crbascott

Two solutions (as I see it): 1) When an existing airline/plane gets a livery update, all RC packs with that airline/plane are updated. This seems to make the most logical sense, but it is not happening now and hence why we are in this predicament. 2) A special RC pack is created with the highest sequential number and it contains all airlines/planes with updated liveries. And then it would need to continuously be updated. @hexzed - Not sure if/when another airport may be considered for a RC Community Project, but this situation is a definite negative consequence to a positive concept that probably needs addressing with @nyergesdesign. Unlikely. KRDU is only served by some US and Canadian airlines with mostly small to medium sized jets.

Yes, you are a victim of the way the game loads the RC packs. You'll want to renumber the KSFO files as @ashman99 suggests in order to see the SWA liveries. But, now it looks like it will cause you to "unsee" other new liveries. @FeelThereand @nyergesdesign - do I need to add a post in the wishlist thread to handle this situation? Having multiple liveries for the same airline/airplane in various RC packs is becoming a bigger issue. Here's the thread where this issue was first uncovered and discussed over a year ago:

I think no bugs is a pipe dream - however, wanting the developers to support and maintain their product for more than a year in order to squash some serious bugs is certainly a valid request.

The game has a bug handling midnight. Not sure if this is your issue or not.

What did you customize in the airplanes file?

Actually, I would disagree. It looks to me @ATC AlaskaGuy is distributing an exact copy of the airplanes and airports files from Real Traffic sp6v16. I personally think this is a form of stealing and/or software piracy. If the files aren't custom, then there is no valid reason to redistribute them. I would recommend editing the airports file and deleting the airplanes file from the main post in order to contribute and distribute a custom schedule ethically.

While looking into schedule issues with KRDU, I decided to take a deep dive into the GA schedule and found several issues where there are impossible flight combinations for the same tail number. Below are the most glaring issues. In most cases the issues below will result in dropped flights. Additionally I found overuse of the same tail number which, again, will result in many dropped flights. I appreciate the effort to include a more robust GA schedule, but like the regular schedule the GA schedule needs some work. N113NG - in the schedule at both 19:25 and 19:323. One or both of these flights will get ignored. Should probably have been coded as a touch and go. N17FA - arriving from KALN at 00:06 and from KORF at 00:30 with no departure in between. N25MX - departs to KPHX at 14:09 and arrives from KPWK (near Chicago) at 15:59. Not possible. N265CM - 10 flights which in the middle includes an impossible sequence of flights - arrival (08:20), arrival (08:43) , departure (9:15), departure (10:32) , arrival (12:50), arrival (15:21) N400WK - 4 departures in a row and later in the day 4 arrivals in a row N690NG - arriving from KAVL at 14:18 and KMQI at 14:22.

I saw a post on Steam where someone complained of some duplicate flight number issues with KRDU, so I decided to look into the schedule and found a plethora of duplicate flights. Looks like a SP is more than likely needed. AAL2018 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 8 minutes apart with different airplanes E90, 319 AAL2018 - Two arrivals wit the same origination and flight number 11 minutes apart with different airplanes E90, 319 AAL2495 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 5 minutes apart with different airplanes 319, 73H AAL2495 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 5 minutes apart with different airplanes 319, 73H DAL1088 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 6 minutes apart with different airplanes 717, 320 DAL1482 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 5 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 73H DAL1803 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 19 minutes apart with different airplanes M88, 73H DAL1803 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 6 minutes apart with different airplanes M88, 73H DAL2502 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 10 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 73H DAL2838 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 32 minutes apart with different airplanes 73H, M88 FFT1191 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 137 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 321 FFT1738 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 6 minutes apart with different airplanes 20N, 320 UAL350 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 9 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 739 UAL544 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 23 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 739 UAL2102 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 39 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 73G UAL2126 - Two departures with the same destination and flight number 2 minutes apart with different airplanes 320, 319 UAL2269 - Two arrivals with the same origination, flight number, and arrival time with different airplanes 739, 320 RPA4402 - Two arrivals with the same origination and flight number 68 minutes apart (same airplane - E75) Oh, and here's a bonus issue. The format for flight DAL231 is incorrect which could potentially cause loading/freezing issues.

That's not really true - theoretically with the airport editor you can do whatever you want. There's a Dick Parker thread you can be used as a template with steps to create a cargo terminal at LAX (for whatever FT never gives us appropriate cargo space at LAX). Good luck figuring things out - you're pretty much on your own since the focus now is on T!3D and the next version. But, I'm sure you've figured that out by now.

I've seen planes turn around as soon as they are parked - so I do not believe there is a 50 minute minimum turnaround. However, you have modified things your so it's hard to tell exactly what is going on - especially without full logs and the inability to replicate your setup.

I assume you are taking about @Pedantic G's master list. The list has Joe's stamp of approval so I'm sure it's correct. What is exactly missing/different from your version?

So, are you trying to figure out the method to Gabor's madness? Good luck with that!

Wow, even before the official announcement - it’s almost as if you have inside info. 😀

This is number #28 on the Discord wishlist. 👍 Don't really hear any mention of ATIS at this point, but FT will obviously figure out was is doable/feasible/realistic.

Good points Sounds like initial contact is the main requirement on when it should happen. I guess the main part of your scenario I am struggling with is why the ATC would even move them. It would seem that this could get messy if other pilots called in similarly. I've most often heard something like ATC say "Lima is current, advise when you get Lima" and the pilot indicates they'll "get Lima" and responds back when they do. But the ATC has either not moved them or gone ahead and given taxi instructions. Unless the change in the ATIS is significant (i.e., runway change), is it really even necessary to hold things up? To be honest, I've heard the mismatched ATIS scenario more on arrival/approach. In this case, the pilot continues to proceed inbound and gets the specified ATIS. I'll listen to some more clearance/ground to make sure I'm not talking out of my you know what.

Actually, I believe the ATIS is provided as part of the startup process with clearance/delivery and prior to any actually plane movement. This could potentially cause a delay if the pilot doesn't have the current ATIS but, again, it would be before pushback or taxi has taken place.

I can't open your spreadsheets and really need the entire log and schedule file. The terminal file wouldn't hurt either. Also, need to know what time you are starting your session. Keep in mind, the game time you select for T!2011 is UTC while the schedule time is the local time. Thankfully this confusion was eliminated in T!3D.

In my experience, there is no minimum turnaround time at all. Would have to see you log and/or schedule to tell what is truly going on.

As has been mentioned before, modding capabilities like this are not possible in Pro.

Valid for the game, but not in real life. Yes, very confusing. We have two issues in play here ... the use of made up codes to get liveries and plane models into the game and the intermingled use of ICAO and IATA codes in the various real traffic files. Hopefully, a thoughtful long term approach will be undertaken with the next version instead of the current band-aid approach.

Looks like the SP piranhas are out for a swim today. 🤣

That brings up a good point, I got to where I quit playing single player because it wasn't near as fun to me as multi-player ... and it was weird just talking to "myself". 😃 That's probably why I like airports like KJFK more because it is better suited for multiplayer -in my mind, more fun and realistic.

Makes sense - exceptions to the predominant rule would be necessary at times in real life. However, I see this as a realistic player versus game player type of conundrum FT is faced with. In the current game design it allows players the ability to just TAXI TO RAMP and the AI figures out the best way home. With A & B as two-way taxiways, KJFK would be a mess for a "game player". Personally, I'd prefer more realism and would like to see more realistic taxi instructions and progressive taxi implemented. Assuming both player types are the target audience, how does FT make both happy? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It's been awhile since I've listened online, but A & B were always handled as one-way taxiways. Is this a recent change? Any documentation you can share?

KMCO is a nice looking airport, but fairly bland from a traffic standpoint with parallel runways. One could argue it is a just north/south version of KLAX with less traffic. I have an old laptop and I don't ever recall having performance issues at KJFK. Despite the crossing runways, KJFK would be my personal choice since it has a little more personality. With all the various operational setups, it can be a lot of fun (once you figure out the crossing runway quirks). Additionally, there is no small plane traffic to mess things up like at KPHL and KBOS. Bang for your buck, KJFK is my choice by far.