Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

Announcing MyTraffic X Professional 5.3 public beta


Burkhard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear friends, the public beta of MyTraffic X Professional, version 5.3, approaches its state in which it can be tested, I hope to have it available for interested testers before the next weekend. Anybody who is interested to test it an willing to spend some time doing so, please drop me a PM. ( Not necessary for those who got the first private beta ).

What is new? Obviously new aircraft, with the biggest part all new aircraft for the US Airforce and also paints of other air Forces, so all new A10,B1*,B2*,B52,C5,C130,C17,C37*,F4,F5*,F15,F16,F22*,F117, the aircraft with a * being all new to the MyTraffic world. Also a new Mirage 2000 made it in. Then there are a series of new General Aviation aircraft, from tail draggers like the Cessna 120 and the Diamond Dimona over a motor glider ( Super Dimona ) and the popular Katana up to the Gulfstream V none of us can afford for only one hour. Several airports have been updated, many air bases set to life, there is the new airport LEDA in Spain, there are new schedules based on this spring data sets. The editor has got some modifications based on user wishes, the most prominent that you can delete any schedule directly from the departure screen now.

For a major structural change I have to thank Lars Moelleberg personally. The sound patch will no longer be done by a private tool, but using the EDVP API. You can directly call this from the MyTraffic Communicator. It can be applied to the original sound files, sound files modified by the EDVP API and even the files modified with the MyTraffic Patchsound, Lars spend some time to make a modification that removes the few byte difference. Please all testers, test that feature and report!

I add a few shots that I happen to have with me now. Beta testers are allowed to publish screen shots themselves here on this forum, what they like and what they dislike. Clearly only bugs can be handled now, wishes for improvements will be handled with the subsequent minor releases.

post-148-128689714623_thumb.jpg

post-148-128689714644_thumb.jpg

post-148-128689714663_thumb.jpg

post-148-128689714681_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Burkhard

Hi to all

As Burkhard says this version of MTX has lots of improvements, but in my humble opinion some things must be fixed.

From what I have seen so far, and just for example, the new Cessna C120 needs an adjustment in the texture (the text on the fuselage is writen oposite)

C120.jpg

In relation to the modified airports (suitable for MTX) I've noticed, that some of them also need small changes, in most of them, parking positions are in where there are autogen buildings (have tried scenery settings from "normal" to "extremely dense".

To do this I used ADEX, Google Maps and Airport charts, to check if the autogen buildings realy exists and they're physical location.

Some examples will follow:

Millenium Dallas - 7TX2 - Autogen buildings in the ramp.

A radio-beacon in the middle of the ramp.

They do not interfere with parking positions, but, doesn't look nice

7TX2.jpg

Reno/Stead - 4SD - Found lots of Autogen buildings in parking areas.

Vehicules also. Fuel station is autogen, and not according to fuel parking.

4SD.jpg

Reno/Stead - 4SD - Taxi signs and runway signs are not in proper position.

4SD_1.jpg

Reno/Stead - 4SD - Autogen vegatation on taxiway "E".

4SD_2.jpg

Poplar Grove - C77 - 4 Ramp GA medium (parkings 17 to 20) on grass, with autogen building over them.

C77.jpg

Hillenbrand Industries - HLB - According with satelite view, airport ramp is not in the right place.

HLB.jpg

Roosevelt Roads Naval Station Airport - NRR -Some autogen "big" buildings in aiport

NRR.jpg

Roosevelt Roads Naval Station Airport - NRR -Big autogen building in front of control tower

NRR_1.jpg

Moses Point - MOS - Parking positions are directly on the terrain.

Runway 18-36 is not connected to the rest of airport, but it's not closed to traffic

MOS.jpg

I don't know if Burkhard changes the ramp positions, or simply add the parking spots

As I said in the begining of this post, these are just some sugestions, of things I think that can be improved.

Sorry for this huge post, with all the images, but an image worths more than 100 words :)

Regards

P.S. - Burkhard, I have sent you an email. Get no answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, the C120 wasn't reported yet. On the airports, I will go through the list and have a look.

About the autogen building, in most cases these are bugs of the stock airports too, we try our best. It just needs time to check these airports, therefore I couldn't answer yet, thanks for reminding though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

I don't have any add-on sceneries, for the airports mentioned above, neither duplicate AFCADS.

I install MTX, set it up to be 1st priority in Scenery Library and then fire-up FSX.

SceneryLibrary.jpg

The 2nd priority "static objects library" contains RWY12 objects only

The others are from accel pack, cannot be unchecked.

warnings.jpg

The nº5 priority is a scenery from Aerosoft and a think it doesn't have any influence on the airports from which I made my previous post.

Now, just another input: If I open one of the BR2_****.BGL file with ADEX, I cannot see the "autogen buildings" that populate the airfield, neither the taxiway/runway signs. I only see the parking spots set by Burkhard.

Anyway, this might be a good chance, for the other beta testers to check if they have similar reports, after all it could be me doing, or not doing something :roll:

I think the more we cross-check the data we have, the more we can help Burkhard to improve the program.

Hope to ear from the rest :)

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the autogen building, in most cases these are bugs of the stock airports too, we try our best. It just needs time to check these airports, therefore I couldn't answer yet, thanks for reminding though...

If you need help to rearrange the airports/airfields, drop me a line :wink: I'll be glad to do it

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings you see are not part of the airport. Some of them are indeed autogen, where the airport ground does not cover all of the airport, so they are defined nowhere. Others are ordinary objects. In order to fix it the ground polygons have to be reworked.

As long as the aircraft don't park in buildings, I would not take this too serious. Nevertheless I welcome every improvement, be it in EGLL or in the middle of nowhere, and yes am very thankful for any such contribution. Only little thing I wish is that ner to large international airports, like KFDW, KLAX, EGLL the additions to small airfields remain small, also the number of parkings, o keep the system load due to the small airfields small - 100 miles away we are free to add much more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings you see are not part of the airport. Some of them are indeed autogen, where the airport ground does not cover all of the airport, so they are defined nowhere. Others are ordinary objects. In order to fix it the ground polygons have to be reworked.

Exclusion polygons should work fine. Have already tried in one airport and the result was OK.

On the other hand for example no C77, I wasn't capable of remove the autogen building with an exclusion polygon.

C77.jpg

The solution I found more satisfatory was pull or push (depending from where you look) the parkings to inside the platform.

As long as the aircraft don't park in buildings, I would not take this too serious. Nevertheless I welcome every improvement, be it in EGLL or in the middle of nowhere, and yes am very thankful for any such contribution. Only little thing I wish is that ner to large international airports, like KFDW, KLAX, EGLL the additions to small airfields remain small, also the number of parkings, o keep the system load due to the small airfields small - 100 miles away we are free to add much more details.

Agree with you. Didn't even think of changing International airports. They are quite realistic by default.

Regarding small airfields, not much great changes, just rearranging the autogens, maybe add a small hangar or a small FBO, but always with satellite images and airport charts as support.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of C77, I would make the three 14m parkings ( as it looks ) right of the taxiway 18 m, and place smaller ones on the ohter side at height of the current large ones. Easy to do, do you give it a try otherwise I put it to my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

In the case of C77, I would make the three 14m parkings ( as it looks ) right of the taxiway 18 m, and place smaller ones on the ohter side at height of the current large ones. Easy to do, do you give it a try otherwise I put it to my list.

Sure, I'll do it when it comes the time for C77 :wink:

I'm starting on the list with 7TX2 and then follow to the others by order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Burkhard, with the addition of EDVPx will our new airports VTBS and LEDA be recognized and spoken?

@Sparky, there's no such problems with the nonAccel version of 4SD -- the problems you show simply don't display. It's possible that 4SD was modified for Accel -- are there special races there in Accel?

The MTX version was enhanced based on the nonAccel version -- Burkhard will need to confirm as I did not participate in the initial airport enhancement process. If this is the case we may need two versions of 4SD and this explains why your 4SD is displaying problems.

NRR -- thanks for the pictures, I just picked up a few more high rise generic buildings for my scenery files ;-) These are generic buildings and not autogen. I assume that they don't display in google earth? This is not uncommon even at the larger airports. You rarely have perfect scenery...I assume too much trouble for the ACES team to check 24,000 airports by hand.

MOS is an incomplete airport in FSX. Two runways and an ARP with no parking tower approach info etc. As such this scenery will never be processed properly through the appropriate dll player file and if the two runways are crosswinded, ATC will likely offer both ends at the same time :lol: It's a small bug in FSX. I would suggest not crosswinding the runways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4SD is from pre Accel times, that is a good explanation. I will make the second beta available anyways tomoroow if I can fix one outstanding problem that appeared last night, little airport changes that do not change the schedules still can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sparky, there's no such problems with the nonAccel version of 4SD -- the problems you show simply don't display. It's possible that 4SD was modified for Accel -- are there special races there in Accel?

