crbascott

And exactly where is the pre-COVID traffic data?

You can turn off Sticky Keys. Here is the thread you started 3 years ago on the very same subject: Here is a good "how to" from @EliGrim:

Will adding just one or two flights really make someone want to play those hours? I say stick to your principles and to the main point of the schedule.

Odds are you are probably runnng into a game design feature. The game always starts with a departure so depending on what you have in your schedule beginning around 11:45 will determine the first flight you see when starting at 12:00. Attaching your schedule (instead of copying and pasting) would probably help more than a game log.

It didn’t get installed correctly. Please share your folders and contents.

Hey grandpa! 😉 All airport add-one work on both versions.

Does updating RT endlessly include downloading the latest version (sp6v26) and reinstalling? If you've done this, and most importantly done it correctly, you should have 6 text files in your KIAD folder and definitely have real airlines.

Why are you calling this a problem? There could be a very logical explanation. 1) All the updates for KIAD were already included in the RT release for KEWR. or 2) There were no new airlines, airplanes, or airports that needed to be added for the KIAD schedule. Hence, no update. The schedule files all appear to be typical RT fare. Unless you are having flights not appear due to a lack of entries in the supporting files, then it is probably premature or mistaken to think there is a problem.

What took you so long?!? 😉 🤣

It’s an 8 year OLD game that isn’t played much anymore. I wouldn’t let the lack of responses influence you one way or the other.

Personally, I wouldn't force anything if you don't need to. As they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"!

@FeelThere the proposed approach seems simple (possibly not the most efficient and clean design) but to directly answer your question I think it should allow us to: ~ eliminate the need of bogus IATA/ICAO codes ~ differentiate cargo/commercial ~ implement regional carriers and multiple liveries ~ allow for special liveries ~ distinguish domestic/international flights for parking purposes. That checks most boxes for me. However, hopefully the terminal file will be much more granular (gate level is a MUST have item for me) than the example you provided.

👍

Zendesk is more effective (and necessary) for Steam users that need to provide attachments. A detailed post here in the official support forum with attachments like @Dvb1998 provided should more than suffice.

The RT/RC product concept is not geared toward loyal customers - especially those with multiple airports.

@FeelThere Vic, thanks for the opportunity for input. In the wishlist topic I have already provided two posts with fairly detailed thoughts, a conceptual design, and examples. Among other things the main thoughts are to be able to differentiate cargo/commercial flights, implement regional carriers with multiple liveries, allow for special liveries, and expand terminal assignments to the gate level. My posts don't address domestic/international assignments but I would very much like to see this incorporated. Thanks!

You need to raise this topic and questions towards the developer. It doesn’t do any good in this thread.

The list doesn't necessarily indicate the paint scheme unless noted in the special comments. In the case of LOT, there is nothing in the list that indicates there is any difference in the liveries between the B738, B788, B789, E170, E175, and E190.

Definitely looking forward to the next version where we, theoretically, will have more control over when we may or may not want extra variety.

Quite the contrary - at least for real life controllers. From what they have shared here on the forum and on Discord, the outside view is their most used and important tool. That's why improved views are very much a necessity in the next version.

Again you're dealing with the game engine limitations I mentioned previously. The log file from a session will indicate exactly what is going on.

Planes not showing up is a known game engine flaw due to the way FT chose to load 8-10 hours of flights, handle arrivals, gate assignments, and gate availability. This is definitely not an issue with @battlehawk77’s schedule. For best results, you should use an hourly schedule snippet provided by Gavin which combats the game engine flaw by reducing the overloading of flights. If you’re already using a snippet, then sadly you’re out of luck.

From the bottom of page 21 of the Tower!2011 manual: Continuous Tower! 2011 controlling time is limited to four hours. This limitation is similar to real- world mandatory break restrictions for air traffic controllers, and the game's scheduler logic limitation for airport traffic. If you wish to control for longer than four hours just restart play by pressing the START button on the Tower/Select Simulation page; you do not need to close the program.

@MJKERR I ran another test - this time at LAX (runway 25L) and I used the "original" 388.apx file. The following are my results: Test 1 - Landing distance = 6230 > QFA7 exited at NTest 2 - Landing distance = 4230 > QFA7 exited at H6Test 3 - Landing distance = 8230 > QFA7 exited at T. I don't know what to tell you. I have the same tower version as you (4.777.955) and editing the landing distance definitely has an impact. Your situation has the appearance that for some reason your 388.apx file is invalid/inaccessible/corrupt and the program is using Wide_default.apx instead. Unfortunately, the log file for T!2011 is not nearly as informational as T!3D so it probably won't provide much help. As a result, I think I've done all I can do from 4000+ miles away.

I dusted off the cobwebs of my T!2011 and ran a few tests at KDFW (runway 18R) changing the landing distance of the 388. Here are my results: Test 1 - Landing distance = 6595 > QFA7 exited at E4 Test 2 - Landing distance = 4595 > QFA7 exited at E3 Test 3 - Landing distance = 8595 > QFA7 exited at E7. In my tests, changing the landing distance definitely had an impact where the plane exited. In all three tests, I only changed the landing distance in the plane editor. I've attached a screenshot of my 388 profile. It is very similar to yours. My Tracon and Cruise parameters are all blank (except for a cruising speed of 89). Again, I would make sure you are editing the correct file and saving it in the correct location. If your 388.apx file is still dated 2011, then you are obviously doing something wrong.