Ron C

Yes, running the game in ADMIN mode. Correct PHNL starts after you exit out of a session at any other airport as long as you don't exit out of the whole game in between the two sessions.

I recently purchased PHNL and for a short while all was well. Then after a few sessions PHNL started to crash the game when I tried to “Start” it after I initially brought the game (T!3DP) up. However, the crash only occurs when PHNL is the first airport I try to load after bringing T!3DP up. If I start another airport first then exit back to the main menu and then try PHNL it will usually start (load up) and run fine. I do not have this problem with any of my other seven airports (KDFW, KLAX, KLAS, KPHL, KPHX, KSEA and TIST). I also purchased KSEA at the same time as PHNL and have had no problems with it. I tried several scenarios to see where the problem might be. First I tried re-installing PHNL, RT, and RC for both PHNL and KSEA. I also used the “tower3D Remove Settings.reg” file that @WildCard suggested I use for an earlier dual monitor issue to reset all the game settings back to a first time use configuration. That didn’t fix the issue. Next, I removed the existing T!3DP folders from the FeelThere folder and then downloaded and reinstalled the T!3DP base game and all of my airport DLCs. However, I didn’t reinstall Real Traffic, any Real Color files, custom schedules or any of my modified airport specific text files. That didn’t fix the issue either. My latest scenario was to create another basic game just using the basic T!3DP game and the PHNL DLC. I still got the same results. I’ve also not added any new software programs or hardware in the last few months and tried the latest scenario with my Avast anti-virus disabled. The real head scratcher for me (one with somewhat limited software knowledge) is that all was working well for the first few PHNL sessions and also that PHNL is my only DLC with this issue. I have attached the following files from a crash using only the basic T!3DP game and the PHNL DLC: the crash.dmp, the error.log, the (crash) output_log.txt, the game’s actual output log from the crashed session and the output log from the next time that PHNL was loaded up and worked after I had already loaded and exited out of a different airport (KPHL). Any help/ideas in resolving this very irritating crashing issue would be greatly appreciated. crash.dmp error.log (Crash) output_log.txt PHNL No Start (Crashed Game) output_log.txt PHNL Good Start output_log.txt

I know. It also started to work for me when I tried it about 1700 PST. Just added two more airports (a great sale).

Here you go. I just tried it and got the 500 error. https://feelthere.com//shop/

I've had the same issue all day.

Agree. Back in my day the most important thing ingrained into you as a tower controller was the continual visual (out the windows) monitoring of all your traffic and the continual surveillance of the airport. However, it should also be noted that back in my day the Air Force did not have ADIRS, so I really had no choice in the matter. Not sure these days how much time is devoted by the controllers between using the ADIRS/DBRITE and visually watching the actual airplanes (assume most of the time it is still visually watching their traffic). However, in my case, I find that in the game most of my controlling is accomplished by using the ADIRS and DBRITE (i.e., using them as my primary source of controlling instead of out the window visual monitoring). In my opinion one of the major reasons for this (besides me getting older) is that I’m usually trying to simultaneously do the jobs of four or more tower controllers at large airports and I need to constantly use these aides to ensure that I don’t lose the total overall “picture” traffic wise.

Agree with @cwalfy1. Thank you very much for your time and effort. I've been using the daylights out of it for my airports. Ron

An apology on my part; sometimes old habits die hard. Back in my day the FAA regulatory ATC directive was called the FAA Handbook (FAAH) which I referenced in posts to this thread. However, I just realized that sometime after I retired the directive’s title was changed to “FFA JO 7110.65, Air traffic Control” (with the current “Y” suffix reflecting the most current revision which are ordered alphabetically). I guess my age is really starting to show.

Thank you. I agree and now I'm not confused anymore.

Thank you for your testing efforts in trying to help me understand. However, I already understood that would work (and assume you meant 25R). I was referring to simultaneous LUAWs at the same intersection or end of the same runway (which I thought @MJKERR was doing at OMDB and what the Amsterdam video clip depicted). Did you test issuing two simultaneous LUAWs at end of 25R and/or 24L and not clearing the first plane for take-off before the second LUAW airplane ran into it?

