Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kagazi

  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

kagazi's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. My TrafficCommercial.bgl definitely changes when I choose the No UT2 option, but not all airlines that should be removed are removed. The two that I've been testing are United and South West. This is new to 6.0a. I have full control over the MyTraffic folder which is located on a separate drive dedicated to FSX. I've had the same set up for several years. The only thing that changed is the OS from 7 to 10. This is the first time I'm experiencing this issue. The only way to correct the problem is to change the slider to zero which removes all MTX airlines.
  2. Beta 5: When I create all files and traffic using the flight plan editor and I check the No UT2 option, the schedules produced do not honor this request. For example, I continue to see United Continental and Southwest Airlines although when I go to manage and edit both indicate that they are in UT2. Maybe this option has been disabled? I'm using Acceleration on Win10 Home 64 bit.
  3. I'm sure it will work to some degree, the question I have is how well. If you use the FSX ATC and the changed/added waypoints/NAVAIDS are not correctly recognized by FSX, it will impact your flight and FSX ATC instructions for landing as you enter into the control of the airport scenery. For example, KEIKI is a route waypoint that is used as the IAF for the ILS and RNAV Y approaches to Runway 2 at PHOG. Although FSX ATC recognizes KEIKI an includes the transition as an option if the user were not to select vectors to final but rather ask FSX ATC for an alternative approach, if you were to choose the KEIKI transition for either IAP (ILS or RNAV) and follow ATCs instructions you would never land. ATC would vector you across the Island and back towards your origination. In other words, this transition is broken. It's not correctly processed through AIPLAYER.DLL. My concern is you may run into situations like this at the airports. I'm also concerned that there's no mention of airways both low and high between waypoints. I'm also not certain that the database will distinguish between a route waypoint and a terminal waypoint. In FSX, if the approach code incorrectly uses a waypoint when it's actually a terminal waypoint, FSX ATC will never vector you to land. If you use a third party ATC program and you use an FMS with third party data the impact may be different. I simply don't know as I only use FSX ATC. If you download a third-party airport scenery check to see if the author has updated the NAVAIDS including terminal waypoints and transitions. If they have, you know you have the latest information at that airport. In reality all airport scenery designers should be updating NAVAIDS/Terminal Waypoints and IAPs for the airport(s) they update.
  4. Read the disclaimer very carefully before installing the update navaid/waypoint bgl. First, it uses AIRAC data standard. FSX is built upon the ARINC 424 standard. So there will be discrepancies. Second, it does not correct all VOR/NDBs and does not remove old moved/decommissioned or renamed NAVAIDS including waypoints. This may result in duplicates or worse. It corrects some waypoints/intersections but what about the airways (route data) that show low (V) and high (J) routes between waypoints. I can't find anywhere where the data distinguishes between waypoint and terminal waypoints. This itself will mess up many approaches as there will be no correlation between the updated database and the approach points or terminal waypoints. In the disclaimer it says something regarding not updating the NAVAIDS associated with/owned by the airport, but I can't tell if this also applies to waypoints/terminal waypoints and intersections. Anyway, based on the limited information on the web page I would be very cautious when using the updates and I certainly would NOT overwrite or delete any FSX stock databases.
  5. Another alternative would be for you to use an airport scenery design tool (google Airport Design Editor (ADE)) and with a few clicks you can make the change yourself. If it's one or two airports post them here and maybe someone can make the change for you.
  6. This website will help with adding third party scenery into FSX with Windows 7: www.fsnb.ca/fsxscenery.html
  7. Attached file based on FSX default. I modified parking to reflect airport terminal charts. I also revised the ILS @ Rwy 6 per the latest charts. The IF is FD06 (8,300 feet) and the FAF is CF06 (7,500 feet). The FAF is 2.8 NM further out from the NO NDB (6,630 feet). This was done as to avoid AI approaching from a westerly direction from slamming into the mountain range west of HKNW. A few other minor fixes and eye candy. To install simply add the two files to your MytrafficX scenery folder. Remember to remove or .passive the existing BR2_HKJK.bgl file. HKJK.rar
  8. A few observations: Stock FSX scenery: Most planes arriving from the west (approaching near HKNW direct to the NDB NO) had difficulty landing. I tested with both MytrafficX and UT2. AI planes do not use approaches. If an ILS exists, they will fly a pattern direct to the final approach fix at the altitude specified in the scenery approach header. In this case, the FAF is the terminal waypoint OM06. The approach altitude is 7,500 feet. The distance to the runway threshold is 3.9 NM. When approaching from the west, the turn to final is a hard left at 7,500 feet and the AI planes I observed simply could not correct in time and land. Some came close but most went missed. On the other hand, most straight in approaches from the south and west landed. I tested again with a modified FSX stock scenery. I reduced the approach altitude in the header for the ILS to 7,000 feet. All planes landed including the ones flying from the west with the hard left to final. The only drawback I observed was some AI that approached from the west clipped the mountain range just west of HKNW before entering the pattern. It's possible that they also clip the range at the approach altitude of 7,500 feet as well. Two fixes possible: First, reduce the approach altitude for the ILS at runway 6 according to the official charts. Second, keep the approach altitude and move the FAF out further. According to the charts, the FAF should be the NDB NO @ approach altitude 6,630 feet. I've also revised the parking per the latest airport charts. I'm going to upload the airport here once I've had a chance to test it.
  9. You will find a BR2_HKJK.bgl file in the MyTraffic scenery folder. Locate the file and add passive to the end; e.g., BR2_HKJK.bgl.passive. Go into FSX and retest. Now you're using the FSX stock HKJK. If you're still seeing issues after 10 minutes - a few of the first landings due to where FSX spawns them may come in too high or too low - you can rule out the MyTrafficX modified HKJK scenery. Also, if you can list the plane types that have a hard time landing that would be helpful as well (I'm assuming that your observations are for the ILS landing on runway 6?).
  10. I can't locate an FSX stock HJKJ -- I did find an HKJK. Is this what you're referring to?
  11. If you want to guarantee your user plane a spot at a specific gate (99.9% guarantee) you'll need to follow a guide which can be downloaded at flightsim called VIP_FSX.zip. Otherwise the parking spot that FSX assigns the user plane when it lands on the runway (confirmed once you cross the first hold short) depends on a score. The weighted score as I understand it depends on radius, parking type, airline parking code and distance from the runway. If you land at an airport and there are a few "unoccupied" gates with jetways, you may still be assigned to a gate without a jetway based on the weighted score per the criteria I just listed. For example, if there are 3 or 4 open gates with jetways and those gates have parking codes associated with them, FSX will probably look for a gate that does not have a code associated with it first. This is just a simple illustration of what I'm trying to get across. Assuming your system is not overloaded, FSX will cycle through all available parking and based on your plane, will assign the parking spot with the highest score. VIP_FSX will stack the "weighted score" in favor of your user plane. It will work 99.9% of the time assuming your traffic density is not overwhelming the available parking at the airport. I have successfully incorporated it into several airports I use most often and it works. Best of luck!
  12. Let me know if this works. Needed to move space 15. Changed its location and made it 26m spot. Changed another 26m to 36m to maintain consistency. BR2_YSRI.rar
  13. Wally - when you crashed at klax were you using 2012 or 2013 schedules? I tested klax at 19:30 local time using 50% and 2012 and all is fine. I'm using Win7x64.
  14. kagazi

