Peabody Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 I did a search and did not find this, so if it is posted somewhere I missed it. I bought Boston along with RT and RC and in the schedule.txt there are three airlines: Emirates, Cathay, and Air France using the 77W. The problem is the 77W can not take off " the runway is too short". Not only are these in the downloaded schedule, they are in the Real Life schedules also, so they should work but don't. Peabody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATControl -- Joe Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 If you are getting that message, it’s not that the aircraft cannot take off, it’s that you’re choosing a departure runway that is too short for that aircraft type. The only runways that can handle a 77w/77L/333/340/380 should be 4R, 22L, 15R and 33L. Big jets need big runway length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peabody Posted October 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 Thanks for feedback but that is not the problem tried all the runways. 77L, 789, 388 will take off a 77W will not. I just went back to check and make sure and also found the 773 will not take off either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATControl -- Joe Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 What is the exact time of day you are running? Give me the exact runway setup you have as well and I will test it. Also please list out the exact flight numbers giving the errors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peabody Posted October 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 The one I noticed first was this one since I was doing the 20:00 schedule: BOS, CDG, 77W, AF, 333, 12:00, 20:02, 1, AF Then I copy and pasted the other ones and changed the departure time, but left everything else the same to see if it was a problem with just Air France. BOS, DXB, 77W, EK, 238, 12:00, 23:32, 1, EK BOS, LHR, 77W, BA, 214, 12:00, 23:29, 1, BA BOS, HKG, 77W, CX, 811, 12:00, 01:43, 1, CX I forgot that Speedbird BAW also has a 77W Thanks again for your time. Peabody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangPauli Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 I've encountered this with the AF 77W as well; it simply will not accept any of the runways on the field. I'll get a copy of the log next time it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATControl -- Joe Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 Tested and noted the 77W has a runway issue. I have direct contact with the developers. I will have this submitted to them this evening. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crbascott Posted October 26, 2017 Report Share Posted October 26, 2017 If Pro is like 2011, each airplane type has a defined takeoff length, landing length, and several other attributes. Looking at the 77W in 2011, the takeoff length is 10500 feet1. The longest runway at KBOS is 15R/33L at 10083 feet. Clearly in Pro the takeoff length of the 77W exceeds 10083. Takeoff distance is determined by a lot of factors but the 77Ws that serve KBOS are obviously configured to takeoff under 10083 feet. 10500 is not necessarily an incorrect attribute value for a 77W, but it is at KBOS. We'll probably need to ask Nyerges to tweak the 77W in Real Traffic (assuming it is a prefab level attribute). Craig 1 We could edit the attributes in 2011, I do not recall if I did or not for the 77W. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATControl -- Joe Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 It is not necessary to report this again per the post above. Please see a prior response where this has already been ID'd, tested and submitted. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crbascott Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 Excuse me Your Holiness, there is only a 6 minute difference in our responses. Your reply wasn't there when I began my post. Furthermore I'm not sure what kind of power trip you are on, but you are not the forum moderator nor the only one that can submit issues despite having "direct contact with the developers". Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peabody Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 Thanks for the assistance. I am going to use some substitute planes. To my untrained eye I won't know the difference. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenturaGuy101 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 Some information on the web shows that the takeoff distance for the 77W (Boeing 777-300ER) is 10,000 feet at sea level where the 773 (Boeing 777-300) is 10,600 feet. The planes can be edited while we wait for a patch and use 772 (Boeing 777-200) at 8,000 feet or 77L (Boeing 777-200LR) at 9,200 feet if these minimum distances in the data files are near these values. One similar thing with aircraft and runways at KBOS similar to the 77W was in a You Tube Video (peabody1001)where a 73H landed on runway 32. I know that 737's can land on short runways but at only 100 feet wide and with buildings to the northwest, if the plane had to go around, it would be very dangerous. The landing itself would not be too pleasant either. If just a minimum distance is used for take off and landing, then it explains why the 737 can land of 32 and the 77W can't take off on 15R/33L. It seems that there needs to be a valid aircraft type applied to the specific runways at each airport so aircraft that would not use runways in the game that they do not use in real life. Airports like Denver (KDEN) have increased distances due to altitude. KBOS and KPHL have unidirectional runways. Also distances change due to weather but the weather model in this version of Tower!3D Pro is very simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peabody Posted October 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, VenturaGuy101 said: One similar thing with aircraft and runways at KBOS similar to the 77W was in a You Tube Video (peabody1001)where a 73H landed on runway 32. Did you notice the similarity in the name? :-) Yup, that was me just trying different things. I know in real life they would not use 32 to land big planes. At the time I did not know about the hotel at the end of the runway either. I know there are a lot of things in the game that would never be done in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CL30 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 9 hours ago, Peabody said: Did you notice the