Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums
Psybear

Not a Virgin Anymore

Recommended Posts

I've noticed this a several airports but this is the funniest one. On a serious note, any thoughts on what is causing this? I have checked for duplicate files with airport scanner and passified the mt-bgls.

post-12690-128689685063_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought BA and IB do that :lol:

Seriously, if this happens at addon airport, this proves that the airport is NOT made for FSX, but a careless remake of an FS8 or FS9 airport. The Jeppesen data used for FSX have moved the central airport locations for many airports. This is reflected in FSX by changes to the header, mainly the airport coordinates, sometimes the way the name is spelled, etc. If an addon airport does not have exactly the same header, FSX sees two airports - that is what you see to my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where exactly? You are really sure you have no file for that airport installed?

This would be bad news for you, since this means that your scenery data are corrupted, as it often happens when you remove a scenery that still is active in FSX, or other reasons. Try to delete all the scenery indices that are in the all user profile folder, they should be created from scratch again after FSX restart and this might cure it, has been reported to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first shot is from Madrid, Barajas X and this one from Milano, Malpensa where EasyJet and SAS are going at it. The I don't want to start a fight but do you speak with the respective developers or do I. Just want to solve a problem...not finger pointing.

post-12690-128689685117_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few thoughts that may help in your investigation. Are you noticing this at FSX stock airports? Or those enhanced by MyTraffic X? Or are you only noticing this at third-party scenery such as those you mentioned?

Your AI airport parking conflicts are all related to the airport scenery file - when the AI lands, the airport file takes over. It gets a bit tricky if you're having problems with AI not showing up. This could be related to the schedules, fsx internal workings and frame rate delimeter or the airport parking configuration.

Double-parked AI, missing jetways under extremely dense settings and AI taxing through buidlings are a strong indication of duplication of apples to oranges. Using airport scanner (assuming you're using it correctly) will only find the duplicate enhancements or modifications to the FSX stock file. What it won't do is examine your enhancement and tell you that the airport scenery file you're using is or is not following FSX rules and standards in accordance to the FSX SDK; A scenery file that does not follow the FSX standard may confuse FSX into thinking that it needs to load all or part of its stock file information even if that information is already loaded in the enhancement.

If you use the TrafficToolbox Explorer or better yet SUPER TRAFFIC BOARD (v2.1 or later), you can see the various phases of the flight process and what happens with each phase. Sometimes AI get "stuck" in a phase only to be deleted a few minutes later, and then FSX searches for an opportunity to reinstate it.

Also, did you notice these duplications when you first opened the airport? For example, they existed when FSX first started up. Or did you witness the duplications occur as you were plane spotting at the airport after some time?

A little investigation may help you to better define what you perceive to be the problem and will help the software developer in the debugging process. For example, by looking at your pictures I can't tell if one of the two AI parked is a static aircraft or if both are MTX AI. But if you tell me that IB was shown by the STB or Toolbox to be in parking spot X and during *Rollout Virgin was also given parking X that information tells me that FSX is using information from two very different sources.

By mapping out the flight phases it will help the airport developer to better understand what might be happening.

*Rollout phase: This is the phase where a parking spot is assigned to the AI. If you own STB you can clearly observe this phase (as well as the other phases in FSX). On airports with more than one active runway, two or more aircraft can be assigned to the same parking spot in the Rollout phase of the flight process; however, all parking spots are confirmed when the aircraft exits a runway and encounters a hold short node. The Aircraft that reaches the hold short node first will get the spot. The other AI will be assigned a new spot assuming one exists.

If there is no open parking spot of sufficient size on the airport the aircraft is deleted. The AI aircraft will pop-up at the gate, if one is empty, later in the fsx session. This is especially true if there is an empty parking spot about 30-45 minutes before the aircrafts next scheduled takeoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Kambiz, for your detailed description.

AI traffic gives control to the airport as soon as descent starts. Descent, final approach, landing, tax, parking, clearence, pushback, taxi, takeoff are all under control of the airport. In case of addon airports this is the addon airport.

So, if the problem still exists after you renamed the file MyTraffic\scenery\BR2_LEMD.bgl to .bgl.passive, this prooves that no line of MyTraffic has to do with the problem.

I have preached this and other problems to most of the designer colleagues many times, but they don't listen - most of them haven't arrived in FSX yet. Only severe pressure by many users can change their attitude to take the airport they have, make the absolutely necessary changes for a new sim, add some geometrical changes, pubilsh it and forget until the next sim comes out, to repeat the same low effort low profit game....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Burkhard, I know that the T_Waypoints of the final approach belong to the airport, but for some reason I thought that initial descent was controlled by FSX and not the airport itself. Learn something new each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the airport code already controls then, even when it still selects the points from the FSX mesh. As example the direction of the runway has consequences to from where the aircraft approaches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the only time it happens with me is when I use FSX flight planner and pick a gate to start my flight. It's happened at KDTW and other airports all of which are stock FSX.

Bob G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a little aside, sometimes when SuperTrafficBoard asks FSX "what is the gate allocation for this AI aircraft", FSX sometimes comes back with the wrong answer. I say it's wrong through visual inspection of where the AI really is. My point is that the whole business of AI parking in FSX is far from bug free, and the best that can be done is to work around some of these issues.

Regards

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Simon, Burkhard, et al.,

Put 3 programmers in a room and get 4 different opinions. :wink:

Is there anything as users (from our end) that we can do to rectify the situation as it were. Or is it just one of those things that happens?

Anyway, I enjoy MyTraffic, Super Traffic Board and the addon airports. Just wanting to point it out.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all 3 programmers are right of course ;-)

Out of interest, on STB are the aircraft listed as being at the same gate (my previous comments notwithstanding)

Regards

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with the airports that you reference in this thread, but If the airport scenery file is custom made for FS9 style airport then fixed to work in FSX so they can sell both products you will likely see problems in FSX. In other words, they design an FS9 airport and port it to work in FSX, which in my opinion is incorrect. They should design the AFCAD portion placing all the FSX SDK code then back it down to FS9 by removing what will not work.

Since the enhanced airport does not follow the SDK schema, a lot of "behind the scenes" or what I term "unseen workings" exhibit problems, although the "seen" aspects look outstanding. Some erros that I've seen include incomplete elements in the approach tag, unconnected parkings, improper exclusions and jetway distances just to name a few.

Out of curiosity, when you open the GPS receiver in IFR mode, can you see all of the approaches that are also in the stock FSX file?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they are.

I can't remember...I will have to look closely and make copious notes next time I have FSX and STB fired up to tell you the answer.

kagazi is correct in stating that these airports are compatible with both fs9 and fs10, but they are separate downloads and presumably different. I would have expected better from Aerosoft at least.

Best,

Psy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the AI behaviour, that is of interest here, there are more things on an airport - and when shifting the airport they can get nasty.

Somebody who knows how to handle ADE and has an addon airport that shows double used parkings could do the following:

Edit the stock=MyTraffic airport and write down all the details of the airport header.

Edit the addon airport and set all strings and number in the header to exactly the values used by Microsoft. My expectation would be the double usage to be gone. It would be good if somebody could confirm this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the MyTraffic one for LEMD Madrid:

country="Spain"

city="Madrid"

name="Barajas"

lat="40.4722306877375"

lon="-3.5609444975853"

alt="609.6M"

magvar="3"

trafficScalar="0.7"

airportTestRadius="5000.0M"

ident="LEMD"

>

type="JETA"

availability="YES"/>

type="JETA1"

availability="YES"/>

deleteAllRunways="TRUE"

deleteAllStarts="TRUE"

deleteAllHelipads="TRUE"

deleteAllFrequencies="TRUE"

deleteAllTaxiways="TRUE"

deleteAllAprons="TRUE"

deleteAllApronLights="TRUE"

deleteAllControlTowers="FALSE"

deleteAllJetways="TRUE"

deleteAllBoundaryFences="TRUE"

deleteAllBlastFences="TRUE"

deleteAllApproaches="FALSE"/>

lat="40.4642524570227"

lon="-3.57216686010361"

alt="0.0M">

This is the Aero add-on for LEMD Madrid:

country="Spain"

state="Madrid"

city="Madrid"

name="Madrid-Barajas"

lat="40.470622703433"

lon="-3.56181487441063"

alt="609.6M"

magvar="2"

trafficScalar="1"

airportTestRadius="5000.0M"

ident="LEMD"

>

deleteAllRunways="TRUE"

deleteAllStarts="TRUE"

deleteAllHelipads="TRUE"

deleteAllFrequencies="TRUE"

deleteAllTaxiways="TRUE"

deleteAllAprons="TRUE"

deleteAllApronLights="TRUE"

deleteAllControlTowers="TRUE"

deleteAllJetways="TRUE"

deleteAllBoundaryFences="TRUE"

deleteAllBlastFences="TRUE"

deleteAllApproaches="FALSE"/>

lat="40.4918805509806"

lon="-3.56904029846191"

alt="626.059M">

Is this what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. For FSX, an airport

country="Spain"

city="Madrid"

name="Barajas"

lat="40.4722306877375"

lon="-3.5609444975853"

alt="609.6M"

magvar="3"

trafficScalar="0.7"

airportTestRadius="5000.0M"

ident="LEMD"

>

is not identical to

country="Spain"

state="Madrid"

city="Madrid"

name="Madrid-Barajas"

lat="40.470622703433"

lon="-3.56181487441063"

alt="609.6M"

magvar="2"

trafficScalar="1"

airportTestRadius="5000.0M"

ident="LEMD"

>

because it is at a different location and even a different state. Even with the MyTraffic airport disabled, you do have two different airports, the stock one and the Aerosoft one. I explained this to the developers of Aerosoft in person, maybe they slept during my talk or forgot it. I have an idea how this might be solved, have to program a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who had LEMD addon please try the following. Remove from MyTraffic\scenery the file BR2_LEMD.bgl ( rename to .passive). Then put the the small file from the attachment. This should make the default airport LEMD an empty one, even without runway. So to my theory FSX no longer sees double airports.

BR2_LEMD_Zero.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BR2_LEMD.BGL was already passified. I extracted and inserted BR2_LEMD_Zero.BGL into MyTraffic\Scenery.

This is what happened immediately on start-up:

Anything else? I'm completely confused now. Thanks for plodding through this with me

post-12690-128689686225_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686269_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686288_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686553_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686574_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. Unfortunately it seems to be getting worse, guys. I have posted some differences in the airport headers that I notice from the add-on to the 2nd "Zero" one you all sent.

...and at the main terminal:

post-12690-128689686594_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686613_thumb.jpg

post-12690-128689686632_thumb.jpg

post-12690-12868968665_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you back the exact same file that Burkhard provided :oops: Results should have been the same.

I meant to give you this one. I've changed the name of the empty airport bearing the heading info and location of the stock LEMD. I'm hoping this works. If not then back to the drawing board.

BR2_LEMD_Zero.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that makes me wonder is that all the aircraft park the same positions, just shifted back. Typically addon airports also side shift the parking locations. So we cannot exclude there to be still another instance of that airport present. What happens if you use mine (or Kambiz) trial AND rename the Aerosoft file to .passive. There should be no parking at LEMD left unless there is an unknown fourth party involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure they aren't static aircraft!! the Continental in one of those shots doesn't look like a MTX aircraft to me, it looks more like a very low poly static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • 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.