I guess I didn’t research as thoroughly as I could have, so I missed your 2017 post on this subject. My initial post was meant to focus on the “line up and wait behind next landing aircraft" command which was the main issue at the start of this thread. I also wanted to mention FAAH 7110.65 (the “Y” suffix reflects the most current revision which are ordered alphabetically) as I thought it might be a helpful reference source or tool for U.S. ATC for those who may be interested (it covers both tower and radar procedures). Currently, I only have U.S. T!3DP airports so my emphasis has been on U.S. ATC procedures (which is the ATC I was involved with for most of my controlling career) that had to adhere to FAAH 7110.65. I admit I’m not the most knowledgeable about outside the U.S. ATC or ICAO procedures; however, if I do get a non-U.S. airport I will brush up on ICAO procedures. I’m curious how you were able to get more than one LUAW plane to line up on the same runway at the same time in T!3DP. In my experience I’ve found I can’t do that when clearing another plane to LUAW with a LUAW airplane already holding on the same runway for takeoff. This situation, at least in my case, produces a “crash” when the second LUAW aircraft runs into the first one holding on the runway still awaiting its takeoff clearance; however, once it gets"...Cleared for Takeoff" there is no problem, even it takes a few seconds for the plane to start its takeoff roll. Even though I only use one LUAW at a time, I found this out the hard way when I got real busy and got the multiple aircraft waiting for departure ADIRS ID tags confused.

Or for full length runway departures as well. As a previous controller the "line up and wait behind next landing aircraft" command has bugged me since I first saw it (therefore, for realism sake, I don't use it). In ATC you usually don't use that many conditional commands (can get you into trouble). Below is a quote from the Federal Aviation Administration Handbook (FAAH) 7110.65Y; which provides mandatory guidance/procedures for ATC that falls under the FAA’s jurisdiction (includes US military ATC and aircraft). We called it the "Controller's Bible". It is available on line for free in PDF format at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65Y_Basic_w_Chg_1_1-30-20.pdf if anyone is interested in seeing all the rules, complexities, separations and phraseologies that make up real-world FAA ATC (and maybe even try to apply some of them in the simulation, at least as much as the game's limitations will allow). FAAH 7110.65Y Chapter 3, Paragraph 9 partial quote: 3−9−4. LINE UP AND WAIT (LUAW) a. The intent of LUAW is to position aircraft for an imminent departure. Authorize an aircraft to line up and wait, except as restricted in subpara g, when takeoff clearances cannot be issued because of traffic. Issue traffic information to any aircraft so authorized. Traffic information may be omitted when the traffic is another aircraft which has landed on or is taking off the runway and is clearly visible to the holding aircraft. Do not use conditional phrases such as “behind landing traffic” or “after the departing aircraft” (I added the red text for emphasis). b. First state the runway number followed by the line up and wait clearance. PHRASEOLOGY− RUNWAY (number), LINE UP AND WAIT. NOTE− When using LUAW, an imminent departure is one that will not be delayed beyond the time that is required to ensure a safe operation. An aircraft should not be in LUAW status for more than 90 seconds without additional instructions.

Thank you for your conversations/responses. You're probably right; however, I'll take whatever advantages (by design or luck) I can get. LAX is my favorite game airport, even though T!3DP's taxiway configuration is sooo out of date (hopefully it will be one of the first/base airports for Tower XX). I’d love to be able to try my previously mentioned across the airport departure runway taxi procedures with LAX's current taxiway configuration along with a "give way to" command.

I knew about the 5 mile separation at the 20 mile range. What I was referring to was that it appears for the most part that when I use multiple parallel landing runways that are on both sides of the airport (e.g., LAX Runways 24R and 25L; DFW Runways 18R, 17C and 17L; and PHX Runways 25R and 26), the game normally doesn't put the next arriving faster aircraft on the same landing runway as an immediately preceding slow mover even if both of their gates are on the same side of the airport. This then creates more than 5 miles of initial in trail separation between the slow mover and the next in trail arrival to that runway. I don’t know if this is by design (if so, good job) or just coincidence (then there are a lot of them in my case, which is also good). However, at PHL when I only designate one of the parallel runways for arrivals, I do get a fast mover 5 miles behind a slow mover; the game doesn’t differentiate between the two (thank goodness I have the other parallel runway to bail me out since I have no aircraft speed adjustment options available). Adamantly agree with you about getting the planes off the runway faster. I believe that by default the arriving planes need to keep their landing roll-out speed up until their default or controller designated exit.

