crbascott

If you have male and female voices that are supported by Pro installed as part of your OS, within the Pro settings you can choose whether you prefer male voice, prefer female , or random (i.e., both).

VIC, I conducted a couple of tests at LAX in order to provide data regarding arrival capacity. TEST INFO Test 1 - I created a schedule file that had 60 scheduled arrivals at 1 minute intervals beginning at 10:00. Theoretically, each arrival should alternate between 25L and 24R. Test 2 - The schedule file had the same amount of flights and in the same order as Test 1. But for this test there were 2 arrivals every other minute (two at 10:00, two at 10:02, etc.). Both tests included a departure at 09:59 to "prime" the sim engine. RESULTS (details are in the attached spreadsheet): Test 1 - All 60 arrivals appeared as scheduled and used the expected landing runway. This demonstrates that simultaneous arrivals runways are definitely used. However, the schedule must be built strategically in order to experience the maximum hourly arrivals of 60. At 11:10 all planes were parked, the strip was empty, and the session was ended. Test 2 - At no point did any of the flights with the same scheduled arrival time appear simultaneously on the DBRITE. The pattern of flights was not nearly as consistent as the first test - including flights arriving in a different sequence and using different runways. Some flights appeared on the DBRITE over an hour after they were scheduled. At 11:51 58 planes had landed and parked successfully, the strip was empty, and the session was ended. 2 flights had not appeared yet but I hope/assume they would eventually show up. CONCLUSION The sim engine has employed simulaneous arrivals, which is an upgrade from Tower!2011. However, the maximum number of arrivals in an hour is 60 apparently due to the way the sim handles the schedule - specifically flights with the same arrival time. Thus, we are unable to take full advance of real traffic and other realistic schedule volumes due to the arrival limitation. Let me know if you have any questions. I've sent schedules and logs via message. Thanks, Craig LAX_Arrival_Test.xlsx

There's a few versions out there but I found one that will be going into effect on Oct 12, 2017 -https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.65X_Air_Traffic_Control.pdf - the wording for this section hasn't changed. The AOPA may show some things from a pilot's perspective, but I would think controllers not using/following their policy wouldn't go over too well.

To actually attempt to answer your question I created a very simple schedule file to see what would happen. LAX,EWR,320,VX,1162,12:00,09:59,1,VX BWI,LAX,738,AS,739,10:00,12:00,1,AS LAX,SEA,738,AS,739,12:00,10:30,1,AS The first flight in the schedule is just to get the sim started. For this test ASA739 landed as scheduled and the same plane requested pushback a little later. All is well! However, I've noticed where continuing flights don't always use the same equipment. For example AAL108 from HNL to LAX is an A321 and the outgoing flight to LHR is a 772. There are many other flights like this at LAX. So, that meant I needed to run another test. LAX,EWR,320,VX,1162,12:00,09:59,1,VX BWI,LAX,738,AS,739,10:00,12:00,1,AS LAX,SEA,739,AS,739,12:00,10:30,1,AS I changed the departing flight from a 738 to 739. For this test, ASA739 arrived as scheduled but the departure never occurred. There was no B739 at the gate all. In summary, in most cases continuing flights shouldn't be an issue unless there is an equipment change within the six hour window of flights the sim loads. I'll probably continue to renumber the flights as part of my schedule making to avoid any chance of duplicates or dropped flights. But then I've automated this process so time is not a factor. Craig PS - This was a small test. I'm inclined to think that a full schedule file would potentially have more issues. But that's another test, for another day, by another person. :)

An excerpt from the FAA's Air Traffic Organization Policy (JO 7110.65W) 3−9−8. INTERSECTING RUNWAY/INTERSECTING FLIGHT PATH OPERATIONS a. Issue traffic information to each aircraft operating on intersecting runways. b. Separate departing aircraft from another aircraft using an intersecting runway by ensuring that the departure does not begin takeoff roll until one of the following exists: REFERENCE−FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2−1−21, Traffic Advisories. 1. The preceding aircraft has departed and passed the intersection or is turning to avert any conflict. 2. A preceding arriving aircraft is clear of the landing runway, completed the landing roll and will hold short of the intersection, or has passed the intersection. Looking at the log - please don't get mad at me Vic ;) - the departing airplane was SWA1684 and landing airplane was DAL1479. The runway alert occurred while both airplanes were on their perspective intersecting runways but before both planes had officially taken off and landed. I believe to avoid the runway incursion, DAL1479 would need to have successfully landed (DAL1479 Successful landing +10 pts message is displayed) prior to SWA1684 rolling for departure. So, based on the policy it looks like the incursion and point reduction was warranted.

Parallel approaches are definitely used - which is a nice upgrade from 2011. This has increased the hourly max arrivals from 42ish to 60. I'll follow up with some schedules and logs from KLAX that should help confirm the arrival/schedule capacity limitation. Thanks, Craig

Vic, I am finding that the Tower!3D Pro engine does not handle two arrivals at the same time. In other words, if the schedule has two arrivals at 10:00 one of the two arrivals will be delayed. This occurs even if multiple (simultaneous) arrival runways are selected. As a result, I believe the maximum number of arrivals we can possibly see in an hour at any airport is 60. Can you confirm if this is in fact the case? With a minimum separation of 5nm (which Pro has inherited from 2011), we determined the maximum arrivals for a single runway was around 42. As a result, I was hoping we could see as many as 80+ arrivals on airports with two active arrival runways and something in the range of 120+ at KATL and other airports where three arrival runways could be active. For a refresher , the following is a link to a topic we discussed arrival capacity in Tower!2011 and how this part of the system would be rewritten from scratch for Pro. http://forum.simflight.com/topic/81525-tower-2011-arrival-spacing-decrease/ As people use Real Traffic with real traffic volumes, continue to make realistic custom schedules, and use the schedule creator to "max out" the number of flights; it would be helpful to know what hourly arrival volume parameters we have with Pro. Thanks, Craig

I'd recommend starting a new thread if you want it addressed.

Following up on this. In a single player session today, I had an arrival on 24R that "exited" and stopped at taxiway Z's holding point. Before I could move it, a heavy landed on 24R that was on it's wat to exit at taxiway AA. Unfortunately it collided with the plane at Z. Again, it would be nice to have the holding points adjusted so that the planes fully exited the runway. Left as-is and it will continue to be very damaging to the airline industry (at least when i'm controlling).. Thanks, Craig

Futureboy and I were controlling a multiplayer session at KJFK and noticed a couple of duplicate taxiways on 13R/31L - PD and MC. Attached is a screenshot. Thanks!

All in the name of research - but if it added a penny or two to your pockets you're welcome. But don't buy a new car based on me visiting. :) The "Pushing Tin" videos helped me when I was deciding whether or not to get into Tower!2011, but actually subscribing and watching game-play videos episode by episode is definitely not my cup a tea. Not a knock on you by the way, I'm sure there's an audience out there. Good luck with it.

I just sampled your videos and it looks like your performance is similar to mine. Here are my findings when random sampling a minute of game play. The format below is your episode number, airport, sim time, actual clock time it took to complete 1 minute of sim action. 9 - JFK, 14:14, 1:05 7 - JFK, 20:56, 1:04 6 - LAS, 20:59, 1:04 5 - ATL, 17:51, 1:06 4 - LAX, 17:04, 1:05 3 - JFK, 16:07, 1:04 2 - PHL, 13:31, 1:05 1 -SAN, 06:52, 1:05 I could have averaged out the whole video but that would have been a little more of an undertaking - when was the sim started, stopped, paused, sped up, etc. Also, I didn't look at episode 8 because it looks like you may have run it at 2X. Not sure if you have anything else running that could impact the sim, but interestingly your performance appears to be very similar to mine ("1 minute of sim clock time takes 1 minute and 4 seconds of actual time").

As a follow up, for me the sim performs much better when the main 3D window is active (I.e., it is the last window clicked on). If I click on the ADIRS window (on a separate monitor) the sim will begin to lag. But as soon as I click on the 3D window performance improves. The typical performance I see is 1 minute of sim clock time takes 1 minute and 4 seconds of actual time.

For those that enjoy blips and dots may I suggest the following: http://www.ponggame.org/ For the record, I lost 10-6. :)

There was a post about duplicate IATA codes with AWE and PDT on this list as both having US. By keeping AWE and removing PDT - this happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI

The schedule file uses the IATA code, the terminal file uses the ICAO code, and the airlines file has both. If you want to see a PDT flight in the sim today, you need to modify the xxxx_airlines.txt file and add the following entry: PDT, US, PIEDMONT, Piedmont Airlines, United States. To avoid confusion, I would remove the following entry: AWE, US, CACTUS, US Airways, United States After those changes you will no longer see Cactus flights and any flights in the RT schedule or any custom schedule you build with US as the airline code will have a Piedmont callsign. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ironically, the IATA code for Piedmont just recently changed from US to PT. But making this change opens up a bigger can of worms that would impact both Real Traffic & Real Color. Leaving PDT as US is the best thing for now.

From an ATC perspective though, you will see Piedmont.

Your previous post already covered this situation. The Cactus (AWE) flights you see are there because PDT was incorrectly removed from the xxxx_airlines,txt file. Piedmont also has/had an IATA code of US. So as soon as Nyerges adds PDT back in you'll see the flights you're expecting. If you don't want to wait, you can make the change to airlines file yourself. Make sure to backup the original though.

Endeavor (EDV) is legit and does fly in/out of KPHL. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EDV3817

Below are a couple of additional changes that I am aware of. In the airlines file CPZ was changed to COMPASS, it is no longer Compass Rose and ROU was changed to ROUGE. I think both of these need tweaking on the reference card also. Thanks!

GJS was changed to LINDBERGH in the latest RT update. You should be able to see this in any of the airlines.txt files. GJS, G7, LINDBERGH, GoJet Airlines, United States

AWE is US AIrways (Cactus), which doesn't exist anymore. I'll notify Nyerges this needs fixing in the airlines file. These flights should be Piedmont (PDT). GJS is GoJet and the correct callsign is Lindbergh.

You're welcome ... invoice is in the mail. :)

Send an email to orders@bmtmicro.com that has your product info and they will reset your password. I did and they responded within 10 minutes.

Looks like the renaming of KK and other taxiways occurred somewhere between 2011 and 2013 based on old airport diagrams. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/FAA_JFK_Airport_map_2011.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/FAA_JFK_Airport_map_2013.svg/2000px-FAA_JFK_Airport_map_2013.svg.png