Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

Pdubya

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Pdubya

  1. My 2 cents would be that taxi speed or ground speed first and foremost needs to be situation-appropriate; we previously discussed the real Tower3D frustration of final approach aircraft touching down on the runway and decelerating far too quickly. Overall I agree with their sentiment that acceleration is a bit too low and the old turn-in speed from runway to taxiway was (at times) ridiculously fast. So, perhaps a focus on both the aircraft situation (location and destination) and also transitions from one taxi "state" to another, i.e., Runway to taxiway at 90 degree angle, acceleration from holding at a runway to cross and clear said runway, etc. Pushback should be slower than the old game and stick to the taxi tarmac lines to avoid collisions with other parked aircraft. I seriously doubt that aircraft IRL would be doing 20+ kts close to the gate areas, more like half that. I suppose a good question for you Vic is does the new game have or support assigning a speed to a specific segment of taxiway? This might be a way to elicit a more appropriate plane behavior instead of a blanket 20kt taxi speed everywhere. I can appreciate it would mean more work, maybe there is another better way to achieve the same result? As a slight aside, part of what I mentioned in old conversations about how not assigning taxi exits, gates, etc. early enough has a negative domino effect. If the Controller can give runway exit instructions early enough then the game can appropriately slow down the landing aircraft (provided the exit is not too early for the aircraft to do it) to make a proper exit at an acceptable speed. I am no expert on when IRL the controller gives taxi and gate commands to aircraft, but given that in Tower3D we as the player have to do it all ourselves, it would make sense to ease up on any tight timeline to convey instructions. For myself, nothing ruins the controller experience like commands unacknowledged and aircraft needing to be deleted.
  2. I figured that a high % of systems in the new version would take more time to develop, but looks like it will be worth the wait (and effort on the team's part). Thanks for the clarity Vic, looking forward to the June update.
  3. Looking great Vic- I particularly love the terrain height and features (trees, bushes, etc.). It should really enhance the whole immersion factor to see planes in relation to actual terrain on takeoff and arrival. Can't wait to see other shots and airport reveals in the future.
  4. Vic: Having just read the updates MJKERR and crbascott posted and being a "big picture" guy, the following comes to mind: Community dedicated users who make mods that the community can choose to use as they please. As long as their configuration files asks are included by FT I believe we end up with airports around the world (in-game) that really represent how each specific airport handles traffic throughout the day and night, incorporating runway changes, cargo vs. passenger vs. general, etc. (within reason of course!) That way, FT doesn't bear the brunt of man-hours committed to minutia concerning real-world operations at a given airport, they only need to provide accurate airport layouts and the means for modders to configure the files as they see fit. About the only downside I see at the moment is needing to either: a) expect each individual owner to backup their original config files before applying mods -OR- b) FT institutes file structure suitable, i.e., sub-directory specifically for mods that the game checks; if "enabled", it would load and use the mod config vs. the FT default one that stays safe and can't be overwritten. To me it ends up being an enormous WIN-WIN. The community wants airports and their associated components (gates, sizes, restrictions in the real world) to mimic reality as closely as possible. Somewhere in there is a happy medium between realism and effort involved.
  5. Thanks for the update Vic, great stuff. I would like to hear your reply to EliGrim's post above as well. Not certain how granular the control/options needs to be, but the capability to have flexibility with regards to gates and assignments, overflow and emergency side-cases are part of what I would like to know at some point. Essentially, anything that helps us as the user to plan ahead so we aren't trying to do this stuff when a given aircraft is on final would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again!
  6. Vic: A question for you regarding the lighting. If you had a airline whose paint scheme was more matte in appearance, is that something that can be part of the airline file (or airframe file) instead of gloss on a global scale?
  7. Wow... just wow Vic. This is some seriously impressive stuff FT is putting together. I get that testing still has to ensure it can work with various hardware (to one degree or another) but what a rush! Me and my shiny new AMD 5900 with Radeon 6900XT are now officially on the bandwagon. Thanks for the update! Paul
