Adding Traffic to an entire airport?
Printed From: Just Flight Forum
Category: Just Flight Products
Forum Name: Traffic 360
Forum Description: Discussion area for Traffic 360
URL: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=22139
Printed Date: 23 Apr 2024 at 11:01pm
Topic: Adding Traffic to an entire airport?
Posted By: codee66
Subject: Adding Traffic to an entire airport?
Date Posted: 13 Apr 2014 at 10:15am
| I just created a new airport and imported into Traffic 360, is there any quick way to add some AI to it without having to create each one individually? Part of the issue is I made a large airport, and that would be a lot of flight plans to create. Thanks for any help. |
Replies:
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 13 Apr 2014 at 11:25pm
|
Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no, there is no "quick" way to do this. Adding flights individually is the only way to do it. I think it would be similar to this ... I recently added a new 787 model and all of the respective liveries in to Traffic X. (I am using Traffic X, but Traffic 360 and Traffic X are similar enough for me to use Traffic X as an example.) In Traffic X (and I believe Traffic 360 as well) the 787 aircraft model was wrong (incorrect shape; using an early concept design), there were only a handful of 787 liveries, and there were even fewer flight plans ... so I searched for and downloaded an appropriate model and liveries. For each of those liveries, I had to individually add flights to/from the relevant airports all over the world. There simply wasn't an easier or better way to do what was required. The work took me a few days. Many airports and destinations. But now I have 787s, from all of the relevant airlines, flying in my skies, all over the globe, to/from the correct airports. I think adding an entire airport will be similar. You'll simply need to individually add relevant flight plans for it. Then again, for all I know, somebody else could reply and explain that there is indeed a better way. So I'll watch this space with interest. Personally I don't mind doing that kind of work anyway as I find it fun and enjoyable. Especially at the end when you see the results of all of your work. It's a real sense of achievement. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2014 at 4:48am
| Darn, I guess I should get started on it that way. Thanks for the info though, I'm still new at using 360, and haven't done any custom flight planning yet. |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 1:26am
| Careful ... I found that once I got started working on flight plans and began seeing the planes I had added parked at the gates, taxiing, and taking off and landing at the airport(s), I quickly became addicted. I find that to have the ability to add/edit/modify and otherwise manipulate the planes and flight plans as you see fit is quite rewarding. Of course, that may not be the case for everybody, but, for me, it's a damn lot of fun and adds a whole new dimension to the flight sim "hobby". |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 4:53am
| I added a few last night, then compiled the flights plans, but I didn't see any planes at all... Hmm.. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 5:05am
|
Also, in my flight plan list, I am unable to load the plans of many airlines, I was thinking of just editing some of them. I tried adding new, and hit Delta, but it ends up blank, with no airlines... http://i.imgur.com/5zc94HV.jpg
And the one that says unspecified is quiet a few airlines I've never heard of... http://i.imgur.com/t0ytUFM.jpg
|
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 8:29am
|
As I have Traffic X, and not Traffic 360, I am unable to help with the blank Delta Airlines screen that you see. "Unspecified Carrier" is indeed for airlines/planes that do not appear in the usual lists and headings of airlines. In other words, if you have a plane from an airline that you can't find listed in Traffic 360's normal airline list (ie, there's nowhere for you to put it), then you would put that airline/plane in to the "Unspecified Carrier" area. If you add plans and then COMPILE (most folks do forget to do the Compile), then it should just work. You do of course need to close and re-run FSX (well, it should of course be closed BEFORE you do your Compile) ... Some things to be aware of ... Note that after a compile, when you run FSX, you should initially see a percentage bar on the screen as FSX notices that there has been a database change and loads in the new details. Did you see that? Considering you are working on/with a new airport, it could be that the planes you are adding flight plans for are not able to park at that airport because the parking parameters for the various parking spots at the airport are not correct (ie, they