That's it. I have Accel pack and there are missions in Reno, Istanbul, Longleat and Tempelhof all related to redbull air race

Another example of Reno...

4SD_3.jpg

The MTX version was enhanced based on the nonAccel version -- Burkhard will need to confirm as I did not participate in the initial airport enhancement process. If this is the case we may need two versions of 4SD and this explains why your 4SD is displaying problems.

Well I think both versions nonAccel and Accel can be served in this version of MTX. If Burkhard wants I can deal with the airports for Accel version :)

NRR -- thanks for the pictures, I just picked up a few more high rise generic buildings for my scenery files ;-) These are generic buildings and not autogen. I assume that they don't display in google earth? This is not uncommon even at the larger airports. You rarely have perfect scenery...I assume too much trouble for the ACES team to check 24,000 airports by hand.

Neither in google maps, neither in the photos I've search to base my coments. The existant buildings are small, like hangars, or cargo terminals

NRR_sat.jpg

11542.jpg

And yes, I also assume it's too much work for ACES guys to check all the FSX airports, but in this case, Burkhard didn't modify 24,000 airports, and with volunteers to help, he can make, at least the airports for MTX look much better.

MOS is an incomplete airport in FSX. Two runways and an ARP with no parking tower approach info etc. As such this scenery will never be processed properly through the appropriate dll player file and if the two runways are crosswinded, ATC will likely offer both ends at the same time :lol: It's a small bug in FSX. I would suggest not crosswinding the runways.

I have thinking already in leave RWY 18-36 closed for traffic.

As for tower or ATC, I couldn't find photos of MOS, that state if theres a tower or not, but the airport data is the one that follows:

AIRPORT OPERATION

Airport use: Private use. Permission required prior to landing

Sectional chart: NOME

Control tower: No

ARTCC: ANCHORAGE [LC 443-2291]

FSS: NOME [1-800-478-8400]

NOTAMs facility: No

Wind indicator: Unlighted Wind Indicator exists

Segmented circle: No

Landing fee: No

International operations: No

Attendance schedule: UNATNDD

AIRPORT COMMUNICATION

UNICOM: 122.800

CTAF: 122.800

Runway Information for 06/24

Dimensions: 3000 x 60 ft

Surface: No Special Surface Treatment

Runway 06 Runway 24

Gradient: 0.1 0.1

Traffic pattern: Left Left

Markings: Numbers Only in Fair condition Numbers Only in Fair condition

AIRPORT SERVICES

Airframe service: NONE

Powerplant service: NONE

Bottled oxygen: NONE

Bulk oxygen: NONE

Other Airport Services: Cargo Handling Services

ADDITIONAL REMARKS

RY 06/24 BADLY ERODED IN SPOTS.

RY 06/24 NOT MAINTAINED IN WINTER.

FISH DISPOSAL OFF AER 06 & 24 ATTRACTS BIRDS.

TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED. PRIOR PERMISSION FOR USE REQUIRED FM ELIM NATIVE CORP PRESIDENT OR BOARD (7).

After reading all this excellent atributes of MOS I wonder ..... How come Burkhard think about this airport :twisted:

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, the initial airport enhancements preceeded Accel as well as the current airport design utilites that exist today. Burkhard created his own tools and developed a batch process to enable him and those helping to "quickly" enhance the important airports to improve parking and if needed fix critical issues such as hold short problems. I don't think Burkhard was too concerned about accuracy of the FSX stock scenery in terms of the location of aprons and airport buildings etc.

As you know, if you wish to correctly enhance FSX stock airports you should start from scratch and never work from some elses bgl file. The entire process to research the airport and overlay maps/pictures and make all necessary corrections and adjustments to both the seen and unseen aspects of the airport and then testing can take a day or two or a week or more, depending on the size and complexity of the airport. If you consider 2 full days per airport, now were taking over 3,600 days.

This would have simply taken too much time and the goal was to quickly get as many of the key airports enhanced such that they would not be a "bottle-neck" for MTX performance.

I can't answer why MOS or a few of the other tiny airports were enhanced. Maybe Burkhard recalls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have already seen, the major airports that come with MTX are quite realistic in terms of layout and they do not need much work.

I think the major "problem" is with small airports.

In my scenery folder of MTX I have around 2300 BR2_****.bgl files.

Of course they cannot be all modified to be more accurate, at least until the final release of MTX

I don't think Burkhard was too concerned about accuracy of the FSX stock scenery in terms of the location of aprons and airport buildings etc.

