KPHL airport due some (brotherly) love (please?)

[Pdubya]

Vic and Co.:

I am a big fan of KPHL in Tower3D Pro, yet I am regularly frustrated while playing it due to its age (and issues) compared to other airports. Is there much of a chance in getting an update to Philadelphia in celebration of the Eagles championship? 😜

Here are some issues I see with the current version:

1. Airport ground image needs updating along with updated taxiways. Foxtrot taxiway (which doesn't exist in current ver.) would be extremely useful for "around the horn" (one end of the terminal to the other) aircraft movements that are necessary in most KPHL configurations. Additionally noted image of far upper taxiway to runway 17 is grass, not concrete. The glide path to 17 seems pretty unrealistic as well, lots of trees and buildings quite close to the north end.

2. Tendency of arrival aircraft to exit runway 27R to the right even though they are cargo planes and you tell them to "vacate runway left @ X" and it gets acknowledged, only to be ignored a moment later. This regularly results in head-on situations at taxiways M/K3 and N with planes headed to 27L for departure. Very easily repeatable.

2A. Repeatable issue of arrivals ignoring your commands to exit at a specific taxiway. This is not always a problem, but it happens enough to make one gun-shy about bringing taxiing aircraft south of taxiway Kilo for fear of an arrival exiting 27R directly into them. This ends up making your ATC less efficient when it comes to keeping everyone moving when doing a "Juliet East/Kilo West" taxi configuration.

3. Taxiing aircraft using Tango will always stop short of taxiway Papa after being told to cross runway 9L/27R. I don't know why the sim is doing this, but anytime I give a plane "continue taxi" from the terminal side of runway 27L on Tango, they will stop short of Papa. Can't remember if it happens when taxiing towards the terminal via Uniform or not.

Vic, if you really need it, I can run the batch file and compile some data for you. However, most of these issues have been talked about here for quite some time, even in my short time on the forums (1 yr). Here is hoping a refurbish job for KPHL is on the to-do list at FeelThere.

Show Philly some love brother!

Thanks,

P.

p.s., I'd appreciate the community providing feedback on this, whether you agree or not.

[DeltaVII]

45 minutes ago, Pdubya said:

2A. Repeatable issue of arrivals ignoring your commands to exit at a specific taxiway. This is not always a problem, but it happens enough to make one gun-shy about bringing taxiing aircraft south of taxiway Kilo for fear of an arrival exiting 27R directly into them. This ends up making your ATC less efficient when it comes to keeping everyone moving when doing a "Juliet East/Kilo West" taxi configuration.

I've noticed this, too, at KSFO. (I didn't save the log, though.) I ran an early morning session with an Atlas Air coming in on 28R being told to vacate at taxiway U, which it did. A following SkyWest aircraft coming in on 28L was instructed to vacate at J - but it exited at L and to the left (nose facing 28R), which led to having it taxi across runway 28R, via C, across runways 1R and 1L, across runway 28R again, across runway 28L, and to the gate via B, B2. Which is "unfortunate".

Quote

3. Taxiing aircraft using Tango will always stop short of taxiway Papa after being told to cross runway 9L/27R. I don't know why the sim is doing this, but anytime I give a plane "continue taxi" from the terminal side of runway 27L on Tango, they will stop short of Papa.

I can confirm that, either. Which is tricky since sometimes with aircraft on final approach for 27R, because you could send more than one aircraft across 27R, if they didn't pile up back onto the active runway. If you don't want aircraft to take the big harbour tour via Y or even Z (if you use Y to funnel incoming traffic from 27L to the terminals), you need this intersection since N is a potential exit for incoming traffic on 27R.

[CL30]

FYI, taxiway J at SFO is closed now, permanently.  I was just there and saw it in the NOTAMs.  

[FeelThere_Vic]

Thank you for the lovely report 🙂
Yes I agree KLAX, KPHL is a bit aged in Tower now, but we locked the product for now. At this moment (within the team) is about how are we going to make these airports backward compatible with the next version of Tower (I wish I'd have the freedom to tell you the so far planned list that we want to add this new version, but I can tell you that I type this with a huge smile on my face 🙂 ). At the moment we are not planning to touch the included airports as it would require an SP for Tower itself which we decided not to do. IF we come up with some solution of updating the included airports without touching Tower then it is possible we'll send out an SP but it's not a promise.