I knew that and do understand (that's the way I handled LAX arrivals in TRACON!2012). However, those airports also have at least two ground controllers, two tower (local) controllers, assistants and supervisors to handle the traffic that I have to try and handle by myself; so any break I can give myself I tend to take. Also, I believe that departures from DFW and LAX tend to depart on the runway that somewhat fits their destination and/or SID (e.g., at LAX some AAL, UAL, and SKW departing Runway 24L and some SWA, DAL departing on runway 25R). I do this for both LAX and DFW (I have prepared lists of specific destinations for each departing runway); therefore, I have a lot of mixed departure and arrival cross airdrome taxiing at these airports (that’s why for me a “give way to” command would be very beneficial). This can also make ground control very interesting especially since you are not just automatically taxiing every aircraft to the runway nearest their gate (e.g. all LAX south terminal, GA and cargo departures always taxiing to Runway 25R, etc.). However, the destination lists I've made are not based on any specific sources just mainly on my best guesses and observations. Totally agree. I’m an ex-military controller with both control tower and radar approach control experience, so I know what you are talking about (howbeit a long time ago now). Much of my ATC experience was at Air Force bases with single runways which depended heavily on the approach controllers ensuring that adequate final approach course separation between arriving IFR aircraft was maintained until they crossed the runway’s landing threshold. One major difference though was that the IFR instrument approach arrivals remained on the approach controller’s frequency until after they landed; the tower’s landing clearance was passed directly to the final approach controller who relayed it to the pilot. However, the VFR arrivals and aircraft remaining in the VFR pattern were controlled and sequenced (with the IFR arrivals) solely by the tower. I also have noticed that it appears that FeelThere, may have helped a little with arrival spacing at some airports (LAX and DFW in my case) which is greatly appreciated. Now they need to get the departures to take-off faster once cleared for take-off (I know hopefully Tower XX).

I couldn’t agree more with all that @DeltaVII posted. I usually don’t change the arrival runway except at the airports with parallel arrival runways on both sides of the airport which in my case is LAX, DFW and PHX. I’ll do that (when I can) to put the arrivals on the same side of the airport as their terminal gates. This saves a lot of extra taxiing and ground congestion getting the aircraft from the landing runway across the airfield to its gate. I’ve found (at least in my case) that in order to ensure adequate runway landing separation that with most commercial jets in T!3DP you will need to ensure about 5 to 4 miles final approach course separation in front of the next aircraft that will be landing on the same runway that you are changing your arrival to land on. Also, keep in mind you will need more in trail final approach separation if the aircraft you switching arriving runways is a slow mover (especially if its Boutique Air, lol). Hopefully the next Tower XX will include some kind of controller initiated aircraft final approach speed adjustments mechanism for arriving aircraft (like in TRACON 2012).

I can relate with what you are saying, especially since when I retired from the Air Force ADIRS hadn’t made it to the military yet (we were usually about a generation behind the FAA equipment wise) with the DBRITE being the only real control tower electronic aid available (yeah, I’ve been out for a while). However, I’m not suggesting that graphics aren’t important, just that I feel you don’t need to have a lot of extra GPU gobbling resources needed for "cool" exterior details when you looking out the tower’s windows; especially since you are supposed to be primarily concentrating on the aircraft under your control. Again, my main concern was having to have a higher end system to be able to effectively play and enjoy the simulation/game (i.e., not sacrificing functionality or speed for super detailed “cool” graphics for the non-high end systems). I agree with @Lewisboy comments including that there should be some sort of middle ground available. I also really appreciate Vic’s comment about trying to make a scalable version of the game (may also create more potential future customers).

Thank you Vic.