  8. No need for an apology Vic. We know it's hard to keep track of all us knuckleheads. 😁
  9. That sounds like a good start Vic. As crbascott noted above, I am Paul... and I'll be your Captain today. Oh, wait... wrong game! 😅 It's all good Vic, just happy to see the fruits of all your team's labor. Cheers!
  10. Vic: First off, thanks for launching the update phase, congrats! Looking good so far. I am quite curious how the ATC "console" we see in the above pic will translate to... let's say a 32" 16x9 single monitor. Can you elaborate on that? I guess the old guy in me wonders how my aging eyes are going to "see" all these different parts of the game. Perhaps Function Keys or the like? Just curious! Thanks again!
  11. Ah, finally. Really looking forward to the release, whenever that may be. Can't help but feel (no pun intended) that our little community will play a part in helping make Tower 3 great. Thanks for the info Vic, can't wait for updates.
  12. Well, credit given where credit is due Vic. We talked at length months ago about opening up the development process a bit more, and I think you have given the idea a chance. This is great progress in my opinion. My hope is that it helps the second version of Tower3D launch much closer to software entertainment that everyone is excited about and anxious to play. Look, at 56 I am more of a realist each and every day. Some aspects of ATC will not be included for various reasons, many of which people like myself don't understand. I am OK with that and am just glad we built a bridge between the community and you and your team. Here is to a better release and continued development. Cheers!
  13. I think as long as the coding allows for the basic flexibility we talked about things should be fine. Nice to see it all coming along Vic, kudos and keep up the good work!
  14. Vic: It is great to see that the FT crew is far enough along to warrant pics, even if they aren't truly "in-game". So far they look spectacular to my eye, concessions aside. Glad to hear that progress and milestones (reading btw the lines here) are happening, that is a heartening trend. Myself and most others here have pretty high hopes and standards for our next gen Tower3D "vision". Heck, why not? Go BIG or go home as the saying goes, eh? Looking forward to continued tidbits Vic. Oh, and a personal thanks for opening up quite a bit to suggestions from all of us in the peanut gallery... or was that the pig sty? 💣 ANYhoo, hope everyone is maintaining through the pandemic. Stay safe! Paul
  15. Another thought. It might be a cool option to have an AI Controller Partner if you are learning or need a gentle nudge now and then. Any time as a Controller where you are approaching the closing of a crucial (or perhaps not so crucial) timing window, the AICoP would perhaps "remind" you with a popup text (or even voice) message that 'inbound flight ZX001 lacks clearance and gate assignment'; thus helping you avoid the dreaded penalty and go-around dance. Alternatively, we need some way to help us keep track of whether flights have all the clearances and instructions they require yet. Perhaps it is linked in some other way with the gameflow, like a particular icon or color, etc. You get the idea. I just feel that no controller works in a vacuum in real life. They have bosses and coworkers nearby to manage the traffic load.
  16. Good submissions guys, spot on with the voice recognition/commands area. I am wondering if the individual airports should not have their associated "parameters" data in the new version. In other words, a small database that gets read by the game engine when loaded, with important particulars such as: Main, (Aux?), GA, Cargo Terminal location when Arriving and Departing. So those pesky GA flights know where to go now... 😉 Airframe size allowances for each individual or group of gates at the terminals. Again, so incoming flights don't try to squeeze into those 'Calvin Klein' gates with a wide body! 😁 With regards to Airline codes and such, it occurs to me that we might want the ability to have Legacy Airlines, planes and such. I would REALLY lose my s@*t if I could have a 1950s or 1960s scenario with my Lockheed Constellations and friends. WOOT! (uhh, sorry, got a bit carried away there) 😳 P.
  17. 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!
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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!
  21. 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.
  22. 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!
  23. 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.
  24. Hmm... sounds like one more item for "the list" Craig, eh?
  25. 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.
×
×
  • 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.