crbascott

I've attached charts for both KLGA and KLAS based on the RT schedules. 50 flights per hour is actually low at KLGA for the times G0tchas mentioned. klga_schedule.pdf klas_schedule.pdf

Addressing KLAS specifically - there are two issues affecting traffic volume at KLAS. The terminal file included with RT is missing at least a dozen airlines. I will notify Nyerges Design and hopefully we can get an update. Until then, I've attached a terminal file that I created/use that you may choose to use. Terminal E will not accept arrivals. This bug has been brought to FeelThere's attention. Craig klas_terminal_new.txt

The correct syntax taken from the online manual is as follows: CALLSIGN, RUNWAY XX AT TAXIWAY X VIA TAXIWAY X (multiple taxiways can be assigned to generate a complex routing) It is VIA instead of TAXI VIA.

Forget about the sim and think about it from a common sense & safety standpoint. It ain't safe! ATC is all about safety and separation.

Good deal - got you squared away. ml0130 has me worried now! :)

Gabor, this is definitely not an KPHX airport issue. If anything it is an issue at KSAN for allowing this to happen. Keep up the good work, Craig

So, you think landing over another aircraft is OK? Are you an Air Canada pilot?

AJ - ask and you shall receive. I conducted the same test at KLAX/25L and, as expected, got very similar results. This definitely rules out an airport bug, so it must be something Tower or RT related. I've included an updated spreadsheet, screenshot of the spreadsheet, and log files of the two sessions. Craig PS - Also, using FDX904 as an example, if you issue EXIT AT TAXIWAY N it will respond with the runway too short message. However, it will still exit on its own at taxiway N if you give no other EXIT AT TAXIWAY commands. I included another log file to illustrate this "strangeness". ExitAtTaxiway_Test.xlsx output_log1.txt output_log2.txt output_log3.txt

Some folks have mentioned some peculiarities with the EXIT AT TAXIWAY command recently so I decided to conduct a little test at KPHX using runway 26. Session 1: I let the planes exit on their own. I found no real surprises, documented the results in the attached spreadsheet, and also included the log (output_log1.txt). Session 2: For each arriving plane, I issued an EXIT AT TAXIWAY command for B8, B7, B6, B5, and B4 in sequence until I no longer received the "Unable to land. The runway is too short!" message. Bottom line, we are unable to issue an exit taxiway command for the taxiway the plane would normally exit. And in some cases, the next taxiway doesn't work either (or even the next taxiway). Again, I documented the results in the attached spreadsheet and also included the log (output_log2.txt). I don't recall this being an issue prior to Pro SP3 or RT SP6v2, so I'm not sure if this is a FeelThere and/or Nyerges Design issue. I'll let you guys fight over it. :) Thanks, Craig PS - I've included a screenshot of the spreadsheet for those that do not have Excel. KPHX_ExitAtTaxiway_Test.xlsx output_log1.txt output_log2.txt

AJ, Please see proof (log and screenshots) attached. Thanks! output_log.txt

Thanks DomYul - obviously the highlighting/parking issue has been around awhile. I guess ATL is such a chaotic frenzy I never noticed it. Do you happen to have the log file? Sadly, double digit taxiways are hit and miss when it comes to VR ... can definitely be frustrating at times. Being able to say MIKE SIXTEEN would be nice, but it doesn't look like we'll get that in this Tower version.

Screenshots were provided - was hoping that was enough, but apparently not the case. Anyway, I have a theory on the issue and thought I'd share. I believe this highlighting issue occurs when there are two terminals with the exact same airlines defined. At KPHX, the issue occurs with Terminal_3_N & Terminal_3_S and Terminal_4_C & Terminal_4_D. Terminal_GA: GA Terminal_2: ASA,BTQ,EJA,MNU,NKS,SCX,UAL Terminal_3_N: CPZ,DAL,FFT,HAL,JBU,SKW Terminal_3_S: CPZ,DAL,FFT,HAL,JBU,SKW Terminal_4_A: AAL Terminal_4_B: AAL,ASH,BAW,JZA,ROU,WJA Terminal_4_C: SWA Terminal_4_D: SWA Terminal_west_cargo: GTI Terminal_east_cargo: AMF Terminal_south_cargo: FDX,UPS At KPHL, if I'm not mistaken the issue was happening with Terminal_B & Terminal_C. Terminal_GA: GA Terminal_A_West: AAL,BAW,DLH,AFR,QTR Terminal_A_East: AAL,NKS,RPA Terminal_B: AAL,ASA,AWE Terminal_C: AAL,ASA,AWE Terminal_D: ACA,JZA,ASA,DAL,UAL,TCF,COA,EDV,GJS Terminal_E: FFT, TRS,SWA,VRD,JBU Terminal_F: EGF,CPZ,ENY,ASQ,ASH,PDT,JIA,SKW,LOF,COM,AWI,CHQ,BTA Terminal_Cargo: NAC,FDX,UPS So the workaround could be to modify the entries to make them slightly different. I tried it in a session and didn't notice the highlighting issue happening but would like to do more testing. Craig PS - If my theory is correct, we could see this issue at KATL and KLAS (assuming the default RT terminal file is used).