are too small and cannot accommodate aircraft with large wing spans, or they are RAMP parking spots instead of GATE parking spots, etc). I would therefore suggest you try adding a flight plan for, say, a Cessna at a small regional airport (one that does not have a lot of existing planes, but does have empty parking spots which are free and available). If you do that, compile, and it DOES work (ie, you see your Cessna at that airport), then you can be confident that you are doing things correctly. Also note that, if Traffic 360 is similar to Traffic X, the compile will add a RANDOM traffic percentage number to your plane. If your FSX traffic percentage slider setting is higher than this number, then you will not see your plane in FSX. So, you may need to compile again, which will assign a new random traffic percentage number to the plane (and, hopefully this time, it will be one that is LESS than your traffic percentage slider setting in FSX). Or, (easier), a way to "cheat" this would be to simply set the FSX traffic slider percentage to 100%. That will "guarantee" that your plane will appear, regardless of whatever randomly assigned traffic percentage number it gets given. Then, later, you can set the FSX traffic percentage slider back down to where you normally have it and see if the plane STILL appears. I wish I could help more than that. But, as I said, I have Traffic X, not Traffic 360. So I am unable to suggest much more than merely the above. Still, that's a few helpful tips for you there.  Hopefully someone else can give clues as to why Delta is not showing planes etc. And hopefully armed with these tips, you can get your compile to work. Or, if you cannot solve it, then maybe you should consider contacting Just Flight Support via the appropriate channels. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 8:34am
| Sorry. That got double posted. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 8:35am
|
Alright, I'll have to try that tomorrow. I've been putting my flight plans into the unspecified list, so I'm not sure if that could be a reason as well.. It's not just Delta, I can't access any of the other airlines flight plans... Also, I cant find a single American Airlines plane to add in to my flight plans, which seems pretty odd.
|
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 8:41am
| Whether you put them in to "Unspecified Carrier", or not, they should still work. Although, that said, it's best practice and makes sense to put Delta planes in to the Delta Airlines list, and American planes in to the American Airlines list, etc etc etc. However, if you've got more than one airline not showing planes, then that doesn't sound right. I think it might be a good idea for you to contact Just Flight Support to ensure that things are all installed as they should be. It can't hurt just to be sure. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2014 at 8:32pm
| Sounds good, thanks for the help.. I'll post again with some answers. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 16 Apr 2014 at 7:08am
| Still nothing in terms of traffic, I've added 30+ flights so far. I've got the parking as a gate in ADE, looking at the Airport information part, it shows a count of all of the parking spaces I have set...And when I load up FSX after compiling it, I compile it as a file named traffic360 in the default area that it sends me to when I press the Compile button.. Also tried adding a few new planes to stock airports like KBFI and they didnt show up either. |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 2:33am
|
Compiled traffic files for FSX usually go in to the "C:\...\Flight Simulator X\Scenery\World\Scenery" folder. Check that your newly compiled .BGL file is going in to that folder (check the date/time stamp for the file to make sure it is today's date and time). If you've taken a backup first, then it is completely OK to "overwrite" the existing Traffic360.BGL file with the newly compiled one. When running FSX to see if your planes appear, try setting your traffic percentage slider in FSX to 100%. I had edited my post above to include a few more "pointers" and things to be aware of. You might not have seen that edited post and therefore may want to re-read it again in case you missed anything. The traffic percentage slider tip was something I added when I did my post edits. Also mentioned in my post above is what you should expect to see after you compile and then run FSX. You should see a percentage slider BEFORE the sim loads, showing that it acknowledges a database change has occurred and is loading that in. Are you seeing that? (Not seeing that could be a clue that your newly compiled .BGL file is not being put in to the correct location for FSX to "see" it ... ie, the "C:\...\Flight Simulator X\Scenery\World\Scenery" folder I mentioned above.) |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 4:18am
| Edit. I feel stupid... I didn't know that the exe window that pops up was the compiler itself... I assumed that when it said "File Saved" that meant it was compiled... |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 5:23am
|
Hehe. I assume Traffic 360 would be similar/same to Traffic X (if it's using the FSX compiler files, as Traffic X does, then it will be the same) ... ... So the compile process will be complete AFTER you see a DOS window, which will remain on the screen for a while (with nothing in it), before eventually disappearing. After that DOS window disappears, Traffic X shows the word "Finished" on the Traffic X screen. That's when the compile is done. That's how it is for Traffic X. Traffic 360? Probably the same or similar. So, if you've now worked that out ... ... then you should be good to go. Your last post sounds like you've now got it working? |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 6:44am
| Yes I did! Just have a long road of addind flight plans to go... I've only seen one plane at my airport thusfar, with 41 plans added... lol |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 6:58am
| 41 flight plans, but only one plane? If they are all to/from the same airport, then something doesn't sound right. I'd expect, for 41 flight plans, to see at least 33% to 50% of those planes at the airport (so about 13 to 20 planes), even coming from various far away locations. (Of course that would depend on your departure and arrival times.) But, the fact you do have 1 plane is indeed a start ... and shows that you are doing something right. Remember my tip to set FSX's traffic slider percentage to 100% when looking for planes at your airport. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 7:02am
| I've got it at 100%, I've only loaded it twice, and only flew over the airport once each time though, didn't wait a few minutes to see if a few were flying in... And I've got them going to different airports. Is it better for every flight to be going to the same place? |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 7:22am
|
Ah. I see. That sounds right then. A lot will also depend on the parking spots (Gates, Ramps, etc) and the size of the planes that you are setting up to go to and fly from the airport. If the planes are "too big" (wingspan too large) for the size of the parking spots, then those planes simply won't appear at the airport when you load FSX (spots are not large enough for them to be parked at), or, they will land and then just "vanish" in to thin air (because, similarly, there is nowhere for them to park). So keep that in mind as well. The planes that you set for the airport, must all be able to "park" at the airport. Another way of looking at it is this: it's no good sending a 747 to an airport that only has spots large enough for Regional Jets. Another example would be a 737 which needs a GATE parking spot, and therefore cannot appear if there are only RAMP parking spots available. As for is it better for every flight to be going to the same place ... well, that all depends on what YOU want to achieve. For a brand new airport, I'd set planes to fly *TO* that airport from a lot of different locations. But, I'd also set up planes to fly *FROM* that airport as well. Exactly as it would work in the real world. About 50/50 is a good rule, but 60/40 or 40/60 works too. It just depends on what YOU want to do and how you want the airport to work. Instead of flying over the airport to see if planes are there, I just load up FSX and park MYSELF (the USER PLANE) at that airport. Then I use external views to look around the airport, or the right-click menu to view the traffic. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 7:32am
|
Ahhh... I've only been setting plans for planes being based at my airport so far. I've got a lot of heavy gates, and theres some space between them. I could add a bit of heavy ramp parking if theres not enough room at the gates. Too bad theres no way to add some random flights to the airport, as well as flightplans I made myself.
|
Posted By: reider
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 8:37am
|
A lot of these new generated flights may not show up in the first 15 minutes from start. They take time to generate and get going. So take little notice of the first 15 minutes, especially for planes flying in to the airport. I never used 360, beta tested Traffic X but really wasn't impressed with it, so I eventually went back to Traffic. I can easilly add jets and light aircraft in there, as well as Traffic X. Even microlights to my beloved EGCB Barton Airfield. But they all work on the same principle and each are just an extension of each other and a few niceties added along with new aircraft and skins. Occasionally I make new flights for an airport and add them in with any airport files in the Add Ons folder. Much easier to decompile, work on just the selected flights and planes, then recompile. Less stress than working with the full traffic file/s but I can reailly use either way. Good luck in all you do...... ------------- 
