MakeRwys taxiway data issues with UK2000 EGLC and Pro-ATC/X

[Neil Hewitt]

Hi.

I mentioned in a thread over at Avsim that I was putting together some data on a problem I've been having with Pro-ATC/X no longer recognising or announcing taxiways on some airports (for this post I'll be looking at UK2000's EGLC specifically) after importing data generated with MakeRwys 5. There was a previous thread about this issue which Pete Dowson diagnosed as being probably down to Pro-ATC/X interpreting the taxiway data incorrectly after changes were made to MakeRwys to fix an issue with hold short points being given the wrong type. 

For reference, the previous thread is here: MakeRwys potential bug. - FSUIPC Support Pete Dowson Modules - The simFlight Network Forums

What I've found is that if you import a data set created with MakeRwys <= 4.8.4 into Pro-ATC/X, you get taxiways at EGLC announced; with a data set created with MakeRwys 5.1.1, you do not. So I decided to compare the taxiway data created by each version specifically for EGLC. To do this, I installed fresh versions of P3Dv4.5 and P3Dv5.1 on a development machine, and installed only UK2000 EGLC as an add-on to each. Otherwise, the installs were completely stock.

I ran MakeRwys 4.8.4 and MakeRwys 5.1.1 in turn against the P3Dv4 installation and collected the taxiway CSV file t5.csv from each. I also ran MakeRwys 5.1.1 against the P3Dv5 installation and did the same. Then I extracted just those rows for EGLC out of each of the three files. The data from 5.1.1 for P3Dv4 and v5 were identical (as you would expect) so I discarded the P3Dv5 version of the file. This left me with two sets of CSV data for UK2000 EGLC, created with MakeRwys 4.8.4 and 5.1.1 respectively.

What I notice immediately is that 5.1.1 creates significantly more data. It has multiple entries for each taxiway. I don't know if this is expected or not; the data is not repeated in each entry, it is different. To give an example, this is the data from 5.1.1 for taxiway A:

EGLC,A,10,51.505363,0.044498,7,10,51.505268,0.044437,1,10,51.505146,0.044419,1,10,51.504978,0.044474,1,10,51.504826,0.044653,1,0
EGLC,A,10,51.504829,0.044257,1,10,51.504887,0.04442,1,10,51.504978,0.044474,1,0
EGLC,A,10,51.505383,0.044529,1,10,51.505249,0.044427,1,10,51.5051,0.044426,7,10,51.50502,0.044457,1,10,51.50489,0.044425,1,0
EGLC,A,10,51.504818,0.044656,1,10,51.50502,0.044457,1,0

And this is the data from 4.8.4 for taxiway A:

EGLC,A,24.38,51.505558,0.044747,1,24.38,51.505211,0.044733,2,24.38,51.504745,0.044715,1,0

This is repeated for all the data, but it's not the case that there are x entries in 5.1.1 for every y entries in 4.8.4, it varies; for example, for taxiway L there is only one entry in each file, as follows:

5.1.1 :     EGLC,L,0,51.504105,0.064505,1,0,51.504158,0.064728,1,1,51.504269,0.064934,1,10,51.504364,0.065102,7,10,51.504543,0.065426,1,0
4.8.4 :   EGLC,L,21.34,51.504196,0.063287,1,21.34,51.504143,0.06509,1,21.34,51.504101,0.066414,1,0

It looks to me like 5.1.1 is interpreting the scenery very differently between versions, and it's this difference that's causing the import to Pro-ATC/X to fail. It is the case that, as mentioned in the previous thread, 5.1.1 adds 'no-draw hold-short'  points correctly as type 7, whereas in 4.8.4 they are added as (I think) type 1 or 2, but as the data sets are so different I can't reasonably draw the conclusion that this is the issue with Pro-ATC/X not reading the data properly because I don't understand the reasons why the data is different in other respects. 