Totally agree and vote for functionality over graphics “eye candy” especially since we don’t know yet what the minimum and recommended computer requirements are going to be for Tower XX. Some of us that are not gamers may not have the higher dollar computer equipment (processor, graphics card, etc.) that would be needed to support intense graphics at the possible cost of the simulation's functionality or slowing down the simulation. As an ex-military controller I love the game for its challenging game play therefore super graphics are not all that important to me. In fact, I usually don’t have much time to look at the graphics in detail since I’m normally concentrating on the ADIRS and DBRITE most of the time (normally I try to keep myself pushed to the limit of my controller abilities). I further believe the new game should be developed on the basis of it being an actual ATC simulation and not just another video game.

Thanks again for your time and info. I guess I’m going to go for the RX 550. I checked three different tech spec sources for the Sapphire Pulse RX 550 (the card I’ll be getting) power requirements getting various results: 50 watts (CNET); 65 watts (techpowerup); and <65 watts (Sapphire, the manufacturer’s web site). From this I’m assuming that 65 watts should be the cards’ peak (maximum) power consumption at any given time. I’m also going to pull the HD 5450 card and send it back (I have 30 day free return). However, the RX 550 from the vendor is out of stock until Aug 22 with an estimated delivery date to me around the first few days of Sep. My HD 6750 card still works but the cooling fan is getting ready to go (very wobbly and makes a lot of racket, gets very annoying after a while). I was trying to be pro-active by getting a new card (the HD 5450) to avoid suffering T3DP downtime waiting to find and get a replacement card if/when the fan fails. So here hopes the fan will hold on (literally) for another month. According to my base computer specs (HP Pavilion Elite 510Y) there is also an integrated ATI (mobility) Radeon 4200 video card that has never been used (can’t use it if another graphics card is plugged into PCIe slot). I’m assuming in a worst case scenario that the 4200 card should keep me going on limited basis (DVI and VGA sockets, 512 MB vram and 500 Mhz core speed); but definitely not T3DP. However, would the 4200 card’s 500 Mhz core clock speed be fast enough to run a playable Tower 2011 since it has less graphic requirements? My computer’s 8 GB ram and 2.8 GHz processing speed and the 4200 card provide over the minimum Tower 2011 system requirements, but then so did the HD 5450 card for T3DP except for the slow core clock speed making the game unplayable.

Thank you again for your time in providing me more information/education. Not sure what you mean by “rail” or what “ratings” you are talking about. I have a pre-built HP computer with a 300 watt Bestec power supply (model number ATX0300D5WC B). The label on the PSU’s side says the max output is 300 watts. It also says “+5V & +3.3V 175W MAX” and “+5V &+12V 268W MAX”. Are these the “rails” you are talking about? Also, I may not have explained it that well but the RX 550 card will cost a little bit more than the HD 6750. I gather from what are you saying (this is not to put you on the spot) is that the RX 550 should work OK for me (with some potential processing bottlenecks due to my older system) including producing a playable T3DP. However, there also may not be too much leeway for variations in power usage when running T3DP. So it sounds like the bottom line would be if I want to give the RX550 a try and to play it safe power usage wise is to make sure that no other additional background programs (outside of those that already may be continuously in use) or other active programs are running while running T3DP. However, will having a couple file folders and/or text files just being open while the game is running have any effect on the computer’s power consumption?

Thank you for your explanation on wattage (I sort of thought it might be something like that). I’ve done more research while waiting for replies to my last post. I’m starting to lean very heavily towards a Radeon 2GB RX 550. The recommended or required (depending whose tech specs you are looking at) power supply is 400 watts. According to what I researched I think my AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor uses about 125-135 watts TDP. The other components in my computer that require power (as far as my limited knowledge goes) are the computer’s two standard case cooling fans (came with computer), the power supply’s fan, my DVD drive and maybe some other small power using incidental components. In researching some prices I found that I can get a Sapphire RX 550 for less than $10.00 more than a 2GB HD 6750. I’ve attached a short spreadsheet comparing the two cards based on my still somewhat limited knowledge research. I’m assuming that outside of the power requirements that the RX 550 should perform well with my system including running T3DP better than my previous HD 6750 card. I also understand that there is a potential for some potential performance bottlenecks due to my overall older system. I’ve also noticed that different manufactures can have different power requirements (PSU &TBP) for the same video card. Is there a reason for this or are the ones with the higher power values just trying to ensure users won’t encounter a potential power related problem where the manufacturer could maybe be considered at fault? I really would appreciate your thoughts about RX 550 and me using it or if there is even a better option out there for around $60 (however, not on eBay). I'd also really appreciate the opinions and/or suggestions of anyone else who replies to this post. HD 6750 vs RX 550.xlsx

RipSkin, thanks for your reply. In fact you just answered the question I’m going to ask the rest of you experts in a post that I was preparing to everyone asking to help me make my final decision. As my below post basically states I want to be an “on the cheap” as possible wave rider for now. I can survive with my overall system for now as long as I can get T3DP playable again. I want to keep the wave at the same height for the least amount of cost (my current budget and 300 watt power supply will not allow me to buy the graphic card I would need/want for my new computer). It could be up to a year (depending on my financial situation) before I actually can get another computer. Hopefully by then we will also know what the recommended system requirements will be for the new Tower XX as I want to make sure my new computer will meet them. As you can probably tell, I don’t buy a computer very often; I’ve had this one for 8 years. I think I see what you are saying. There are many factors to consider and how they interface with each other (starting to get above my novice level of understanding). As cost is starting to become an issue for me, I only want to buy a card that will be the most cost effective to meet my current needs. I’ll get another new graphics card when I get my new computer. “Broad brush” approach is good. Thank you for the explanation. Thanks for your reply and info. The replies I’ve received so far have been helpful and informative. However, there is one other limiting factor I failed to recognize in choosing a new card, my computer only has a 300 watt power supply and I don’t want to put any more money into the computer than I have to. I’m not a gamer. I use my computer primarily for personal use and some older games, so T3DP is probably the most intense system resources user my computer has. I started researching some options however; my head was starting to spin (getting lost and confused) being a novice when it comes to comparing cards and which one would be the most cost effective on a limited budget to meet my current needs. Also, the more I researched the more I see my 300 watt power supply becoming a problem (a very limiting factor). How hard and fast of a rule is the graphics card manufacturer’s specified power supply requirements (i.e. what criteria do they use: a formula, a high conservative number just to play it safe, a rule of thumb, assumptions based on the kind of systems that normally would use that video card) since they don’t know what kind of system you have or its total power requirements (less their graphics card)? I like this forum as I believe its primary purpose is to provide a platform to exchange information and provide some guidance in solving problems/issues with the provider not actually doing a lot of the work for you (which makes since). However, in this case, I really would appreciate a little more help in helping me make my final graphic card decision. So I guess my question is if you were in my shoes what card(s) would you get/consider keeping in mind that: the previous 1 GB HD 6570 card was meeting my current computing needs (don’t see me really needing much of anything else extra in the near future); T3DP to be able to run in a playable mode (having great graphics is not a high priority for me right now, so 1 GB or 2 GB of vram is probably OK for now); only a 300 watt power supply; this is just going to be a short stop gap measure (not a long term solution) until I get enough saved up for a new computer; don’t want to put any more money than absolutely necessary into this computer: and being on a somewhat limited budget. (Well maybe I’m asking you to do a little of the work for me in making my decision, if you would so kind; I just want to make sure I get the right card this time that will meet my current needs without over spending). You guys know a lot more about this subject than I do so I value your suggestions/inputs a lot. Ripskin again thank you for your suggestion; however my power supply may be a limiting factor, from what I found the 5750 could require 450 watts and the HD 6750 (my previous card) require 350 watts (go figure).

