DeltaVII

Same.

One airport where that works perfectly is ... St. Thomas. Which makes the fact they didn't implement it in Heathrow even more puzzling when you realize it's one of the airports that the basic game comes with...

I don't own EGLL, but one thing strikes me as odd: Both runways definitely have a displaced threshold, and I wonder why FT did not design it as such, especially when it was no problem to use a DT back in the early days of the game when KJFK came out (remember runways 22R and 31L)...

@Chicago The problem with KORD is that it has eight runways with formally 16 directions, but they can only make 7 runways with 13 directions work in the top panel where you activate and deactivate landing runways. And the complexity of both KORD and EHAM (including the wide area especially EHAM is spread over) makes performance on older or non-high-class gaming computers problematic.

"STRING LINE ERROR: 8 - EWR,PHX,320,UA,248,12:00.06:00,1,UA" There's a point instead of a comma between the times. I don't know whether that's the problem, but it's one problem for sure.

Faster than before, but still slow. The main issue are the gazillions of third-party sources like Cloudfront, Cloudsource, CTCTCDN, Facebook, Google, Google Tag Manager, GStatic, OnFastSpring aaaand whatever servers are used by those third-party sources. One single slow source in the row can spoil the whole chain. No wonder the start page takes 10-15 seconds to load (on a 100 MBit/s line near EDDH)...

No, the spaces are not the issue. Did you make any changes to the terminal file?

EPWA wouldn't practically work without major delays under the current engine, because the exits are too close to the crossing and the arriving mid-size planes would eat up too much time to crawl towards the exit blocking traffic from departing before the next arrival. Pretty much like trying to operate KLGA with arrivals on runway 31 and departures on runway 4... If done properly, the next T!3D version could be capable of making every airport work.

If SiteLock uses Amazon Web Services to deliver the content, then yes.

@MJKERR Using the 3-letter-code for airlines in the schedule is a good point, since there are lots of airlines out there which don't have an ICAO, but only an IATA code and don't count as GA.

Hey, @FeelThere, two (horrifying) quick questions: What percentage of your customers buys just the airports without the corresponding Real Color packs? And what percentage of your customers buys only the game and airports without ever buying Real Traffic? (Should be easy to determine, if you know how many copies of every product were sold without refunding...)

My proposal was splitting the schedule up into an airlines file/table, a liveries file/table, and the schedule. The airlines table/file would contain an ID, the IATA and ICAO codes, callsign, name, and country. The liveries table/file would contain an ID, the airline table/file ID as key, the aircraft type (either IATA or ICAO code), and a comment (for the kind of livery, like company, special livery etc.). The schedule table/file would contain ETA, ETD, the airline ID for the flight (from the airlines table/flight), the flight number, the aircraft type ID (from the aircraft table/file), the origin/destination IATA code, and the livery ID (from the liveries table/file). That way, you could allow different liveries for the same aircraft type on the same carrier, like Republic, SkyWest and so on, and even special liveries (like the former Eurowings Europa Park livery for the A320) without having to put it for every single aircraft of the same carrier. (If you're really, REALLY, REALLY good, you could make a special ID for the livery in the schedule table/file - like "-1" or "0" -, so that upon loading the schedule the game engine randomly picks a livery from the available liveries for that particular aircraft and that particular carrier in case that you have multiple liveries for that configuration...) You would only have to make sure that third-party developers for extensions each get a certain range of IDs so that one doesn't overwrite other entries. Doing it dynamically during the installation process would be a bad idea, because one schedule creator would very likely have different aircraft/liveries/airlines records under the same IDs.

1) The IATA airport code "SXF" for Berlin Schoenefeld (EDDB) is no longer valid. It is now "BER", which belongs to the new "Berlin Brandenburg Airport Willy Brandt" (operations start on November 1st). (If you did not know: runway 07L/25R of BER is the former runway 07/25 of SXF, which itself used to be runway 07R/25L until December 2007.) 2) Berlin Tegel Airport (TXL / EDDT) will cease operations on the evening of November 8th. BER / EDDB will be the only Berlin Airport in operation.

Looks like it's the area below taxiway S1S. I've read it's served by Signature Flight Support which is located there.

I hope they were planning it by themselves. Basically, we already HAVE it in Tower!3D - kind of: You can click on the taxiways the plane is supposed to take, and if you stop it mid-way and issue another via clicking it does it again. To me, this looks like a relatively small extra step that they come across when implementing progressive taxi in no-voice mode, anyway...

Quick question (I probably missed it): Are you going to implement "Follow The Greens"?

Yup - but I don't have the add-on, and my access to Flightera is restricted, so it'll take a few days, and I'll need a guinea pig for testing...

I don't think you will be able to run Tower! 2011 on a Pi, just to make this absolutely clear. Whether or not you could run Tower!3D depends on your budget. (And "cheap" is not exactly precise...) On-board graphics like Intel HD 630 or Radeon Vega wouldn't run the game flawlessly, either. It's better to look at the "Recommended" specs than on minimum requirements, because the latter mean the smallest possible settings with a perfectly new (and never updated) operating system... The problem is that graphics cards, even older ones, have become fracking expensive (for manufacturers, the Bitcoin bubble was a warm financial shower, and they kind of got used to that pricing level). If I look at what Best Buy has to offer, their cheapest PC with a graphics card is $950 (but it would definitely run Tower!3D...). A cheaper option might be some office-level desktop PC (with AMD Ryzen 5 or Intel Core i5 CPU and 8+ GB RAM) and adding a video card like a Radeon RX570 (~ $140) yourself, but that would still get you close to the $700 threshold. (My system is a 7-year-old AMD A10, 8 GB RAM, Radeon RX 560 graphics card - after my old card had burnt through and had to be replaced - and a 500 GB Samsung SSD.)

First of all: Which is "this game"? Second: Have you been successfully able to run software under Windows XP on a Pi 4 (in case you're looking at Tower! 2011)? Third: I doubt the graphics chip on the Pi 4 has enough performance, even for the 2011 version.

Correct. Judging by the angle and looking at the chart, the 748 was lined-up at V3 (probably a bit further down the runway at the threshold for spacing) and the 388 on V2 on runway 36L.

Amsterdam:

If you want to make your own schedule, you could use the data from Flightera.net (just no GA and probably some charter flights may be missing from it).

You mean JFK? 😁

@Jbuddtv Usually, at around 1.5 miles from the airport, according to this old documentary (which, by the way, insults the 757 as "climbing sluggishly for the first few miles"). Best practice with Tower!3D is waiting until the following flight calls tower (that way, if you have other traffic to the runway you want to switch the aircraft over to, or you want to depart traffic from the runway you're transferring the aircraft from, you can build a big enough gap, instead of probably dealing with two arrivals just twenty seconds or one minute apart (if the schedule shows two incoming flights at the same minute). If you have crossing arrival runways, don't switch them over, because you might end up with two flights trying to land at the same time.

The layout is a nightmare, especially between the runways with basically no holding area between them. It looks like KSFO's 28s between the 34s and 35s, respectively. And with 9 (!) ground frequencies in real life and the limitations of the game engine, I don't think that it's manageable from one tower (from tower 1 between the 34s and 35s, you have almost no sight at the terminals; from tower 2 on the south east apron, you have almost no sight at the thresholds of the 16s), let alone that the taxi routes via B and E1 will work. Just imagine trying to send an aircraft from 34L@A7A back to the south east apron via A7B, A, A4, E1, E, N1, F5 and TF... It might work in Tower!XX, but there's no way it'd work in a non-frustrating way in 3D.