 

Thank you

Vic

 

[Braf123456]

hey are u still going to make airports for this game right

[Canadianwpg]

9 hours ago, FeelThere said:

Thank you for the lovely report 🙂
Yes I agree KLAX, KPHL is a bit aged in Tower now, but we locked the product for now. At this moment (within the team) is about how are we going to make these airports backward compatible with the next version of Tower (I wish I'd have the freedom to tell you the so far planned list that we want to add this new version, but I can tell you that I type this with a huge smile on my face 🙂 ). At the moment we are not planning to touch the included airports as it would require an SP for Tower itself which we decided not to do. IF we come up with some solution of updating the included airports without touching Tower then it is possible we'll send out an SP but it's not a promise.

 

Thank you

Vic

 

If I am misunderstanding the above comment, then please correct me, but as it reads to me:

I must say (and I did indeed create a forum account to say it) that this news, that the base game maps are now "locked" until the sequel comes out,  is very concerning to me.

Tower3D! Pro, which has only been available on steam for 14 months, is a very solid game although it does seem to have some engine limitations. And while I recognize that it is implied that things will get a lot better in the next product, I feel uneasy hearing that the existing product will only receive support for its DLCs. I respect the work needed to create a sequel, but I am unable to understand how closely the base maps are woven to the core engine of the game.

[FeelThere_Vic]

Please re-read my answer;
IF we come up with some solution of updating the included airports without touching Tower then it is possible we'll send out an SP but it's not a promise.

What I meant is that we are still looking for a solution but I can't promise it. At one point one must lock a development of a version and move into the next. We just released the latest SP 3.3d a month or so ago so I think it proves our dedication toward supporting the product (after more than a year of it's original release).

If there is a real bug, please make sure to document it and attach the log so we can reproduce it.

 

Thank you

 

Vic

 

[Michi10]

I did not get this patch Sp 3.3d although the automatic update is switched on. I still have SP3.3c. How do I get this new update on Steam?

[FeelThere Ariel]

19 hours ago, Braf123456 said:

hey are u still going to make airports for this game right

Yes, we will still develop new airports 🙂

[Braf123456]

2 hours ago, FeelThere Ariel said:

Yes, we will still develop new airports 🙂

ok I really enjoy the game im playing mco right now

[nrholland]

1. I tried downloading version 3.4 using the original download page I got when I first got Tower! 3D.  I have version 3.3, but it won't give me version 3.4.  Is there a problem or am I doing something wrong?

 

[nrholland]

My mistake.  I was referring to version 3.3d (not 3.4).

[hexzed]

So to clarify, are we up to service pack 3.3c or 3.3d?

Steam says 3.3c and this is the same here

 

[Pdubya]

On 7/5/2018 at 10:44 AM, FeelThere said:

Thank you for the lovely report 🙂
Yes I agree KLAX, KPHL is a bit aged in Tower now, but we locked the product for now. At this moment (within the team) is about how are we going to make these airports backward compatible with the next version of Tower (I wish I'd have the freedom to tell you the so far planned list that we want to add this new version, but I can tell you that I type this with a huge smile on my face 🙂 ). At the moment we are not planning to touch the included airports as it would require an SP for Tower itself which we decided not to do. IF we come up with some solution of updating the included airports without touching Tower then it is possible we'll send out an SP but it's not a promise.

Thank you

Vic

 

Vic: Thanks for answering first off; also for being honest about your company's intentions. I can get behind the idea of moving on to a new version. Of course it would hurt if I had to buy all the airports again, but sometimes life insists on providing you lemons, so you make lemonade, eh?

Keep truckin'.

[Pdubya]

Problem fixed.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Pdubya

[crbascott]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:36 PM, nrholland said:

  Is there a problem or am I doing something wrong?

You are doing something very wrong - Bradley. You need to edit your post and delete that screenshot - you are sharing way too much information. 

I'm surprised a moderator hasn't deleted the post - it's not good for @nrhollandand @FeelThere.