|
Posted By: RayM
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2014 at 9:28am
|
I have been following this conversation and Freddy has been very helpful in his information. If problems are still happening, create a load of flights LEAVING your airport using 'small' planes with them all leaving at about the same time, say 12:00 hours local - it does not matter where they are going but send them to the same place (make it somewhere about 1 hour away). send them all back to your airport - again set them to take off at about the same time (say 16:00 hours local). Compile and make sure the new BGL is the folder specified by Freddy. Now, set yourself in FSX at your airport about 5 minutes before the specified departure time. If you look around you should see a lot of the new flights parked around the airport. These flights should depart one by one. If this works, reset your time to about 1 hour after the planes have taken off from the remote airport. You should see that the planes start arriving and taxying into your parking spots. If this all works, all you need to do is delete the flight plans that you created for this test and put in some more realistic ones. Note that flying over an airport is not the best way to see what is sitting on that airport as, from my experience, unless you fly very low, aircraft often do not appear on the ground. In Traffic X which, like Freddy, I am sticking to, there is a way to create RANDOM flights but as I have never tried it I cannot advise how this works. I imagine Traffic 360 has the same capability. There is a degree of 'randomness' in the system because, every time you compile your flight plans, as a result of the % value that is created in the compiled file, the flights you see will not be the ones you saw before the new compile. Good luck. ------------- A long time FSXA and Traffic X user |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2014 at 12:56am
| The random "Traffic Generator" in Traffic X that RayM speaks about only randomly generates VFR flights for general aviation (GA) aircraft (Cessnas, Barons, Mooneys, etc). Due to the way airlines belong to respective countries and fly to specific destinations accordingly, the random "Traffic Generator" cannot, and therefore doesn't, generate flights for airlines. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2014 at 10:17am
|
I've got it starting to fill up now, the issue I was having was that I wasn't setting up the "flight rules" part of the flight plan. So I set them to IFR and I'm good. Now, I'm trying to edit the approaches to my airport, the ones that ADE set up by default were really messed up, and none of the AI was able to land at the airport... The ADE approach editor is confusing! Once I've got my airport full, and am all done, I'll post some pictures on here... It's not great, but it's pretty good for my first airport, if I'm able to get these stupid approaches down...
|
Posted By: RayM
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2014 at 11:52am
|
Congratulations, you have joined the club of "Traffic" users who have battled to sort out how to use the programs effectively. There will be quite a load more wrinkles that you will come across but I am sure there will be users of this forum who will assist you in future. Sorting out your approaches is another huge ball game that you have joined - best wishes with that. ------------- A long time FSXA and Traffic X user |
Posted By: RayM
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2014 at 12:04pm
|
Freddy, regarding the random generation of flights that can be achieved, I looked at the TX_biz.tcc file that came with the installation of Traffic X and found that it only contained 14 sundry flights using Learjet, HS125,XP800,Citation and Gulfstream V's. Having saved a copy of this file, I used the system to generate a new set of "Business" flights using the same aircraft as before plus some extra that I have assembled over the years. The new file contains 7250 flights! There are certainly a load that I could eliminate had I the time to do it but this seems a good way to generate flights using the non-airline biz aircraft. If this is re-generated occasionally, then I will seem different aircraft operating out of my usual fields. I will not be generating non-biz VFR flights as I seem to have sufficient within the existing TX_VFR_xxx.tcc files. ------------- A long time FSXA and Traffic X user |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 12:21am