Of course that's just my theory, based on the data I've generated. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and let me know a) if you think the 5.1.1 output is correct given the exact same scenery input as the 4.8.4 set, and if so, why there are multiple entries per taxiway in 5.1.1 where before there was only one; and b) if not, what could it be about the scenery that is problematic other than the already-established use of no-draw hold-short points?

My ultimate goal here is to develop a tool that will adjust the t5.csv (and possibly t5.bin, I don't know which Pro-ATC/X actually uses for import) so that an export from the current version of MakeRwys will work with Pro-ATC/X until they fix the issues on their side (which might now happen; there's apparently a beta version of a point update available to beta testers, after years of silence). 

I can't attach the complete versions of both t5.csv files to this post as the best zipped version I can create is still larger than the max attachment size allowed, but a zip with both files can be downloaded here:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AlANnlscyRN4hMlJOw46AOx1ZSnR6g?e=m5a2Eo

Thanks in advance and apologies for the lengthy post!

NH

[Pete Dowson]

1 hour ago, Neil Hewitt said:

Of course that's just my theory, based on the data I've generated. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and let me know a) if you think the 5.1.1 output is correct given the exact same scenery input as the 4.8.4 set

The 4.84 version is very old -- over 3 years in fact -- and a lot of corrections to it would have occurred in response to user reports. I don't have such old source to compare.

To determine if the up to date one is correct I can only suggest you use ADE to examine the taxipath segments for your examples. 

I'm pretty sure the ProATC/X problem was because of the correction to the hold short points. I could consider a command line option to revert to the earlier classification, but that's as far as I can go, really.

Pete

 

[Neil Hewitt]

OK, thanks Pete, appreciate the response. I will get into ADE and see if I can work out what the data *ought* to look like. 

Is it possible to download the intermediate versions of MakeRwys anywhere? Just binaries. It would be useful for me to be able to run the test using a 4.9.x build, for example, and a 5.0.x build. 

[Pete Dowson]

3 hours ago, Neil Hewitt said:

Is it possible to download the intermediate versions of MakeRwys anywhere? Just binaries. It would be useful for me to be able to run the test using a 4.9.x build, for example, and a 5.0.x build.

There's a 4.91 still downloadable. MakeRwys491.zip. But no 5 version before 5.10.

The main change from 4.xx to 5.xx was 32- to 64-bit.

Not sure where you think using anything like this will get you, though. If you have a three year old version and you are happy with it, why not stick with it?

Pete

 

 

[Neil Hewitt]

5 hours ago, Pete Dowson said:

There's a 4.91 still downloadable. MakeRwys491.zip. But no 5 version before 5.10.

The main change from 4.xx to 5.xx was 32- to 64-bit.

Not sure where you think using anything like this will get you, though. If you have a three year old version and you are happy with it, why not stick with it?

Pete

If I run 4.8.4 against my P3Dv5 install it scans through the BGLs in the scenery areas listed in the scenery.cfg, but it only finds 1 airport and 2 runways. I've not been able to make it work correctly on any of my P3Dv5 installs (which is all of my actual sim machines). It also doesn't appear to invoke the LorbySceneryExport.exe which is in the same folder; if I run that separately, rename the output to MakeRwys_scenery.cfg and then run MakeRwys with the /ssng option, it will read the add-on scenery but it still only sees 2 airports and 2 runways on my clean-install-plus-UK2000-EGLC build. And it doesn't see any runways at EGLC. T5.csv (as with most of the other output files) is empty.

Should this version work against P3Dv5? I'm running it as administrator and it definitely doesn't work for me on multiple machines, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong or I have a bad config?

[Pete Dowson]

8 hours ago, Neil Hewitt said:

Should this version work against P3Dv5? I'm running it as administrator and it definitely doesn't work for me on multiple machines, but perhaps I'm doing something wrong or I have a bad config?

It probably doesn't recognise P3D5 as it dates well before its existence. I cannot support such an old version.  Please just stop using it.

If you want to check Taxiway data you would be far better off checking the source of the data put into T5, not T5 itself. That is all in the log, "Runways.txt" and is exactly in the order and types which the BGLs contain -- i.e.

Taxipoints: numbered #0 upwards

Parking places/gates: with optional names, and # reference numbers

Taxipaths: with a # name number or runway number, each just linking two points by their number and giving the width

Taxiways: derived by MakeRunways from the above, tying a series of # numbered taxipoints together in order. These will be fragmented where there are gaps (often "faults" detected by ADE, of which there are many in UK2000 EGLC -- see ADE fault finder).

Taxinames: giving the actual names relating to the # name numbers.

To see how this works, select a small airport. The larger ones have reams of data to wade through.

Note that the data eventually placed into the files, like T5, is derived from the last entry for that airport (unless previous ones are not Deleted -- Deletions are listed in a separate entry beforehand. The files in Runways.txt are in the order which P3D processes them to make sure the later ones override the earlier ones.

I really don't think I can help you any further than this. 

Pete

 

[Neil Hewitt]

4 hours ago, Pete Dowson said:

I really don't think I can help you any further than this. 

Understood, and thanks for your help. Much appreciated. If I do find a solution that works, I'll post it here in case it helps other Pro-ATC/X users. 

[Pete Dowson]

19 hours ago, Neil Hewitt said:

If I do find a solution that works, I'll post it here in case it helps other Pro-ATC/X users. 

So I assume, then, that you think the command line option I offered 6 messages back, to revert the No Draw Hold type encodings, won't be of use. Never mind then.

Pete

 

[Neil Hewitt]

Hi Pete. If I were certain that that's the root cause, that would be a great option. On the previous thread, though, you did produce a build of MakeRwys 4.892 with a similar command line option (/oldnodraw), which I downloaded and ran, and that data set did not work in Pro-ATC/X, so I suspect the problem is more fundamental on the Pro-ATC/X side.

I do appreciate the offer, but I don't want to make extra work for you if it isn't going to help solve the problem. 

[Pete Dowson]

41 minutes ago, Neil Hewitt said:

On the previous thread, though, you did produce a build of MakeRwys 4.892 with a similar command line option (/oldnodraw)

Ah, I had forgotten that! Old age is having such effects these days. 😞

I have just checked the source, and that option is still implemented! 

Sorry, I've no idea what other corrections and improvements made over these last three years would be affecting ProATC/X in a bad way. If you do find anything when examining the data do please let me know.

Pete

 

 

[Neil Hewitt]

46 minutes ago, Pete Dowson said:

Ah, I had forgotten that! Old age is having such effects these days. 😞

Right there with you on that. I often find myself looking at code I wrote a few years back and thinking 'how the hell did I ever understand how this worked?' 🙂

[Neil Hewitt]

A quick reply to summarise my further findings: the reason why there is so much more data in the 5.11 output vs the 4.84 is because (according to the log in runways.txt) 4.84 doesn't actually find any taxiways (or indeed anything else other than two closed runways) at UK2000 EGLC. All the taxiway data for EGLC output  by 4.84 is from the default P3D EGLC.

5.11 does enumerate the taxiway and other data for UK2000 EGLC as well as the default EGLC, hence all the 'extra' data I mentioned at the start of the thread. Pro-ATC/X somehow gets confused with this output. As to exactly why, I don't know yet. Still running tests. 

But a potential solution to my problem seems to be to just disable UK2000 EGLC and run 5.11 over the default scenery, then re-enable before flying again. I shall try that and see if it's a simple shortcut.

Now I'm going to see if I can figure out Pro-ATC/X's database format so I can just visualise the data it imports directly rather than having to fire up the sim each time. 

Should I find anything else of potential interest to Pro-ATC/X + MakeRwys users, I'll post it here. 

 

[Pete Dowson]

33 minutes ago, Neil Hewitt said:

Should I find anything else of potential interest to Pro-ATC/X + MakeRwys users, I'll post it here. 

Okay. Thanks!

Pete