Thank you for your replies. I was afraid it might be something like that. As I said I’m not the most literate on hardware tech, compatibility or issues like this. However, it sounds like to me that you all are saying that I need a different video card. However, here’s my dilemma, I’m saving my pennies for a new computer, but it will be awhile yet before I can get it so I need to keep using this computer and want to still be able to continue to run a playable TD3P. Therefore, I needed an inexpensive as possible video card to use as a stop gap measure until I get a new computer (guess I should have asked for help first; oh well, live and learn). No (I can’t anticipate all the possible questions). Not sure how to do that (I don’t know how to find or identify the old driver files). I assumed that the new card drivers would supersede the old card. I did download the drivers from AMD including AMD Catalyst-15.7.1-Win 10-64 bit. Also, somehow I also got a Radeon Software Adrenalin 2020-20.7.2 MimmalSetup-200714 file folder in my “C” drive AMD folder. The only other folder I have in the AMD file is A WU-CCC2 folder. Thanks for your input. A lot of it I don’t understand or know what it is (limited knowledge), however, I’m getting an education. Thanks for your input. Not sure what DDU is but assume it is a variation of DDR (not quite sure what that is either). You guys probably along with @EliGrim and @WildCard (if they reply) are definitely a lot more knowledgeable on this subject than I am; therefore, I’d really appreciate any suggestions (specific product, type or specs) you may have for an inexpensive video card that will produce at least the same T3DP game results as my HD 6750 card did. At the moment I would prefer 2 GB card (but that may be just over kill/not necessary for my system) but can settle for 1 GB card since that is what I originally had and if that will work the best for my older system along with weighing the cost trade off vs performance between the 1 GB vs 2 GB card. In addition, at the moment I’m not planning on getting any other graphic intensive games or other similar type programs before I get a new computer. One last question that maybe I should have asked first is would a 2 GB card make that much of a difference vs a 1 GB card in the overall performance of T3DP with my current system?

I had to replace my 1 GB AMD Radeon HD 6570 graphics card. I purchased and installed a 2 GB Radeon HD 5450 graphics card including downloading its drivers. The game was loading and running OK with the previous 6570 card loading the game fairly fast and the game clock losing about 4 seconds per minute (which was acceptable considering my system). However, after installing the new 5450 card the game took over twice as long to load especially at and after 63% complete (seemed like 81% took forever). I started the game using my existing game set up including RT, RC and my airport specific “.txt” files. I then decided to clean the registry using @WildCard’s registry resetting tool. After that didn’t help I totally uninstalled T3DP and then reinstalled it. I then tried to load and run the game just using the game’s basic defaults (no RT or RC) – no change still took forever to load and a super slow game clock. The in-game Advanced Graphics Settings I used were “moderate” texture resolution, shadow quality “off”, “FXAA” antialising and no boxes checked on the right side with blooming “off”. I tried running PHL at 13:00 at 100%. It took about 3 minutes and 30 seconds of real time to run 1 minute on the game clock; also aircraft movements and the center mouse wheel camera panning were very jerky. I increased the game speed and it took to “x4” before the game clock got faster than the real time clock and everything was still moving jerky (only faster). Disabling my Avast anti-virus had no effect. Also, as far as I know the same background processes were running as before I installed the new video card and all other visible windows were closed. I have an older 2.8 GHz AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Processor, 8.0GB ram, my now Radeon HD 5450 2GB DDR3 video card (replacing the 1 GB 6570 video card) and Windows 10 Home (64 bit) Version 1903 (build 18362.836) O/S. My situation doesn’t make much logical since to me (with my knowledge) since it appears that the only thing that changed from before was adding an extra 1 GB of vram with the new card. It also seems to me that since I now meet the recommended requirements for the game, except for being 0.2 GHz short of the recommended 3.0 GHz processor speed that the game should work at least as well as it did before the new card, if not better (more vram). Also, everything else on my computer appears to be working as it did before I changed video cards including my other games of which most are older and have less minimum system requirements that T3DP. I’ve also attached the output log from the above short (real time) PHL session in case it may be helpful. I’m not the most literate when it comes to computer inter-workings or hardware, so I don’t know if there was something else I should have done after changing out the video cards. Please try not to get too technical if possible, but I do need this issue resolved, so any help you would greatly be appreciated. Also, sorry for a long post, but I wanted to try to explain everything at once and anticipate any questions anyone might have for me. I also see that Fred Johnson had a graphics related post today, but I didn’t want to hijack his thread. output_log.txt