airport. That in and of itself was a minor coup!
  5. While on the subject, it is my hope that the Old Guard here (they know who they are) will submit a thread for us other folks to look through, perhaps with a poll? - though maybe not crucial, that would list ITEMS just like the one 707Fan posted here. I would like to see those items that are outside of the Laundry List (aka, stuff we already know needs R&R or redesign) handled in a proper manner so that we get the best brainstorming out of our little niche community and help make the next version all that much better. Observing here on and off leads me to believe we have more than just a couple gents who definitely have the passion and know-how to make it work.
  6. Yeah, less files overall too Vic as you have no doubt already noticed. It does get a bit confusing in the current setup, and I don't even mod stuff!
  7. I agree with you Pete on Philly. It hits that "sweet spot" of not too big but busy enough with a fairly challenging layout that can offer many different runway configurations to try. I also put JFK and BOS as they are nice international bases with unusual airline arrivals and departures. I will be much happier whenever we get word the next version is being worked on... (looking at you Vic). Almost halfway thru January 2019 and still nothing. It's not a rant or similar, but I won't be getting anymore airports until the next version. Too many other options for games right now.
  8. Hmm... sounds like one more item for "the list" Craig, eh?
  9. xendra: Not that it really helps, but my hunch is that the freeze/jump is the game transitioning to and from ground control to air control internally. This is one of the items that I am sure will be mentioned on the new version fix list.
  10. Yes, that is what Vic has implied; a new version written from the bottom up using his experiences with the current version as a means for improvement. AJ, Vic did mention he would like (no guarantee) to include more airports with the release version of the new game than the current sim had to increase the value we would receive for purchasing. Personally, it is a easy buy for me as there are many small and a few large items needing better solutions or implementations. I am excited for when he makes an official announcement.
  11. I am all for the idea with a small caveat - that if Nyerges and FT have any kind of standard(s) regarding the skins, whether it be as mundane as file size or format, fidelity, etc. that those standards or guidelines be agreed upon and adhered to by the contributors. I am sure that others would agree we can't have problems cropping up in the game due to different opinions on what makes a custom livery "good" or not. If that is not going to be a concern, then full speed ahead I say. Correction - my misunderstanding on what was referred to here - sorry. I think it would be great to do this.
  12. Pete: Craig and others can shed some more specific light on this issue, but I have routinely found that Arrivals tend to exit to the Terminal side of the runway, but not always. Sometimes they listen to your command to "Vacate Runway" R/L, many times you get a "negative" response. I personally have not found any rhyme or reason to the behavior. It's exceptionally irritating for me to say the least. Others may have a few workarounds or best practices to minimize the problem. If memory serves, KSFO is a bit wonky right now. I have it, but have only played it occasionally.
  13. I can understand wanting the 8 hour continuity in the game flow. I am that way when it comes to immersion. But unless Vic can come up with a solution on the next version with the whole available gate issue, I really don't see the point. It is dragging down the rest of the game and the overall experience. I am pretty confident he can come up with a better way. I think it was just a result of choices made last time around... unintended consequences if you will. I will be interested to see what Vic has in mind for this next version- actually pretty excited when thinking of the possibilities, regardless of how far away release is likely going to be.
  14. Wayne: Can't help but agree. Personally, I am lucky to get through a couple hours before stress relief or cramping sets in. Wouldn't a reduction in loaded hours help with load times and "solve" some related issues as well? I would think so. Seems there should definitely be a happy medium to be found somewhere between 3 and 8. Looking at the logs, I wonder how many cycles are chewed up by the game regularly dealing with no available gates. CPU time better spent doing other more important stuff. I imagine this is on Vic's laundry list for Tower3D Next.
  15. Pete: Well, Craig and I have chatted about the next release recently. Unfortunately, other than some info Vic gave in response to my "Brotherly Love KPHL" thread, there is very little real info on the next version. Check out that thread if you are interested. We remain hopeful an announcement is forthcoming; the first item will likely be Vic opening up a Suggestions thread when he is ready.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.