It might be that, I know the purpose of MTX is not scenery enhancement, for that we have freeware and payware sceneries, but for someone who buys MTX and when in an airport starts to see AI airplanes parking inside buildings ...... I don't know, it's just a thought.

To finish, I have assumed the compromise of doing minor changes in where I think they must be done. If Burkhard wants, even after the final release of MTX5.3, they will be upload here, or somewhere else.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is deeper - in reality the planes park in buildings, these are called hangars - only the doors should open. Yes, this should be avoided, and happens far less with MTX airports than with stock scenery which is full of little bugs in the airports - every improvement in quality is welcome.

When these 2000 airports got created - that was the first stuff that could be done for FSX mainly before the FSX GMAX SDK was avaialbe and stable - we did not have such high resolution pictures in Google Earth as now, so now much better work is possible ( and requires far more time ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hello Gentlemen,

Might it be possible to include PenAir, a small but big Airline for Alaska? Ayka, Akutan, Dutch Harbor, Cold Bay, Anchorage mostly Saab 340bs, Cessna Caravans, Piper Saratogas

Thanks

Hi Psybear

Only Burkhard can answer that, but I already have start making my homework.

Airports served by PenAir: Information tooked from: http://www.penair.com/documents/TimeTableSchedule15FEB10_000.pdf

Anchorage - PANC

Aniak - PANI

Cold Bay - PACD

Dutch Harbor - PADU

Sand Point - PASD

Dillingham - PADL

King Salmon - PAKN

Mc Grath - PAMC

St. George - PAPB

St. Paul - PASN

Unalakleet - PAUN

Airports in MyTraffic scenery database:

Anchorage - PANC

Unalakleet - PAUN

PenAir Fleet: Information tooked from: http://www.penair.com/fleet.html

Grumman Goose G21-A

SAAB 340

Fairchild Metroliner III

Piper Saratoga

Piper T-1040

Navajo Chieftain PA-31-350

Grand Caravan

Aircraft in My Traffic aircraft database:

SAAB 340 - without PenAir colors !

Aircraft in default FSX:

Grumman Goose G21-A - same as above

Grand Caravan - same as above

It's a lot of work, but let's see what Burkhard says, I'm curious too :|

Have a nice weekend

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sparky,

It would be nice especially since Alaska Airlines no longer flies its 737-200s there and Dutch Harbor X is out from Aerosoft.

Wicked weather, short runway with a mountain side next to it, no tower....what more could you ask for? :twisted:

Hope it happens.

Best,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember well Penair Saab 340 has been painted, so it should be in there...

My mistake :( sorry

PenAir SAAB 340 is in fact in My Traffic aircraft folder under:

[fltsim.5]

title=S340-MyPaint05

sim=saab340

model=

texture=My05

atc_airline=Peninsula

ui_manufacturer=MT Saab

ui_type=Saab 340

ui_variation=Penair

ATC_PARKING_TYPES=GATE,RAMP

ATC_PARKING_CODES=PEN

Wicked weather, short runway with a mountain side next to it, no tower....what more could you ask for? :twisted:

Flying on the edge :mrgreen: Flying on the limits, where no man has gone before :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I add a few minor snags from the flying around I've done over the last two days please? :)

- I don't know if the F/A-18E Super Hornet model has been modified this version, but the vertical stabilisers are far too angled outwards - they're at about 40 degrees from the vertical when they should be about twenty (angles are guesstimates, not accurately measured, just done by comparison with photos and the VRS Super Bug)

- In California, NAS Point Mugu (KNTD) has a lot of parking spots inside buildings. It doesn't look like the location has been updated for 5.3 (the file is dated 2007) so I'll take a look at it in ADE9x and see whether I can correct it comparatively easily. If so, I'll put the update on the Geometry Changes thread.

- v5.3b still has EGAA (Belfast Aldergrove) down as a hub for Ryanair, who have never used it, and it is completely devoid of easyJet aircraft, for whom it is one of the larger hubs on number of aircraft based there and flights per day. Any chance of moving RYA to EGAC and giving EZY an EGAA hub, please?

- Whilst watching a Boeing twin-engined jet (I think it was Thompson B757-200) land at Birmingham, it flared far too much on landing and the tail end of the fuselage went completely through the runway. Unfortunately when I changed views to see the jet better and identify it, FSX reloaded the AI traffic and it was gone. I'll wander round other locations that operate B757s and B767s and see if I can see exactly which model it was.

Hope those help?

Ian P.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • 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.