Make Runways - any new version in sight?

[FlyingAxx]

Hello Pete,

May I come back to our conversation we had about Make Runways a while ago?

We discussed about some differences in translations of runway surface codes. As I have learnt some are caused for the sake of compatibility to versions older than FS9 and others are caused by AFCAD2 obviously allowing UNDEFINED codes to be used that have been named to things like "GRASS 3" or so. However, today there are tons of AFCAD2 BGLs in the wild using surfaces being textured in an originally unintended way (and quite a lot are coming with payware, too).

Concluding this you wrote (on Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:27 pm)

Ah, so AFCAD allows you to set these, using these "unknown" or "grass" names. I see.

I might, just for the XML output, use the Grass and Concrete names for these otherwise unknowns, and perhaps add something to the TXT log. But not immediately -- I've just released version 4.35 which was needed to correct the XML when airport or city names with non-UTF-8 (ASCII) characters are included.

Thanks for the info

I would be really thankful if you could bring in the translations - - - this year? After thinking it over there seems to be no need to change the TXT log file. There are other design tools that might do different things and AFCAD2 seems to be like an abandoned child now.

[Pete Dowson]

Concluding this you wrote (on Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:27 pm)

Ah, so AFCAD allows you to set these, using these "unknown" or "grass" names. I see.

I might, just for the XML output, use the Grass and Concrete names for these otherwise unknowns, and perhaps add something to the TXT log. But not immediately -- I've just released version 4.35 which was needed to correct the XML when airport or city names with non-UTF-8 (ASCII) characters are included.

AhI wrote something down about that in one of my "to do" lists, but i think it's got buried or lost someplace. I've been unbelievably busy with one thing or another.

I would be really thankful if you could bring in the translations - - - this year? After thinking it over there seems to be no need to change the TXT log file. There are other design tools that might do different things and AFCAD2 seems to be like an abandoned child now.

We'll, as far as I remember, it didn't look like a big job. But I can't find my notes now. if you have the details, can you post them here again for me, please?

Regards

Pete

[FlyingAxx]

We'll, as far as I remember, it didn't look like a big job. But I can't find my notes now. if you have the details, can you post them here again for me, please?

Ok, I'll try. It's just the translation between some unknown surface codes and their appearance (at least in my FS9 installation). This should not be done in the TXT file (as I personally like the strict reference to the officially defined codes) but in the XML-list which you secondly translated again for the sake of compatibility with previous FS versions.

    NEW TYPE               Appearance (FS9)       proposed OLD TYPE 
                                                 (quite unsatisfying for planks and bricks)
    "CONCRETE", // 0       concrete               2  concrete
    "GRASS", // 1          grass                  4  grass
    "WATER", // 2          water                  10 water
    "UNKNOWN 3",// 3       grass                  0  unknown
    "ASPHALT", // 4        asphalt                3  asphalt
    "UNKNOWN 5",// 5       grass                  4  grass
    "UNKNOWN 6",// 6       grass                  4  grass
    "CLAY", // 7           clay                   1  dirt
    "SNOW", // 8           snow                   8  snow
    "ICE", // 9            ice                    8  snow
    "UNKNOWN 10",// 10     concrete               2  concrete
    "UNKNOWN 11",// 11     concrete               2  concrete
    "DIRT", // 12          dirt                   1  dirt
    "CORAL", // 13         coral                  9  coral
    "GRAVEL", // 14        gravel                 5  gravel
    "OIL_TREATED",// 15    oil-treated            6  oil-treated
    "STEEL_MATS",// 16     mats                   7  mats
    "BITUMINOUS",// 17     bitumious              3  asphalt
    "BRICK", // 18         brick                  0  unknown
    "MACADAM", // 19       macadam                3  asphalt
    "PLANKS", // 20        planks                 0  unknown
    "SAND", // 21          sand                   5  gravel
    "SHALE", // 22         shale                  5  gravel
    "TARMAC", // 23        ashalt                 3  asphalt
    "UNKNOWN 256", // 256  unknown                0  unknown

Just as a reminder the pictures showing the context in FS9:

Of course I would prefer throwing the compatibility over board or (maybe even better) having a XML-version just for FS9 that translates the originally not defined codes to the surface which appears in the application. :roll: :mrgreen:

[Pete Dowson]

Ok, I'll try. It's just the translation between some unknown surface codes and their appearance (at least in my FS9 installation). This should not be done in the TXT file (as I personally like the strict reference to the officially defined codes) but in the XML-list which you secondly translated again for the sake of compatibility with previous FS versions.

Okay. I've printed this out now, and will try to make sense of it. Basically I think that, in the XML file only, all you want is this:

    "UNKNOWN 3" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 5" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 6" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 10" -->concrete
    "UNKNOWN 11" -->concrete

Right?

Regards

Pete

[FlyingAxx]

Okay. I've printed this out now, and will try to make sense of it. Basically I think that, in the XML file only, all you want is this:

    "UNKNOWN 3" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 5" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 6" -->  grass
    "UNKNOWN 10" -->concrete
    "UNKNOWN 11" -->concrete

Right?

Right!

But it would be perfect if the strict FS9 reference would be used (like in the TXT file). Actually I could live as well with all the "UNKNOWN x" as I could make the translation with my own little tool that I'm using for creating ISG1 airport databases for different kind of aircraft. However, with your translations as above I could use my tool as it is (I would only have to beg my lovely wife on my knees for changing it because I'm still no programmer ;-)).