[nrholland]

Sorry about that.  I'll make sure I don't ever do that again.

[FeelThere_Vic]

Sorry the version number was my mistake. Steam and the list here is up to date. I apologize Folks!

As the serial number posted; I can't see it is it gone?

 

Thank you

 

Vic

[FeelThere_Vic]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:26 PM, Pdubya said:

Vic: Thanks for answering first off; also for being honest about your company's intentions. I can get behind the idea of moving on to a new version. Of course it would hurt if I had to buy all the airports again, but sometimes life insists on providing you lemons, so you make lemonade, eh?

Keep truckin'.

Thank you for the attitude and the understanding. It's difficult to say anything about the next version yet, but I want to make sure when you "have to buy it again" will carry some extra value  too 🙂 In fact I'd like to see more default airports included in the next version.

We don't want to spill  out too much about this new version but I can tell you that it wont just be a manicured Tower!3D under a new name. I want to make sure it will be a good value and it would help to further prove the franchise. The plan is to release a Tower!X in every second or so year.

 

Thank you

 

Vic

[Pdubya]

Vic:

Well, as they say - the proof's in the pudding. I appreciate the effort to maybe agree to include more pre-existing (aka older) airports under the initial release; that helps a lot with feeling better about money being well-spent, at least from my personal point-of-view. However, I would expect there will be a hefty group who will voice displeasure at needing to buy airports they have purchased in the previous version(s). It's just human nature I suppose.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you envision a new game that brings at least a few new approaches (see what I did there?) to pushing tin, whether it's capabilities we currently do not have at our disposal, or information available, or even a whole new feature I haven't thought of yet.

Also Vic- I sincerely hope FeelThere will seriously consider Early Access Alpha or Beta with existing customers to help provide you feedback on the direction you are headed. I know it can feel a bit stifling creatively, not to mention a royal PITA at times; but it is a great way to connect with your core customers and garner not only their support in making a good game great, but also provide a sense of "ownership" for those who contribute. If nothing else it's a good exercise for you to think about and fit into an alternative development plan timeline with a cost-benefit analysis.

I am only one guy, and a single guy who tends to spend a lot of money on my games, so maybe I don't represent a large majority here, so there is that too. Best of luck going forward, and I encourage you to stretch your comfort zone when it comes to development this time around Vic. You might be surprised with the results!

Thanks for listening,

Paul

[FeelThere_Vic]

Hi Paul,

I'm usually opposing the idea of Early Access or beta releases, but I'm also opened to try it once. It could be very helpful by getting feedback from the community but I'm afraid it could go out of hand quickly once we reject a feature or we lock the development at some point. 99% of our community is friendly and really patient and helpful to us, a joy to talk to but every once in a while we got so much hostile attitude from certain members that is really ruining our days. So it's really a risky decision and as much as I would love to try maybe this is one of the case where a "no" makes more sense.

Please let us sleep on it.

Vic

 

 

[VenturaGuy101]

You could do a closed beta where you choose some of the more active and helpful members of this community to test rather than an open Early Access.

[Braf123456]

yeah thats a great idea do a rafle for like fifteen poeple

[Pdubya]

Vic:

It's kind of funny in a way- before I decided to write you about involving the community I had a definite pause myself; for certain- this isn't something to take lightly, particularly with this board's history. It's a shame that people on the internet can't behave themselves better but we are all stuck with it. As you say, it would require a lot of thought about how to present the idea and what format it would take. The last thing you want is expectations getting out of hand and a virtual Frankenstein torch and pitchfork scene occurring.

I would hate that more than the alternative.

Honestly, anything I think of to promote community involvement is rife with places and opportunities for Aviation Grognards (French term for grumblers borrowed by gamers long ago) and other ill-wishers to punch big holes in it.

Perhaps as VenturaGuy101 mentioned above, a closed test of some kind.

Cheers,

P.

[FeelThere_Vic]

That's another possibility too. We did that before so it's likely an option to reach out active members during beta testing and ask them to participate in the testing.

For now I'll take the annual vacation starting on Monday and I'm sure  I will think about it too 🙂

 

Thank you so much for the ideas, I love these kind of brainstorming.

 

Vic