winsaudi

But in the meantime you are going to perpetuate the confusion by continuing to produce add-on airports (one per month according to a recent boast) that have default installation paths to an incorrect folder? As a previously loyal customer, I find that a very disappointing decision given that the problem could be fixed so easily.

@scoobflight @FeelThere @FeelThere Ariel This installation path problem has existed for years. Can you not add a smart installer such as that used by @nyergesdesign for his RC add-ons? Wayne

@WildCard that method would fix the voice callsign but unless @nyergesdesign does something in the manifest files of the RC pack to account for this, then one of those lines will result in white aircraft. Simply copying the .ba entries and also labelling them similar to “dot whatever fake IATA code” is used for the domestic shuttles would work.

Yes. They didn’t do it for Gatwick and I don’t expect they will do it for Heathrow but I would love to be proved wrong. Both SPEEDBIRD & SHUTTLE, after all isn’t it called “Real Traffic”?

So, going back to the original request by @andredragt to have the vast majority of BA traffic at T5 with just a few from T3, as in the real world, is it not easier to allocate just a small number of T3 gates in the airport coding only for BA? Such as: Terminal 3: AAL,ACA........ etc Terminal 3BA: BAW That seems a workable compromise. Now, how do you get the BA domestic flights to use the correct callsign SHUTTLE while still keeping BAW/BA codes and not getting white aircraft?

🤣 brilliant! That post has made my day.

I disagree with your first sentence. Here is a screenshot of FAA JO Order 7110.65W page 2-4-5. This policy document begins "This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by personnel providing air traffic control services."

An old installer burned to anything is no use whatsoever when the latest version of an add-on needs to be downloaded and installed. What is needed is the hyperlink to be able to download the latest version of Real Traffic, and the product registration key of course. Customer Service <cservice@bmtmicro.com> are extremely helpful.

Phew! Thanks Ben.

Guys, Point number 2 in the lead post is not a bug and it also happens at other airports for good reason. Please look at the hold short points for LEBL 07L which I have circled in red on the screenshot from Google Maps. I have yet to play LEBL but the aircraft stopping on the taxiway reported by @GoalieMedic seems to be a correct simulation. Imagine an aircraft crossing the undershoot of the runway on a taxiway just as another aircraft is on short finals to land, there is a collision risk plus a wake turbulence/jet wash risk; hence the hold shorts to allow clear separation. @hexzed does not specify which other airports or runways he is referring to but I'd stake my house on the fact that the aircraft are obeying hold short lines before crossing an undershoot. I hope this helps and reduces any frustration you may be feeling by watching this happen within T3D. I would be reporting it as a bug if aircraft didn't stop! Wayne

Vic, Exactly! I hope you can see how easy it would be for those of us that edit for reality/correct pronunciation. Thanks for listening. Wayne

Can the 3 of you fix the Falcon won't take-off problem please?

Vic, Thanks for your comments on my observations. For the first point, I see that you agree that a mix of IATA and ICAO is cumbersome and should be streamlined. For the second, sorry but I disagree with you. Surely it would be easier to have a master reference file for airlines and airports rather than the current plethora? The current 16 airlines files within the game do not list just those airlines specific to that airport as there are dozens and dozens of irrelevant listings in each file, same for the 16 airports files. What about changes? I have to edit the RT airline data because it contains errors. Here is a somewhat tongue in cheek example, if American Airlines was taken over by Walmart, (e.g. WMT, WM, WALMART, Walmart Airways, USA) using your system we would have to amend 16 different airlines.txt files whereas using my method would require one line of text amended in a central airlines.txt file. Because the TTS system results in some weird pronunciations I change the airlines.txt files to get the call sign pronounced correctly, but I have to do so up to 16 times when I really only want to do it once. Then every time RT is updated I have to go back and edit/replace 16 files instead of one. When EGKK is released make that 17, etc, etc. Wayne

On this matter, this article is worth reading: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/clearing-up-call-sign-confusion/#more-5710

Kev, Tower3D! reads the xxxx.schedule.txt file and, using your example above, it would be something akin to: VIE, BCN, 320, OE, 322, 12:00, 08:45, 1, OE (The schedule must be written using 2-letter IATA airline codes.) Then Tower3D! reads the xxxx_airlines.txt file which converts the 2-letter IATA code into the 3-letter ICAO airline code: LDM, OE, LAUDA MOTION, Laudamotion, Austria So OE 322 from the schedule becomes LDM 322 which is then seen on the flight strips and command window. The single flight number is the one from the schedule file so, in your example, either 322 or 77. You can add a letter (in this case U) in the schedule file and it will appear on the flight strips and in the command window but TTS and voice recognition ignores it. In a similar manner the 3-letter IATA airport codes used in the schedule are converted into 4-letter ICAO aiport codes, to be displayed within the game, by the xxxx_airports.txt file, for example: BCN BARCELONA_SPAIN 41.18 N 2.05 E LEBL Why this mix and necessary conversion from IATA to ICAO codes? Only the developers can answer. Why each airport folder needs its own airlines & airports file instead of single lookup files for all airports defeats me. More items for the next version? Wayne

No problem, it's buried within the 1,000s of posts on this forum. @nyergesdesign could you fix the Falcon aircraft within RT so it takes-off please?

It's not an issue with runway 20. The problem is within Real Traffic and with that particular aircraft that never gets airborne; if on approach and told to go around it plummets to the ground. This particular aircraft fault has been reported many times but clearly is still not fixed.

Despite all of the positive comments, including from the developers, it turns out that this thread was a waste of time.

@Tandy Allen My advice, for what it's worth, is to make sure that RT & KSFO are installed into your main Tower 3D folder. This sounds obvious but the installers (particularly add on airports) do not always come up with the correct installation path.

Agreed Ben. @huskytech can you pad out your question with a few more details please?

If the runway is too short the aircraft replies with "Negative, the runway is too short"; and if the wind is out of limits the aircraft replies with "Negative, the crosswind is too high" (even if it is the tailwind component that is out of limits but the crosswind component is not).

@nyergesdesign You haven't forgotten this have you Gabor?

As the originator of the thread "Real Color - A New Concept", and as FeelThere and Gabor both responded positively to my idea of looking ahead to the next RC package I am expecting the following to happen: Gabor will post his list of RC content for the next airport to be released (EGKK or LEBL?) and invite this community, especially those fine members that write custom schedules, to request additions before the RC packages are released for sale. Will that happen? Only time will tell.

So there appears not to be a rule that all heavies use the northern runway, and as 1.2.2 of the link provided by scoobflight states: The use of RWY 25R is restricted to those ACFT that can justify the need for a RWY length longer than on RWY 25L, being mandatory to carry out a conventional departure procedure. The justification must be submitted to APT Operations within a period of 7 calendar days from the date of operation. The use of RWY 07L for take-off is restricted to those ACFT that can justify the need for a RWY length longer than RWY 07R being mandatory to carry out a conventional departure procedure. The justification must be submitted to APT Operations within a period of 7 calendar days from the date of operation. So in the two examples I posted earlier the AAL B777-223(ER) has a 10 hour flight ahead of it and the ETD A330-243 has only a 6 hour flight. Take-off masses are probably somewhat different not least because of the individual fuel load requirements, a parameter that is not taken into account by T3D.

........... and 16 minutes later: