KSFO arrival exit issues on 28L and 28R (taxiway connection issues?)

[pete_agreatguy]

Hi,

Experiencing several issues at KSFO with arrivals ignoring exit on taxiway commands. See below examples. Note this happens with the default schedule too but the examples below were using the custom schedule provided here by @Controller- Rogue.

1) 28L: SKY5276 instructed to "vacate runway left onto taxiway D" (line 15398 in log) but exited right onto L:

2) 28L: As the above didn't work I also tried "UAL996 exit at taxiway D" (line 15429) with the same results as above (UAL996 exited right onto L):

3) 28R: EJA990 did not exit right onto taxiway E as expected. Unsure if this is meant to be like this?

4) 28L: SKW5884 was instructed to "vacate runway left onto taxiway E" (line 15624). Again aircraft exited right onto taxiway L:

5) 28L: Aircraft can exit fine at taxiway's J and T:

and ...

Log is attached: output_log.txt

[Pdubya]

Pete:

Craig and others can shed some more specific light on this issue, but I have routinely found that Arrivals tend to exit to the Terminal side of the runway, but not always. Sometimes they listen to your command to "Vacate Runway" R/L, many times you get a "negative" response. I personally have not found any rhyme or reason to the behavior. It's exceptionally irritating for me to say the least.

Others may have a few workarounds or best practices to minimize the problem. If memory serves, KSFO is a bit wonky right now. I have it, but have only played it occasionally.

[pete_agreatguy]

So it isn't an airport issue? Just; if you zoom in closer, there clearly is a connection coming off of 28L onto taxiway Delta. There isn't for Echo mind.

More to do with aircraft not exiting the correct taxiways after landing. They have followed my exit right or left commands without issue in other airports (you have to make sure they have clearance to land prior to giving the vacate runway L/R command).

[pete_agreatguy]

@FeelThere, @FeelThere Ariel and @FeelThere_AJ; is there an ETA on any update to KSFO to address the issues above? 

Thanks

[FeelThere Ariel]

Pete, at one point we will see if KSFO needs some major update or not. These issues are already in our list. 🙂

[pete_agreatguy]

Can I ask, from the developers perspective, what exactly counts as a "major" issue?

I ask because from a consumers perspective, what is happening currently in the sim are major issues!

I was very serious in what I said on the "future airports" thread in that I am contemplating not making any more purchases (along with others I might add).

[FeelThere Ariel]

Pete, we understand your point of view too. Some of these issues are not "airport" related but they have to do with the way the sim engine was built. So, most of the "general" issue fixes are being contemplated for the next Tower version. 

[DeltaVII]

Ariel, to be honest: If the sim engine accepts an instruction to vacate left onto a specific taxiway, but then decides to totally ignore it and vacates the aircraft onto another exit and even in another direction, said sim engine is pretty droppings-like, and it doesn't leave much ground to build trust on when you want us to buy the next version.

I'm not talking about deliberate shortcomings that you condoned to getting the product out and refinancing the temporal (= monetary) investment you took to create it. Nobody expects you as an indy company to beat the big guys in the game market. But when your product accepts user input then it has to follow said input. (Except "pilot error" in this case is explicitly wanted, but then it has to be random, programmed that way - and you have to communicate that these errors occur intentional like the technical issues for planes in Tracon.) What do you think would players say about Microsoft's Flight Sim, if turning the dial for the altitude resulted in making a 180° turn?

You already have done many things to improve the game, and I really appreciate that. Compared to the original one I bought a year ago, many things have been improved. But leaving flaws like these exiting bugs in doesn't leave a good impression when you want us to buy the next version that you're already investing time (and money) in.

If aircraft touch down and creep to the next exit, I can live with that. If aircraft creep to their assigned exit at taxiing speed, I can live with that. That's the way you've constructed it to make it work. I can live with the pushbacks not being realistic (within a minute? oh, come on...). I can live with limited freedom at giving instructions. You found a solution to make it work, in general. That's okay.

But NOT taking the exit that it was assigned is sloppy programming. The year-old issue with the spinning Deltas that fail at finding the leading link at Kennedy's M and MA ramps after pushback is sloppy programming. Sorry to be that harsh. But functionality has to ... well, function. It's okay, if you don't find the error without asking for more input from users and need more time. I'd totally accept an update that would only extend logging functions for those specific issues, and I'd gladly try to help by submitting more logfiles, if you need them.

But accepting "defeat" by saying "we can't do it any better" is something that I'll definitely remember before buying the new version.

[Braf123456]

1 hour ago, FeelThere Ariel said:

Pete, we understand your point of view too. Some of these issues are not "airport" related but they have to do with the way the sim engine was built. So, most of the "general" issue fixes are being contemplated for the next Tower version. 

i wish yall would get the new version out 

[crbascott]

1 hour ago, DeltaVII said:

If aircraft touch down and creep to the next exit, I can live with that. If aircraft creep to their assigned exit at taxiing speed, I can live with that.

You're a little more tolerant than me - I can live with it because I have no other choice. Sadly though, it negatively impacts some airports so much (KSFO and apparently EDDS are prime examples) that it now has to be considered when deciding on any (if any) future purchases. 

3 hours ago, FeelThere Ariel said:

Pete, we understand your point of view too. Some of these issues are not "airport" related but they have to do with the way the sim engine was built. So, most of the "general" issue fixes are being contemplated for the next Tower version. 

FT has been responding next version to "general" issues for well over a year and drew the line in the sand with the last official update of Pro in March. Food for thought, you can only dangle a carrot in front of someone for so long. ☺️🥕☹️ 

[Braf123456]

If they are going to continue making airports for the game they need to continue to update the game as well 

[winsaudi]

1 hour ago, Braf123456 said:

If they are going to continue making airports for the game they need to continue to update the game as well 

@Braf123456 is correct.  If FT keep publishing airports with the same faults then customers are going to walk away from this product (as is evident in other threads).  I personally think that the latest airport, EDDS, is the worst release yet.

@FeelThere @FeelThere Ariel Is it really your business plan to keep dumping airports for T3D onto the market with so many acknowledged problems? Saying that such game engine deficiencies will not be fixed until the next version of Tower yet still releasing airports is disrespecting your customers.  Is that a great plan for sales growth and an expanding customer base? I think not.

Wayne

[Braf123456]

11 minutes ago, winsaudi said:

@Braf123456 is correct.  If FT keep publishing airports with the same faults then customers are going to walk away from this product (as is evident in other threads).  I personally think that the latest airport, EDDS, is the worst release yet.

@FeelThere @FeelThere Ariel Is it really your business plan to keep dumping airports for T3D onto the market with so many acknowledged problems? Saying that such game engine deficiencies will not be fixed until the next version of Tower yet still releasing airports is disrespecting your customers.  Is that a great plan for sales growth and an expanding customer base? I think not.

Wayne

Yeah but  I really enjoy the game but there is to many glitches 

[crbascott]

In Tower!2011 we would have been able to edit some of the airplane characteristics to make KSFO more playable. Definitely a reason to consider modding for the next version.

[Braf123456]

the only thing i hate about tower 2011 is u are looking down on the airport

 

[crbascott]

Pro is definitely a step forward. But just like in life sometimes there's a step backward or two. I'm sure we'll all have fun addressing these when wishlist time comes around. 

Nevertheless, I'm excited about the next version and can't wait to see what FeelThere has up their sleeve as they take the Tower series to the next level.