similarity in the name? :-) Yup, that was me just trying different things. I know in real life they would not use 32 to land big planes. At the time I did not know about the hotel at the end of the runway either. I know there are a lot of things in the game that would never be done in real life. Nor did I... I landed on 32 recently in a LR45. That hotel surprised me, lol! Good grief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenturaGuy101 Posted October 27, 2017 Report Share Posted October 27, 2017 It was purposely built to keep Massport (agency that runs KBOS) from extending runway 32 and to make sure there are never any flights on that runway that flow toward the northwest. It would be nice when FeelThere decides to do the next version of Tower!3Dx so that they could have operating procedures added into the game. That would list general runway configurations and allow players to receive some point deductions for landing larger jest of runway 32 (Improper aircraft landing on runway 32, violated safety procedure -100 points) and even larger deductions for having a plane land on 14 or take off on 32 (Collision Alert with obstruction near runway 14/32 -500 points). The same for someone who flied a plane over the terminal in KPHL. I will add this to the post once FeelThere starts the suggestion for the next version thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenturaGuy101 Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 I also would like to add the A321 to having an issue at KBOS. I am getting a "Unable to take off on runway due to the runway being too short" when I try and assign takeoff on runway 9 at KBOS. Runway 9 is 7001 feet long and the minimum takeoff distance at sea level is around 5,600 feet for the A321. So why is the A321's saying they can't take off on this runway? All medium aircraft should be able to take off on runway 9. We should only need runway 15L for planes like the 77W and A380. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crbascott Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 In 2011, the A321 has a takeoff length of 7150 feet (assuming I didn't edit it). Looks like Pro may be using a similar value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenturaGuy101 Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 I am finding a mix of information on the web about the Airbus 321. I did see a couple of A321s take off on runway 9 from KBOS through flightradar24. So I know it is possible for some configurations to use that runway. I have seen ranges from 5,00 to 7,150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangPauli Posted October 31, 2017 Report Share Posted October 31, 2017 I flew BOS-SFO on a UA 772A a few months ago and was surprised when we departed from 9 so, even a widebody with transcon fuel load can handle it if the winds are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methos Posted November 7, 2017 Report Share Posted November 7, 2017 Don't know if this has been resolved yet but, if I remember right, in 2011 there were quite a few issues with runway lengths and even approach speeds (I think it was the E190 that had an approach speed of something sick like 230 or something .. ran over everyone). In terms of the 77W .. I BELIEVE it had a field length minimum of something like 11,000 (there were a few aircraft that had to modified in order to work at KBOS). Too bad we don't have an aircraft editor for 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangPauli Posted November 7, 2017 Report Share Posted November 7, 2017 I played some KBOS last night and ran into the issue again, I was hoping it had been addressed in the BOS SP. The A321 is also a problem at BOS as it cannot accept 9/27. The A321 has a better takeoff performance than the B739 and yet that type has no issue with 9/27. I hope both issues will be addressed in a later SP. The current RT schedule doesn't include it but BOS does have some limited A380 service now on BA and, to the best of my knowledge, that is the only aircraft which has significant performance limitations at Logan. The A380 can only use 4R/22L and 33L/15R, which was a problem over the summer when 4R/22L was closed for reconstruction. Most of the other heavies will use those two runways as well but, in theory, all of them are capable of utilizing 4L/22R and even occasionally (as I pointed out in a previous post) 9/27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crbascott Posted November 7, 2017 Report Share Posted November 7, 2017 Takeoff and landing distance is determined by Real Traffic. Joe apparently notified Nyerges of the 77W issue, not sure if any other planes have been ID'd, tested and submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangPauli Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just did another session, found a couple more. Here's the breakdown so far: 1. B77W is unable to use any of the runways - type should be able to use 15R/33L and 4R/22L 2. A321 is unable to use 9/27 - type should be able to use 9/27, 4L/22R, 4R/22L and 15R/33L 3. A343 can only use 15R/33L - type should be able to use 15R/33L and 4R/22L 4. B748 can only use 15R/33L - type should be able to use 15R/33L and 4R/22L output_log.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crbascott Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 Looks there are are some landing length issues also. I assume in this session you did not have 33L as an active arrival runway. As a result, the sim deleted all B789s (see example below from the log) that were scheduled to arrive since there wasn't an active runway long enough for it to land.. Custom plane found: B789 no usable runway allowed: 33L, requested length: 9130 (Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 42) 15:45:36 alt: 999 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER * JAL8 => Airplane deleted, no usable incoming line found. from route: RJAAlanding len(+10%): 9130 rw length: 15R(9014) 33L(9895) 14(4988) 32(5000) 9(6978) 27(6979) 4L(7840) 22R(7023) 4R(8635) 22L(8591) 15L(2559) 33R(2559) 15:45:36 alt: 999 takeoff: False/False/-2 OWNER_TOWER * JAL8 => Init airplane type: 789 code: B789 category: III class: WIDE_BODY_JET CREATE SERVER AIRPLANE: JAL8 In doing further research I found the B739, B742, B744, B747, B748, B788, and B789 models were unable to land on expected runways at KSAN and/or KBOS even though they were in the schedule. I will follow up with Nyerges on the landing length issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now