Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kagazi

  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. 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. 


  6. 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.

  7. 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?).

  8. 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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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!

  11. What is the real world runway ops for EDDF? If 7C/25C is active for takeoff only and AI landing 7R/25L are landing and unable to cross 7C/25C there are a couple of work arounds.

    The preferred fix for FSX would be similar to KLAS. In that example 7L/25R is set for takeoff only. When AI land on 7R/25L there are three "diamond" crossings that allow AI to cross 7L/25R without regard to whether 7L/25R is locked. In this regard you could add two or three "overlay" or "diamond" crossings to EDDF that would serve the same purpose. The drawback is that AI would be crossing the active runway. Careful placement of the crossings will help to minimize this effect. I think it's a better option compared to the "piling" up effect.

    The other option would be to clip (close) the inner exits and force AI down the runway to exits that do not cross the active. The drawback here is longer taxi time to the end of the runway, which could result in more "go-arounds" on 7R/25L.

    I also noticed from the bgl that 7C/25C is missing all approaches. I'm assuming this was by design? If it's used for takeoff only then it doesn't matter.

    I've never created an Island, but this discussion may be of some help. http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9161

  12. With traffic at 82% and looking at all flights in Hawaii with SuperTrafficBoard all Mesa flights use the ERJ145, none of them use the CRJ200.

    I do not see why just running DX10 schedules would change anything and if it does then something is wrong because you should get the correct planes scheduled with Create: Schedule, files and traffic with DX10 unchecked.

    When you examine the departure schedules for PHNL, PHKO OR PHTO do you see any GO! scheduled? I was having a similar problem after installing the patch and I solved the problem by changing the registrations from MESA to CRJ-ASHGO1. Also, look at the Go! aircraft type properties and make sure that the title in FSX is shown as CRJ200 MyPaint26.

    Make sure that the "use in My Traffic" box is checked and that the last year is 2020 or something beyond 2011. Don't forget to check the registration(s) and make sure they are all set to correspond to CRJ-ASHGO1 or whatever your type key is set to. If the registrations correspond to MESA you will see MESA. All of this can be accessed under airline type properties.

  13. It may help if you were to list (step by step) what you are doing based on the info in the link. The link you provided is self explanatory and it's hard to add to it. If you list your steps it would help us to identify what steps may be missing.

    Two things do come to mind. First, have you copied the trafficdatabasebuilder.exe file from the SDK to your MyTrafficX folder? This is required before you can compile the new files and traffic.

    Second, does your editor screen look like the below picture? I add the DX10 schedules box check to remove the few remaining legacy models but this box can be left unchecked. The NoUT2 box must be checked. Then you run the compiler and wait for a few minutes until all DOS boxes complete and close. When you return to FSX you should see UT2 and MTX but only (some exceptions but few) MTX AI where no UT2 AI exists.

    If you list your steps it would help.


  14. I'm attaching two versions of PHOG. One with the crosswind (5/23) active at all times and one with the crosswind active when the winds shift.

    The readme file should explain it all including how to install. If you want the spots you'll need to get it from flightsim. Do a search using the name in the readme.

    Remember to only install one version at a time.

    Report all bugs here. I will respond with fixes after the Holidays.





  15. but a certain cleanup of PHOG should not be more than one nice evening of work.

    Ha! Three days later and still working out little bugs I will dispute this claim! ;-) PHOG was a big mess. There was more wrong than right. Maybe a lot has changed since 2005? Plus lots of errors in the approaches/transitions and taxiway network.

    I was last there in 2003 so my personal pics weren't of much help - good thing for Bing 3d maps. I have redone this airport from scratch. Hopefully fixed everything and updated everything to 2010. I will post the airport and changes once I finish testing some time this week. All we need now are a few Go! Mokulele flights per day and all is set.

  16. With Aerosofts and for that matter UK2000 Heathrow scenery there is quite a lot of traffic (1200 local time) terminal 5 nearly empty

    If I understand you correctly, with UK2000 EGLL the airport is full but T5 is empty? But with the MTX airport T5 is full but the rest of the terminals are empty? I would suggest that you add a .passive to the end of the BR2_EGLL.BGL and OBJ.BGL files. Remove the EGLL Tower with beacon as well. Then make sure you are only using one EGLL at a time. Choose either Aerosoft or UK2000 and retest.

    Burkhard has indicated that in his view EGLL is appropriately filled per airport/runway capacity using the MTX version, so if T5 is empty at the two payware airports then there's a blockage somewhere.

    With the MS only version of Heathrow Terminal 5 is full

    You mean MyTraffic? FSX stock EGLL does not include T5.

    T4 is a specialty Terminal. With the departure of BAW to T5 you will need to check the new MyTraffic schedules to ensure that the airlines that occupy T4 are actually in the schedule. I recall there being a dozen or so airlines. If half are missing then T4 will appear empty most of the time unless the airport fills up then other airlines will be directed to park at T4. This is mainly due to the location of T4 in comparison to the location of available parking at the other Terminals. To compensate for this, at least 75% of the parkings are coded. If an airline with a T4 code lands it will be directed to T4, assuming that there is a free spot.

    If you need a schedule of airlines that park at T4 I can post it here.

  17. The version of KTPA that shipped with MTX 5.3 full installer has three runways only. This is according to the editor. I confirmed with ADEX. It sounds as though your update did not update KTPA. Something for Burkhard to check in the morning.

    If you'd like for me to take a look at your version of KTPA, you will need to zip it first before you can attach to the post.

  18. Have you modified KTPA using AFX?

    Comment out the MTX KTPA file by placing a .passive at the end, e.g., BR2_KTPA.BGL.passive Now use the KTPA that ships with MTX 5.3 - I'm only assuming you have v5.3 since you never answered my questions. The file date for KTPA should be March 2010. Whoever redid KTPA did not reinstate the crosswind runway technique so you won't have any fake runways. BTW, those fake runways are used to fool FS9/FSX into thinking that all runways are parallel and by doing so, FS9/FSX ATC will use the non-parallels at all times.

    If the crosswind runways are correctly placed FSX ATC will not see them and they will have no adverse effect on your flight. If they are not placed correctly then problems, especially on approach, will arise.

  • 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.