    FAJS to FAOR

    I've created the dummy FAJS and the new FAOR. I have not modified the stock FAJS/FAOR so I may take a look at the existing BR2 version of FAJS to see what has bee added/changed. I also added FAOR and removed FAJS from the editor after dumping airports. I then ran the create schedules files and traffic, which took quite some time. I then googled airlines based in South Africa and used the list to bring up the MTX planes using the editor and manage airlines so as to change the FAJS hub to FAOR, where appropriate. I then ran create all files and traffic. I tested the airport and planes seem to be landing and taking off. The main issue is lack of parking at the stock airport. Stock airport FAF also seems a bit high, which caused some difficulty for some models. This can be tweaked as well.
  15. This will depend on a few factors. First, I hope your new processor is a "k" version. This will allow you to overclock beyond the intel turbo boost. From my experience, the I7 2600K can be easily overclocked with a simple change to the turbo multiplier within the bios up to 4.1Ghz. Everything else stock. This is why you should not pay to have an overclock since most will only get you 4.1 - it's like ordering spaghetti and meat balls at a fancy Italian restaurant. Why pay extra for something you can easily do yourself? 12 GB of ram is over-kill for FSX and most other games. If you're not using it for other applications then reduce to 8GB and use the extra $ on your other components. I'm assuming your getting Win7x64bit? AI traffic density will also play a role regarding fps; if you enable the exits without traffic the impact is minimal. If you run traffic at 100%, enabling the exits will kill your fps. I run MTX 5.4 on 35-40% for commercial and 15% GA. This setting is pretty realistic for most international airports. You may need to crank it up a bit at the smaller regional airports or local GA fields. With this setting and an I7 2600K OC'd to 4.5 I can lock my frames everywhere on 30. This includes New York City area. The only fps hit for me is heavy weather at the busiest airports. I may see a 5-10 fps reduction in heavy cloud cover at KJFK. I have never dropped below 20 fps - even at the airport. If I disable the exits, my frames remain locked at 30 +/- 2. Obviously, there are other factors that influence FSX performance including optimizing your OS and FSX not to mention some of the other components of your build; so the above assumes you'll take care of the others and only addresses your specific question. Good luck!
  • 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.