|
Codee66, that's fantastic that you are now seeing good results. Welcome to the world of "I rarely fly anymore, I find I seem to spend a lot of my time editing". Fun isn't it? I never played with the approaches in ADE because, you're right, it is a little confusing and, frankly, after an hour or so with it, I gave up. Interestingly, I can do just about anything else with ADE without any issues whatsoever. And, you'd think that because I understand airport approach charts, including SIDS and STARS, that I'd be able to work it out. I suppose I just never really gave it enough time. And, yes, it would be great to see some screenshots. Remember to put those in this forum here: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=21&title=screenshots" rel="nofollow - Screenshots , but post in THIS forum to let us know they're there. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RayM, I have used the Random Traffic generator to great effect to create GA VFR and Business IFR flights for the entire planet. It works well for that, but, sadly, and somewhat annoyingly for me, it doesn't always populate EVERY airport that has valid parking spots. As a result, some countries get well populated, and others simply do not. Still, it is a handy tool and serves you well when you add new planes to your hangar. I don't want to hijack the thread, and I note that this is a Traffic 360 forum, but here are some notes I made a while ago on the Random Traffic Generator in Traffic X: =================================== For an aircraft to appear on the Traffic X Traffic Generator screen, it's IFR% on the Fleet Database screen must be set correctly (see below). The Beech King Air 350 aircraft, by default, is set with an IFR% of 75%. This value prevents it from appearing on the Traffic Generator screen. I consider this an oversight on Just Flight's behalf, and, despite advising them of this (and getting an acknowledgement, it was never fixed). To get the Beech King Air 350 aircraft (or any other aircraft) to appear on the Traffic Generator screen, in either the VFR aircraft column or the Business aircraft column, set its IFR% value on the Fleet Database screen to one of the following: For VFR aircraft...IFR% of 50% or less on the Fleet Database screen. For Business aircraft...IFR% of 76% or higher on the Fleet Database screen. Therefore, set the IFR% for the Beech King Air 350 to 76% or higher and it will appear in the Business aircraft column of the Traffic Generator screen. Set the IFR% for the Beech King Air 350 to 50% or lower and it will appear in the VFR column of the Traffic Generator screen. It's default value of 75% does not allow it to appear in either column (which, as I said above, is more than likely an oversight on Just Flight's part where a line of code is possibly written as ">75" instead of ">=75".) You can use the IFR% value on the Fleet Database screen to "move" aircraft from one column to the other simply by setting an appropriate value for their IFR%. ---------------------- NOTE: The Business aircraft column of the Traffic Generator screen generates IFR FLIGHTS ONLY. It does does NOT generate VFR flights. Therefore, even though the IFR% might be set to a value of 76%, it does not mean that the remaining 24% of flights generated from this screen will be VFR flights. ---------------------- =================================== |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 5:27pm
|
Another issue I've run into is planes parking only in my small gates. http://i.imgur.com/V6yZhbt.jpg?1?9494 (right wing of the terminal, I know, poorly setup, but I'm still changing the airport, just testing things out for now) There should be plenty of room in the other gates, but I'm also getting heavies, like a 747 cramming into those gates, so much so that they are fused with a 737. I've done some gate assigning in ADE , but about half of the traffic I'm using is for an extinct airline, that ADE doesnt have in their list that I can assign them to. I'm using ATA, one of my favorite airlines, they were my first flight. Are they just going into the small gates becuase I dont have enough traffic yet and T360 only fills out small parts of the airport at a time?
|
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 1:41pm
|
