KCVG GATES ARE TOO SMALL!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Has anyone else noticed that Page Cline's scenery for KCVG has gates that are made for aircraft no larger than a 737??? It's quite irritating because now i can't fit my Delta 767's or 777's or anything else there!!!

[JLedford 0]

I noticed that some time ago as well. Furthermore, on my stressed machine, the frame rate hit was much and thus I de-activated the scenery.Yea, all the gates are the same height, there should be some that are built for wide bodies. I remember the first time I landed there in a 757, and taxied around looking for a place to park...not to be found.Otherwise the scenery is accurate and well detailed.

[shermank 166]

How about a thank you to Page for his effort instead of a complaint. What have you contributed to the hobby?Sherman KaplanHighland Park IL

[Guest]

Don't need to get defensive :(Just a little wondering!!!

[Guest]

Hi to all!Yes, I realize that the gates are low and frame rates take a beating. As mentioned in the text file, I had redone (is that a word?) the file from a FS98 version. One day, I'll redo it to get all the bugs out.As for the jetways, I figured that when an aircraft arrives at a gate, the jetway operator would raise the gate to accomodate the particular aircraft arriving, also extend or retract its length. There's only so much one can do for the gates. I don't know who is going to taxi what to which gate.

[JLedford 0]

Sherman,Since you did reply to my post and not to the thread author's, I'll take a stab at you comment.First you will note that I was clear to mention that my machine was inadequate, thus the poor performance was squarely placed on my machine and not on the scenery. The fact that the gates are all one height, is a fact or statement of truth and not a complaint. Would it be nice to have gates for larger aircraft, yes viewed as a request and not a complaint.You will also note that I clearly stated that the scenery was accurate and well detailed, perhaps a poor complement to the author, nonetheless a complement. As for the scenery, it is well done, no doubt about that, it simply is not very usable on my machine, yet I've not deleted it, I've simply de-activated it. Your statement in particular is short and accomplishes little other than creating anger. If you think that someone has approached a situation poorly, then try to address the situation in a bit more constructive manner so that the recipient of your post can learn from a possible mistake and use what they have learned the next time they post. That way you both avert a confrontation that solves nothing.My point was not to evoke anger, please do keep that in mind.Thanks,Jay Ledford

[Guest]

Page, i'm confused about your reply! Are you saying that the jetways are active? Sorry, i'm not good at desifering emotions through text!

[Guest]

No, they're not active. What I meant was that I've seen (in real life) the operators of jetways, raise or lower jetway heights as they manoeuvered them up to the arrived aircraft. One gate may handle several sizes of aircraft and they have to adjust the jetway to accomodate the particular aircraft present. At KCVG I had to place in the scenery about 48 jetways. (That's one of the reasons for the frame rate hit). To make them different heights would require more macro files and make the file bigger (not to mention taking longer to do). All I ask is that people imagine the gates being adjusted after they arrive.

[shermank 166]

sorry about the confusion Jay. My comments were not directed at you, but at the original poster whose expression of dismay at the gate sizes seemed articulated in a manner which seemed to my interpretation of what I was reading to be less than appreciative for the efforts made by the scenery designer. I meant no criticism of your post, which I think took a more constructive attitude. I hope this clears the air. I meant no insults to anyone, and actually hoped to prompt a bit of civility from the original poster.Sherman KaplanHighland Park IL

[Guest Heather 636]

Just a reminder Mr. Cline. We are all human and are bound to make mistakes, miss things and the like, not to mention that there are going to be some restrictions when working within the parameters of someone elses software that we just CAN'T get around. Even then, most of us still try to be perfect and become discouraged when we are not. Please, don't be.If it is a major problem, I know you will address it. If it is one where a choice must be made because of parameter restrictions, I have no doubt you will attempt to make the best one for the sake of the majority of users.I REALLY like your work. Keep it coming please.Sincerely,Heather

[Guest]

Thank you, Heather, for your understanding. It was late last night when I posted my last reply plus dealing with 2 grandsons (12 & 14 yrs).When I redo KCVG, I'll make an attempt to accomodate all requests for the airport. I could make some gates higher. If anyone knows which gates need to be raised, please let me know. Or, I could arbitralily make gates with different heights at random locations.On a related subject. Several people have mentioned about crashes when entering or exiting runways. I "think" I have a fix for that. Anyone who wants to beta test for me sent me a note at pageruthcline@msn.com. With my luck, FS2004 will be out before I'm done."Maintain Thine Airspeed, Lest the Earth Rise Up and Smite Thee"

[shermank 166]

Page, when you do the update for KCVG, can you include a Graeter's Ice Cream Shop and a Skyline Chili...both able to dispense product through the computer? Thank you! :-)Sherman KaplanHighland Park Il and former Cincinnatian who misses his 5 way and graeters...:-)