Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

Der Flieger

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Der Flieger last won the day on May 21 2015

Der Flieger had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Der Flieger's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I think the 707s have been withdrawn since 2007 actually. So for quite a while now... ;) The problem in Joburg is, that I only get the Kulula and Comair flights (Kulula is indeed a subsidiary of Comair) and many other airlines like SA Airlink, 1time, etc when putting my slider above 50%. When I have my traffic set to 50% I just have the SAA aircraft and a few foreign widebodies displayed. Mango aircraft are never displayed, not even at 100%...even though the repaints are in the 737 folder. And just as a sidenote, 1time also has been closed for several years now...I think they ended operations in 2012. As you can see the SA skies are a bit outdated in Mytraffic. Please have a look at a random day and time on flightstats where you can see the typical traffic for Joburg: http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByAirport.do Thanks! :)
  2. I also found some issues in South Africa: 1. My slider is set to 50% Airliner density and 30% GA density. Still I only get almost only SAA aircraft in FAJS. No matter which time of day, no Mango no SA Airlink or Kulula aircraft appear at the airport. I thought 50% was a good setting for realistic aircraft movements? 2. In FACT the apron is full of SAAF B707s. The problem is not only that the aircraft isn't in service anymore in real life, but also that it is highly unrealistic to have so many aircraft of this type. Hope this can be fixed! Cheers!
  3. Okay, I'll try to do some paints with the bitmaps! :) Interesting how the opinions vary...I personally absolutely dislike the old livery and love the new one. Can we expect an update for the Air Baltic livery? If you prefer the old one, you can always fly with the retro flightplans. ;)
  4. Okay, thanks for the info! Looking forward to the update! :)
  5. I also found a weird problem...when using the 1995 flightplans, all UA A320s appeared in my sim as Vietnam Airlines A320s?
  6. Thanks for the great support! Your solution sounds quite good! :) Up to this point I haven't found any other airports with the same problem as EGLL, but I'll definitely report back if I find a similar occurence somewhere else. Just out of interest, are you talking about the airports.txt which is used to compile the flightplans or is it another file within FSX? Thanks again, Sebastian
  7. The thing is, Heathrow is chaotic in real life! Therefore it is highly realistic if you get some congestion on the taxiways, at least if you want to have it like in real-life. As I said, I have been flying out of EGLL for many years and the airport is always full with traffic. Also with the setting to 50% you get full airports at EDDF, LFPG, EHAM, etc...but why not at EGLL? I know that those airports do have more runways than Heathrow in real-life...but in terms of passenger number they are actually behind EGLL. In my opinion if you compare all those airports with a setting of 50%, all of them look as congested as in real-life...with the exception of EGLL which somehow doesn't get as much traffic. Also interesting to note, as I have written before, the problem mainly occurs with foreign airlines. BA seems to be represented very well. It might be that this is the problem with LHR, all the other hubs (EDDF, LFPG, EHAM) have mainly traffic from their respective homecarriers (LH, KLM, AF) while Heathrow has BA but besides from that also VS and a huge amount of foreign airlines. If you walk through T2 at some times it almost seems like an UAL/AC hub...the same goes for T3 and AA. Thanks, Sebastian
  8. Just for testing I have installed my old self-compiled traffic again to check what it looked like in EGLL. I have been using real-world flight plans so here you can see what EGLL should look like on a typical day. Please note the large amount of VS aircraft and foreign airlines which are not there when using MyTraffic. These shots have been taken at exactly the same time and date and show that FSX is indeed capable of handling a very large amount of traffic at EGLL. Therefore I am quite sure that the problem lies with MyTraffic and not within FSX itself. Hope you can do something about it, as I really like MyTraffic, but as I am using EGLL very often it would be a pity if the lack of traffic kills the mood. In my opinion there are hardly any other airports worldwide which have such a big variety of international carriers as Heathrow. Thanks again and kind Regards, Sebastian
  9. Okay, I have counted 64 aircraft at Heathrow on the 1st of August 2015 at exactly 12:00 local time. My traffic slider was set to 50%. I took the following screenshots while counting the planes:
  10. Hello, today I noticed that EGLL lacks some traffic in comparison to other European Mega-Hubs. My traffic slider is set to 50% and in LFPG, EDDF or EHAM I have plenty of traffic with almost all of the gates being occupied just like in reality. Unfortunately the busiest of them all lacks some traffic. Terminal 5 is fully occupied, but both Terminal 2 and 3 are almost empty. Terminal 4 has a fair amount of traffic, although it is not being used to a 100%. I know that the AFCAD is important for airline assignment, but I think the pure amount of traffic is by far not enough. In real life I have been to Heathrow very very often and most of the time there is hardly any free stand. At least you'll never ever see T3 as empty as in the sim with MyTraffic. Mybe you could look into it! Cheers, Sebastian
  11. Hi Burkhard, Thanks for your quick reply, I appreciate it. Of course it does make sense to configure the aircraft to work with the MyTraffic airports. Still I would love to have the opportunity to use an alternative set of config files containing some altered wingspan values fitting most third party airports. I think it would be a useful feature! Thanks again! Sebastian
  12. Hello, I have purchased MyTraffic 6 today and have to say that I really love the product. Unfortunately I have experienced some minor problems with the parking radius with some aircraft. I have been investigating a bit and found out that some of the wing_span values in the aircraft.cfg of some aircraft are a bit off. As the wing_span value is the one used by FS to calculate which praking spot would be fitting for which aircraft it has a big impact on the placement of AIs all around our airports. The 773ER for example uses a wing_span value of 236 feet. Even though it might be a accurate number compared to the real-world counterpart, in FSX/P3D it doesn't make a lot of sense. At Aerosoft's EGLL for example I do have a lot of 773ERs standing at the cargo gates, because just very few of the normal gates have the appropriate radius. (Which would be 36 meters in this case) The same goes for FlyTampa's CYYZ, where I have plenty of 773ERs standing at the cargo apron and not using the correct gates. I know that this is actually an AFCAD related problem, but maybe it would be good to alter the wing_span values of the aircraft, so that they better fit into the airports. It's definitely less to do than edit every single airport where most of the heavy stands have an radius of 33 meters for example. In my sim I have altered the following wing_span values, so that they fit better to the Add-On airports. CRJ2MX -> 81.5 CRJ7MX -> 81.5 CRJ9MX -> 81.5 CRJ10MX -> 81.5 Even the smallest CRJ had a value of 104 feet, which is by far too much. A345MX -> 200.0 (Don't know why it had a wingspan of 213 in the cfg while the A346 had the a value of 200) B752FMX -> 124.0 B752MX -> 124.0 B753MX -> 124.0 145 feet was by far too much for the 757. B772FMX -> 200.0 B772LRMX -> 200.0 B773ERMX -> 200.0 I know that the ER and LR models do have a bigger wingspan in real-life, but in the FS world the AFCADs don't really care. Most heavy stands are set to 31 or 33 meters and therefore a 773ER wouldn't fit in there with the original number. Setting it to 200 feet corrects this. Maybe these values could be implemented with one of the next updates? It would definitely enhance the whole experience, as no more aircraft would be standing at the wrong stands. Thanks a lot and keep up the great work! Sebastian
  • 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.