OK, for a plane to park in a spot, a few things get looked at by FSX. Here are two of those things which play a fairly significant part: 1) The parking details for the plane that are set in its airline.cfg file, and, 2) The parking spot sizes and details that are in the AFCAD file. Let's look at each of those in more detail ... ================================================== 1) A plane parks based on what is set in its aircraft.cfg file ... as follows: atc_parking_codes=AAL ... airline code. atc_parking_types=GATE ... what type of parking will it use. (To get a list of valid parking codes, Google "FSX parking codes", or "FSX atc_parking_codes", or similar.) It is possible to have up to five (but no more) atc_parking_codes set in the aircraft.cfg file as long as you separate them with commas; like this: atc_parking_codes=AAL,DAL,UAL ... note: no spaces between commas. With those codes (and remember this is only an example), the plane can park either at an American Airlines gate, a Delta gate, or a United Airlines gate. The first code is the MOST important one, down to the last code which is the LEAST important. So for an American Airlines plane, be sure to put AAL as the first code, and not something like DAL (which would be Delta). But, obviously most of your planes will usually only have or need ONE parking code. ------------------- It is also possible to have more than one atc_parking_type set in the aircraft.cfg file as long as you also separate it with commas; like this: atc_parking_types=RAMP,GATE,CARGO ... note: no spaces between commas. This will mean that a plane will park either at a RAMP, a GATE, or a CARGO spot. -------------------------------------------------- 2) In your AFCAD file, you need to provide the appropriate size (radius) spots that you need for various aircraft. So, for 747s, the spots would be large (say size 36 to 41, "heavy" spots), but for smaller planes like 737s the spots would obviously be smaller (say size 18 to 24, "medium" spots). In the AFCAD you also need set the parking CODES for each of the parking spots. To do this you double-click on a spot and then enter the parking CODES for that spot. I find it easy to simply manually enter them rather than use the drop down options. And, yes, you can enter more than one for the same spot (up to about 20 or so I think) ... again, just separate them using commas. For example, AAL,DAL,UAL,SWA,AWE,VRD. Using these codes, you configure the AFCAD so that the airlines will all park in the correct places (terminals) at the airport. So you will see all the American Airlines planes at the American Airlines terminal, the Delta planes at the Delta terminal, etc. The International terminal at your airport would be where you would most likely use more than one code for the same parking spot which will allow a number of different planes from different International airlines to park in that one spot. ================================================== So ... Now, it becomes logical how it all works ... In your AFCAD you would have the right size spots, along with the assigned PARKING CODES for those spots. AND, in the aircraft.cfg files, you have the corresponding settings in the file for parking codes, parking types (GATE or RAMP or CARGO, or a combination of those), and wing_span size. When FSX loads, or when a plane lands, FSX will look at the details in the airplane.cfg file, and search for a parking spot in your AFCAD that is the right size, the correct type (RAMP, GATE, etc), and also has a matching parking code. There is lots of information on the subject matter of FSX and AI parking etc on the Internet. Some Google searching will probably answer any questions you have much better than you posting them here. And, the ADE manual is a good resource as well for things like parking spot sizes and entering parking codes etc. A TIP: I find it wise to leave some parking spots in the AFCAD (only a few) WITHOUT ANY parking codes entered (leave them BLANK). This covers any planes that land at the airport that may happen to have atc_parking_codes in their aircraft.cfg file that ARE NOT assigned in any of the parking spots in your AFCAD file. If such a plane lands at your airport, a parking code match won't be found for any of the parking spots that have assigned parking codes, and, therefore, the plane will end up parking in one of the BLANK parking spots. This is preferable than the plane landing, not finding a match, and then "vanishing" (*poof*) unrealistically in to thin air because FSX cannot find a spot for it to park. |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 7:24pm
|
I've already got all of the parking spots sized. The question about codes was if an Airline like ATA that is not in the ADE database, would the code for the spot still work? And is there any way to force the small planes from the airline to ONLY park in the small gates? and keep the larger ones in the larger gates? For example, set it so Delta CRJ's are parking only in the smaller gates, and 737's and 757's are parking in medium only, and the 747 only parks in the heavy? Becuase I'm still getting random heavies in the small gates, even with the parking radius set to 18 meters. This whole airport thing is starting to make me feel clueless.. lol
|
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 2:42am
|
