Owners of BluePrint's KMEM, please check....

[lfishe 2]

Thanks alot,Lynn

[Guest jlm]

Dear all, I have only just seen this thread, I had just started to resize the parking radius for the scenery afcad in question - the original was a complete mess.anyway, thankyou for replacement AFCAD, looks great.reason for the post, I know it is a long after this thread was concluding, but it should be known that these scenery developers are still feeding customers BS concerning the AFCAD - I purchased mine only several weeks ago and reply suggested the AFCAD cannot cater for an infinite number of different traffic scenarios.next time I'll stick with freeware - this scenery is nothing special and worthless without the amazing work of people involved with WOAI and their FEDEX package.will think long and hard now about who I will be getting my JFK scenery from.regardsJlm

[Mike... 7]

> will think long and hard now about who I will be getting my JFK scenery from.Can't say I follow your logic if any. Are you new to addon scenery and AI?

[Guest jlm]

hellomy point is that this AFCAD issue should have been addressed soon after availability of KMEM. That the seller was still trying to tell me there was no problem with the AFCAD 4 month later when clearly there was is not acceptable.then my remark re: WOAI, to elaborate further, the blueprint scenery is not the most detailed and complex add-on scenery I have - what makes KMEM special is that it is a FEDEX hub, so a hundred odd aircraft on the ramp in fedex livery is what brings this place to life, not the detail and work gone into the scenery and certainly not the attention paid to getting the AFCAD right - which was sloppy.I paid for the scenery - spent days wondering about the afcad (an integral part of scenery) and got fed rubbish.I didn't pay for the fedex fleet and I didn't pay for the afcad fix.so to return your question, where is the logic in that ?so next time I buy elsewhere or use freeware, it's thats simple.do you follow?jlm

[Mike... 7]

No.What fundamental errors, that you spend days wondering about, are in the Afcad that make FS9 not work?I have only one airport that comes with custom (military) traffic, that is ImagineSim's TJSJ scenery. All the rest doesn't include AI, so that a scenery needs some AI to liven up the place can be said about pretty much all addon scenery.Finally, I'll agree with you that none of BluePrint's offerings are the most detailed or complex addon sceneries. But then again, BP isn't claiming anything to that extent either. And... it's not pricing its products accordingly either.Around

[Guest jlm]

Mike, you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.I never said fs9 didn't work. and I don't expect any AI traffic to come with the scenery. but I expect the scenery to work with ai traffic. what ai you use is irrelevant if the parking spaces overlap. why couldn't blueprint have provided the afcad you provided ?when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft were literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me this is either normal or acceptable. This was only several weeks ago.Now having read this thread I saw there was indeed a problem with the AFCAD. but blueprint insisted there was no problem.At the top of this thread other users had already encountered the same problem.I am grateful that your modified afcad works fine, thankyou again for that. But I don't see why the user should have to correct an erroneous afcad - I expect it to function correctly.There are cases where multiple runways in use require decisions to be made (madrid etc.) but the seller should provide a workable afcad all the same. soooooo, my point was:that if I pay for the scenery I expect a functioning afcad.now if that's not what we are supposed to expect in the fs scenery world I find that very strange indeed.jlm

[Mike... 7]

> when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft were > literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me this is > either normal or acceptable.I'd love to see a screen shot where all AI are parked on top of each other. There was an issue where some parking spots were simply too large, resulting in aircraft touching wings, but that's all. Especially at an airport such KMEM, that's gonna happen, due to the limited space available, too much traffic (simulator limitations), and scaling issues (everything not having the same scale).The crux of the matter is that Afcad design is an art of its own, very time-consuming and thus costly. Scenery designers aren't necessarily good Afcad designers. There's not one addon scenery Afcad that I didn't edit because it was 'finished'. With different Afcad editors available, some very talented Afcad people and a file library itching to host user tweaked Afcads, I feel that scenery designers don't put the quality of the Afcad high up on their list of priorities. You have somewhat of a point, but this is the way it is and not unique to BP or payware scenery for that matter.

[Guest jlm]

>> literally on top of each other. ok I shouldn't have used the word literally so literally (lol)? lets say outboard wings overlapping.but I know what your saying - I appreciate it's a tricky business.I suppose I should look at it this way - I have actually learned alot about afcad design and parking by having to fiddle about with a few things.Luckily for all there are guys who enjoy afcad design. It's one of those addictive aspects of flight sim - the other is ai which I nearly got sucked into - I managed to get out just in time (although that could be the denial process).cheersjlm

[ErnieAlston 33]

>> when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft>were >> literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me>this is >> either normal or acceptable.>>I'd love to see a screen shot where all AI are parked on top>of each other. There was an issue where some parking spots>were simply too large, resulting in aircraft touching wings,>but that's all. Especially at an airport such KMEM, that's>gonna happen, due to the limited space available, too much>traffic (simulator limitations), and scaling issues>(everything not having the same scale).>Its actually a very common AFCAD problem.All it takes is one missing node at a runway or taxiway intersectionand the planes will end up on top of each other.But such an issue would clearly be in the very minor category, it can in no way be viewed as a 'fundamental' problem. I do have this Blueprint MEM scenery, but I can't say I've experienced this problem yet though.Regards.Ernie.

[Mike... 7]

That's a different issue Ernie. What you're describing is caused by a missing hold short node at a runway exit. That may result in two (or more) aircraft occupying the same parking spot. And not necessarily limited to one parking spot. But you'll only notice this when AI starts arriving, not at start-up.

[av8tor98 0]

Guys, I'm just now seeing these posts about the KMEM scenery. I agree, the AFCAD needs to be corrected.When I first got this scenery some months ago, I had serious issues with CTDs upon capturing the LOC to ANY runway and with any airplane. I thought maybe I had duplicate AFCADs but I scanned with ScanAFD and didn't have duplicates. I wrote the developer an email about the problem and he advised me to delete or move the ground.bgl file because it contained photoreal textures. Since I have UT-USA and FS Genesis, I figured the ground.bgl to be the culprit as well. I did remove the file and never had another CTD again.