I agree AJ but the infinite loop of -500 penalty points is probably the real issue being brought up here.

Please see the following posts where arriving aircraft are parking at terminals other than the one highlighted. I originally posted this issue in a KPHX thread but it appears that it is not airport specific as it occurs at KPHL too. Thanks, Craig

Makes more sense that it is a sim engine issue and not a specific airport issue. Thanks for sharing. I'll create a new thread directed to FeelThere and point them to our posts.

I'm not sure if I've seen this issue at any or the airports or not. When you click on an arriving plane you can see their terminal highlighted. However at KPHX, after issuing a TAXI TO RAMP command some planes are actually end up going to a different terminal. I've attached a couple of screenshots.

A DLC and RT update don't "alter" the game engine. Assigning GA and and airline never worked, but you can believe what you wan't to believe. Baffles me that you always slam the developers even when you're making money off of them.

You can have EJA flights depart from the GA terminal (instead of moving them to Terminal A) by adding the flights to the GA file. See below for examples. KLGA, KSNA, 12:20, CJ5, EJA725, 0, 0, 0,EJA725, EXECJET SEVEN TWO FIVE KRIC, KLGA, 20:52, EP3, EJA407, 0, 0, 0,EJA407, EXECJET FOUR ZERO SEVEN What exactly did the developers alter?

Just to be sure, I have confirmed that no Terminal_E gates will accept arriving aircraft. I created a simple schedule that included 14 VRD flights and none of them ever arrived. Again I believe this is tied to the direction parameter I mentioned in the KJFK thread - http://forum.simflight.com/topic/84614-tower3d-pro-kjfk-terminal_4-arrival-issues/. I've attached my log file in case it is needed. Craig output_log.txt

It should. http://forum.simflight.com/topic/84471-list-of-issues-klas-post-sp2-feelthere/

Yes, on the BMT site we are still only seeing sp6v2. Looks like sp6v3 has yet to make it there.

Hey Joe, I noticed in your terminal file you have the following entry: Terminal_GA: GA,EJA. Unfortunately this doesn't work. You can't combine GA and airlines in a terminal entry, it actually keeps the GA flights from appearing. You'll see error messages like "Airplane dropped, no international terminal: N12345". I ran across this issue when creating a contest schedule for Tower_MP Discord server community. In Real Traffic, it looks like Gabor moved the EJA flights to the gaandlocaltraffic file instead of the schedule file to alleviate this issue. Craig

I am finding a similar issue at KJFK that I found at KLAS - http://forum.simflight.com/topic/84609-tower3d-pro-klas-terminal_e-issues/ After digging into some XML I suspected KJFK Terminal_4 would have a similar issue where arriving airplanes aren't using some of the gates. What I found is that 8 gates in Terminal_4 would not accept arrivals thus causing no free terminal issues. The gates are T4_40, T4_41, T4_43, T4_44, T4_45, T4_46, T4_47, and T4_48. I've attached my log file from a session I built to clearly demonstrate the issue. What I am finding in the XML is that these gates are defined as direction="0" instead of direction = "1". I'm not exactly sure what this means and don't know if it is intentional, but it keeps the gates from accepting arriving planes. Hopefully, the fix is as simple at it sounds. Definitely impacts KJFK and KLAS which I believe are both being worked on for an SP. IMHO, the fix for this issue needs to be included in the SP. Craig output_log.txt

The results won't change - there is an issue with Terminal_E impacting arrivals. http://forum.simflight.com/topic/84609-tower3d-pro-klas-terminal_e-issues/

Hmmmm - it's probably not termlimit because I was able to get a 744 at each of the gates. Must be something else. Happy debugging! :)