Ahh. Your post it tells me that you do have an understanding of parking spot sizes and parking codes etc ... good. But, despite this, you are seeing planes still parking in the wrong (size) spots. OK, I know what your problem is. No, you haven't done anything wrong. And, therefore, no, you should not feel clueless ... The problem is that Traffic 360's AI planes have the WRONG wing_span sizes (values) in their respective aircraft.cfg files. For example, the Traffic 360 AI 747 will have a wing_span value in its aircraft.cfg file that is wrong. ie, it is set too small (probably the size of a 737). Even though the plane is LARGE and is drawn the correct size, the FSX software looks at the value in the aircraft.cfg file, and uses that value to work out where the plane can park. Because that value is set incorrectly in the 747's airline.cfg file (set too low), the 747 plane will park in a SMALL spot. (But, don't panic; it's easy to fix - read on ...) To fix this, it will be necessary to open all of the aircraft.cfg files for the Traffic 360 AI planes, and manually edit the wing_span values to the correct values. That sounds like a big task, but, thankfully, it actually isn't. It really doesn't take all that long to do this at all. OK ... ... In the airplane_geometry section of the aircraft.cfg file, the "wing_span=" value determines the parking size. This value is in FEET. You need to open the respective aircraft.cfg file for each of the Traffic 360 AI planes, and enter the (correct) total wing span value for the plane, in feet, from wingtip to wingtip. The way FSX uses the value is as follows: It divides the value in half and then converts that to whole meters. The calculated result is used to determine the respective aircraft parking spot size that the plane will use. (Note that it is always rounded up - so if the calculated result is 17.0000001 metres, then that would mean the plane needs an 18.0 metre spot for parking). Here is a list of most commercial aircraft sizes: Link: http://www.flightsim2004-fanatics.com/FlightSim/FSXWingSpanValues.htm" rel="nofollow - FSX Wing Span Values It's an older web page, but the values are what are relevant here and planes don't magically change size so the values will obviously all be correct. A question does come to mind ... why are the values for wing_span in Traffic 360 incorrect (just like they also were in Traffic X)? I think this might have been done by Just Flight to allow for the larger planes to be able to park at some of the smaller airports in FSX. However, it does have a downside in that sometimes the larger planes can end up parking in the WRONG spots at the larger major airports and can sometimes end up parking in spaces where they shouldn't be. Just like you are seeing here at your own airport. Worse, in some cases, it results in the plane not being able to park at all and therefore not even appearing at the airport. It is therefore, in my opinion, just better to "FIX" it and have the correct values. Obviously after you make the changes in the aircraft.cfg files, planes will start to park in the correct sized spots. This means your airport should begin to look more realistic. But, also be mindful that you will notice changes at all the OTHER airports in FSX as well. And, in some cases you may even notice LESS planes at those airports as the larger planes may no longer be able to park at some of the airports (if those airports only have small parking spots). |
Posted By: codee66
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 7:14am
|
Yep. Thats exactly what it was... Wingspan of the 747 was set to 94. Which is ~15m parking spot.. I'll fix that... Hopefully I wont have anymore issues, and my next post will be letting you know I posted some screenshots!
Thank you!
|
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 7:46am
|
94? Yep, that rings a bell. I think you might find that a lot of the AI planes will be set to that (at least they were for Traffic X if I remember correctly). 94 feet / 2 = 47 feet. And 47 feet = 14.3256 metres. So, yes, that would be a 15 metre parking spot. For a 747 that would indeed be incorrect. The correct value for the "wing_span=" for a 747-400 aircraft (from the web page I linked to in the above post) should be 211.5 feet. 211.5 feet / 2 = 105.75 feet. And 105.75 feet = 32.2326 metres. Therefore, a 33 metre parking spot. So if you correct the value in the 744 AI plane's aircraft.cfg file and set wing_span=211.5 then it would park only in parking spots that are 33 metres or larger in your AFCAD. All of that along with the appropriate parking code(s), and parking type set to "GATE" in the aircraft.cfg file ... PLUS the respective corresponding parking codes and types for the parking spots in the airport AFCAD ... and the 747 will not only park in the correct sized spots, but also at the correct gates and appropriate terminals. 
