OnCourse Software

Dan77 wrote:

vololiberista wrote:

The problem is the afcad file. It's too complex for the AI to negotiate. The runway intersections have not been constructed properly. So as the AI arrive they get confused as to where to go. Unfortunately there is a lot of stuff that is payware that has not been finished off or tested properly and doesn't deserve to be payware.

Maybe you can tidy it up and sell it back to the developer!

LOL they can do their own dirty work! This is just the markings on the tarmac but elsewhere the taxiway definitions are missing so where there are complex intersections the AI just stops. Also the runway lines are too short. Some of the runway line nodes are broken and are joined up instead by taxiway nodes. Also many of the taxiways are duplicated and lie on top of each other.

vololiberista wrote:

Dan77 wrote:

vololiberista wrote:

The problem is the afcad file. It's too complex for the AI to negotiate. The runway intersections have not been constructed properly. So as the AI arrive they get confused as to where to go. Unfortunately there is a lot of stuff that is payware that has not been finished off or tested properly and doesn't deserve to be payware.

Maybe you can tidy it up and sell it back to the developer!

LOL they can do their own dirty work!

uudd.jpg

This is just the markings on the tarmac but elsewhere the taxiway definitions are missing so where there are complex intersections the AI just stops. Also the runway lines are too short. Some of the runway line nodes are broken and are joined up instead by taxiway nodes. Also many of the taxiways are duplicated and lie on top of each other.

And a lot of the taxiway designations are wrong as well. So if the default AI don't know where to go PF3 TG certainly won't either.

I'll have a proper go at the AFCAD myself; I'll back up this one and simplify and correct the taxi links etc. I'll post results for your comments (and criticisms)! I did think it looked a bit 'fussy' but I couldn't locate anything that looked plain 'wrong'.

Apart from the AFCAD, this is really a very nice scenery of UUDD so I don't regret buying it in the least. Quite good price too, I thought...

martinlest wrote:

Apart from the AFCAD, this is really a very nice scenery of UUDD so I don't regret buying it in the least. Quite good price too, I thought...

Don't forget the price Vololiberista charges for the AFCAD consultation! Add VAT too.

martinlest wrote:

I'll have a proper go at the AFCAD myself; I'll back up this one and simplify and correct the taxi links etc. I'll post results for your comments (and criticisms)! I did think it looked a bit 'fussy' but I couldn't locate anything that looked plain 'wrong'.

Apart from the AFCAD, this is really a very nice scenery of UUDD so I don't regret buying it in the least. Quite good price too, I thought...

You need to simplify all the crossing points. Where there are too many nodes you only need one, two or three at most. On all the taxiways click on the nodes and move them to see if there is another "buried" taxiway. Make sure that the runway routes (in black) are continuous and extend the full length of the runway. There's enough work for you to claim a full 100% discount.

Dan77 wrote:

martinlest wrote:

Apart from the AFCAD, this is really a very nice scenery of UUDD so I don't regret buying it in the least. Quite good price too, I thought...

Don't forget the price Vololiberista charges for the AFCAD consultation! Add VAT too.

Lol! I'll charge the same for my Enac examiner rates!

Thanks for that.. yes, I'd noticed the overlapping taxi/runway links, but since ADE didn't report these as errors, I left them. I did remove one at the main area of traffic congestion, but it didn't change anything in respect of the 'pile ups'. I'll spend an hour or two cleaning the whole AFCAD up though and see what happens then.

martinlest wrote:

Thanks for that.. yes, I'd noticed the overlapping taxi/runway links, but since ADE didn't report these as errors, I left them. I did remove one at the main area of traffic congestion, but it didn't change anything in respect of the 'pile ups'. I'll spend an hour or two cleaning the whole AFCAD up though and see what happens then.

The best method is to go right back to a simple basic taxiway route. Then check how it looks and check how AI use it. Also make sure that the taxiways are linked correctly. That is the definitions link up rather than having lots of blank taxiways in between. This will also be of benefit to PF3's taxi guidance system. Because as it stands now PF3 wouldn't know what to do.

I have started to edit the file, but could you remind me - if I edit this ADE file in AFCAD2, what functionality will I lose? ADE is coming up with all sorts of errors, especially unlinked nodes, which as far as I can see are just not true (when I move the nodes ADE indicates are faulty, they all move properly and are linked as they should be).

I know I may be in a minority here, but I find the ADE interface MUCH less clear to work with than that of AFCAD2 and for such a large task I would MUCH rather use it. But what exactly would be the price to pay for that? I seem to remember taxiway sign go (?), but also NAV aids (???) - which would be a pain of course.

(How do I get ADE to stop marking aprons with a black outline when I hover the mouse over one, BTW - it's really off-putting to have this unsteady visual image. I can't find an option for this).

I may just go ahead and use AFCAD2 anyway - it's so much easier to see what is going on. Why is the ADE interface so 'chunky' in comparison? I just don't see me getting this done with ADE! Surely, if vital data is lost using AFCAD2, I can add it manually back in ADE afterwards??

.. just as an after-thought:

Watching the AI traffic for a while, I wonder, as I have before, whether the 'problem' is this: OK, traffic arriving on Rwy 32R (in this example) comes off the runway using taxiway B7 (sometimes B6 or B5) and, if taxiway T2 is completely free, continues to the gate. Fine....

However, (and this may or may not be true, but it looks this way), if outbound traffic has been given clearance to taxi to runway 32R and is on the move, incoming traffic will just wait at B7, or B6, or B5 until T2 is clear. That's good, as it stops a/c meeting head on, but with new arrivals, that creates the problem I originally described. I just watched a/c pull off the runway onto taxiway B5, wait (for quite some time) and then, changing their mind, instead of continuing along B5 to T2 directly, turn back along taxiway B4, then along the runway, continue along B6 (if that's not already blocked with traffic waiting for outgoing a/c on T2 to clear), finally getting onto T2. (If you have a chart of UUDD, that's all very clear!):