[Pete Dowson]

... with your translations as above I could use my tool as it is

Okay. It is done -- pretty much merely a table change. Version 4.36 will contain the changes, in the XML file only. I'm out this morning but I'll do the release build and upload it here, to the Updates Announcement, later today.

Oh, the changes aren't tested as I cannot find any scenery using those "unknowns", but there shouldn't be any problems as it was a very minor amendment! (Famous last words? ).

Regards

Pete

[Pete Dowson]

Version 4.36 will contain the changes, in the XML file only. I'm out this morning but I'll do the release build and upload it here, to the Updates Announcement, later today.

There's something wrong with the Server and i cannot update my files there at present, so I attach 4.36 to this message.

Regards

Pete

MakeRunways_436.zip

[FlyingAxx]

Hello Pete,

Thanks a lot. After a run I've just made a brief cross check between both corresponding files, runways.txt and runways.xml, and it looks good. :D

Hmm, may I quote myself? Ok, I'll do:

Of course I would prefer throwing the compatibility over board or (maybe even better) having a XML-version just for FS9 that translates the originally not defined codes to the surface which appears in the application. :roll: :mrgreen:

Translating this it was intended to say, that I would still prefer to see in the XML surfaces like Macadam, Brick, Tarmac, Sand and so on as they are defined within FS9 airports (and in its SDK). If there is a reason to stick on the compatibility with former FS versions I'll take a back seat... unless it would be possible creating a second XML for FS9 without too much effort. Maybe this is a nice wish to be addressed to Santa? ;-)

Pete, again: thanks for the excellent tool and your support.

[Pete Dowson]

Hmm, may I quote myself? Ok, I'll do:

Of course I would prefer throwing the compatibility over board or (maybe even better) having a XML-version just for FS9 that translates the originally not defined codes to the surface which appears in the application. :roll: :mrgreen:

That would be a new program I'm afraid. The organisation in this one is just not as flexible as you seem to think. It has taken a lot of stick over the many years it's been trying to keep up -- since Radar Contact 2 and my own FStarRC, I think, around FS98 time.

Sorry, but i am not taking up new projects these days. I'm trying to wind down and make best use of my remaining eyesight, deteriorating by the week at present.

Best Regards

Pete

[FlyingAxx]

That would be a new program I'm afraid. The organisation in this one is just not as flexible as you seem to think. It has taken a lot of stick over the many years it's been trying to keep up -- since Radar Contact 2 and my own FStarRC, I think, around FS98 time.

Sorry, but i am not taking up new projects these days. I'm trying to wind down and make best use of my remaining eyesight, deteriorating by the week at present.

Pete, take better care for your health as it is really not worth worrying about wishes like mine. Your contribution to the community for so many years now is incredible. However, it seems that the days of flight simming with MSFS are numbered anyway. I'm wondering how long it might take until the last of us old guys might give up. I decided not to upgrade to FSX as it seems that even the latest PCs are not able to run this program with all bells and whistles. My (grown-up) kids are astonished that I'm not upgrading my hardware anymore (as I did for many years regularly) but I feel that it's not really worth to do so now.

All the best!

[Pete Dowson]

I decided not to upgrade to FSX as it seems that even the latest PCs are not able to run this program with all bells and whistles.

Well, I think that's not quite the case now with the Intel Core i7 series of processors. I have excellent results with a relatively cheap upgrade I did on one of my PCs -- mobo, i7-920, an fast DDR2 ram, by allowing it to overclock up to 4.0GHz in full turbo mode. My main cockpit PC is now a Core i7-975 water-cooled at 4.5 GHz and with 6Gb 2000 MHz memory. Win7 64-bit helps too. At last I have smooth flying at UK2000 Heathrow with realistic AI traffic levels!

Regards

Pete

[FlyingAxx]

I have excellent results with a relatively cheap upgrade I did on one of my PCs -- mobo, i7-920, an fast DDR2 ram, by allowing it to overclock up to 4.0GHz in full turbo mode. My main cockpit PC is now a Core i7-975 water-cooled at 4.5 GHz and with 6Gb 2000 MHz memory. Win7 64-bit helps too. At last I have smooth flying at UK2000 Heathrow with realistic AI traffic levels!

Pete

That's what I would call a mid-size system. :lol: The price of the CPU alone is more expensive than the complete system I have just build last weekend for my wife. It's based on an INTEL Core i5-750 cooled by a NOCTUA NH-U12P SE2 (max. 19.5 dB (A)) and sitting on an ASUS-P7P55D with 2x2 GB CORSAIR memory, futhermore an ATI based GPU MSI R4870-MD1G, a very silent Seagate Baracuda 1T harddisk and everything powered by a bequiet! Dark Power PRO 550W (only!) - the existing ANTEC-P182 case was re-used.

I think the system is not too bad - at least sufficient for recent games - but I have severe doubts that it would run FSX without stutters - even when overclocked. However, it is quiet and cool and we like it. As we can expect new processor generations about each 8 months a system being capable to do the job without bringing it to the maximum might be available mid summer 2011. Hey, this will give me the time to finalize my round-the-world-in-smallest-hops-tour with FS9. :) A couple of friends and I started in March 2004 and in the moment we are in Ireland heading North in order to cross the Atlantic via Greenland on our way back to Cape Horn where we started (about).

Pete, I don't question your experience at all but I decided for myself that I will wait until PCs are capable running FSX without having the need for a power plant in the garden and a mid-size river for cooling beside the house, too. :) - I'm kidding, of course.