|
Posted By: RayM
Date Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 9:02am
|
codee66 all these problems remind me of the old days when I started using Traffic X. If there is editing to do on a load of "aircraft.cfg" files (and it sounds as if Traffic 360 has the same anomalies that Traffic X had), then there is a very useful facility called "AI-Aircraft-Editor.exe" which used to be included in any ADE downloaded software (I have it from ADE 1.55, for instance but it doesn't seem to be included in the latest versions). Go to www.owlsnest.eu/tools.php to download the latest version. This can really speed up the sort of editing that I guess you will require. It allows you to see at a glance lots of other entries in the aircraft.cfg file that you may want to alter. When you SAVE after making any changes it goes back and overwrites the original aircraft.cfg but makes a copy of the original with a .owl extension in case you get it wrong. Good luck. ------------- A long time FSXA and Traffic X user |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 12:21am
|
Oh yes, exactly like the old days when we started with Traffic X. My theory has always been that Traffic 360 is nothing more than just a reworked version of Traffic X. With everything I've read and seen in this forum, my theory only appears to get further and further cemented. Screenshots and other forum posts confirm that the errors of Traffic X were not fixed in Traffic 360, with things like wing_span values not being correct, liveries not being modernised, and airplane models not being updated (the 787 model is a perfect example, still based on the one from Traffic X, an early Boeing concept design and nothing like how the eventual plane was released). I would have thought that, considering the release date of Traffic 360, and all of the forum posts etc from the Traffic X forums pointing out and noting such errors and issues, that the Traffic 360 product would have been updated to include corrections for (many of, or all of) these things. It's apparent that just wasn't the case. Traffic 360 looks to me to simply be Traffic X with nothing more than an updated user interface and some changes to flight schedules. Still, to be fair, I suppose when the FSX traffic tools don't change and you already have the aircraft models, it makes perfect sense to keep and use those. There's really no reason to change. But to not update things which do need updating (the 787 model probably being the best example), and to not edit or remove old and defunct airlines, and add new airlines, etc, is, frankly, just not good enough in my personal opinion. But, all of that said, there is a damn lot to like. The product still populates the entire globe with aircraft, is fantastic on frame rates, and does allow the user to add/edit/delete planes and schedules with relative ease (well, that is provided the user is aware of some of the shortcomings and has an understanding of how to work with them or, better, fix them - the wing_span values in the aircraft.cfg files being one good example). But, I digress ... ... an excellent suggestion RayM. I cannot recall if the "AI-Aircraft-Editor.exe" that you mention is the same one that I have seen and used. I no longer have it on my PC, but it does look the same/similar. Yes, it will greatly speed up the time taken to adjust the wing_span values and other parameters in the aircraft.cfg files. I think, from memory, one can also add/edit parking codes for the respective aircraft as well. Not to mention the bonus of having a BACKUP copy etc. Good stuff. |
Posted By: RayM
Date Posted: 25 Apr 2014 at 12:16pm
|
Freddy AI-Aircraft-Editor.exe helps me whenever I install any new aircraft. Some of the things it can do - set the parking spot size by entering the a/c wingspan in feet, parking codes (BAW,AAL, etc.), parking types (RAMP,GATE etc.) atc_airline, and even the ATC codes that specify what you hear when ATC are talking to an a/c. It lets you check every a/c that is available for using in the schedules. I cannot recommend it strongly enough as even though I am quite used to editing the 'aircraft.cfg' files, I sometimes miss some of the entries - mainly because they are never listed in the same order in every 'aircraft.cfg' file which is confusing. Remember though, if you make any changes to any 'aircraft.cfg' files, you must use the "Update Aircraft" facility in Traffic X or 360 so that it knows about the changes. ------------- A long time FSXA and Traffic X user |
Posted By: freddy
Date Posted: 26 Apr 2014 at 1:46am
I (re)installed the Ai-Aircraft-Editor program out of curiosity to see if it was the one I used to have on my PC. Yes, it is the one. A handy tool. After playing with it for a while to reacquaint myself with it, I remembered why I eventually uninstalled it from my PC. The software is indeed excellent and does greatly reduce the workload of editing aircraft.cfg files. No question. However, for me, I am simply far more comfortable just using NOTEPAD to do that purely because I usually find that I only need to edit ONE VALUE ... and running a program, searching a folder list, and loading in an aircraft just to edit one value actually slowed me down. That's why I uninstalled it. The program also doesn't cater well for remarks/comments in the aircraft.cfg file (which I use often as a handy reminder when I look back at the file later and try to understand why I made a particular change). Sure, you can (manually) enter remarks/comments, but the program doesn't natively show them to you - you need to open the aircraft.cfg file from the FILE menu to see them. So it's nothing against the program at all ... it is very good. I just found that it slowed me down, and it doesn't cater well for remarks/comments in the aircraft.cfg file. So, in the end, that is just me. For editing MULTIPLE values quickly and efficiently and for use purely as a "viewing" tool to confirm consistency amongst airlines, liveries, parking codes, and everything else, the tool is definitely invaluable and highly recommended.
Yes, a good point and nice reminder. |
RayM wrote: