IMAGINESIM KATL RELEASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[atc_scott 22]

I have a great looking KSTL by Gary Widup. Unfortunately that scenery hates my computer. I am all for the Midwest sceneries...KSTL...KICT...KOKC...and one not in the mdwest...KSLC...Doesn't matter though...I will buy anything from Imaginesim...they're sceneries are getting better and better.Cheers, Scott

[B777ER 2,486]

Jim,Just curious, how goes progress on the updated AFCAD?

[jvile 1]

>>Jim,>>Just curious, how goes progress on the updated AFCAD?>This is the full version AFCAD. It is a completely new AFCAD starting with the removal of all default runways, taxi links and parking spots. [/url] There are also 2 additional AFCAD versions for the VATSIM User and the User that wants the ImageSim static aircraft in place. The full version above (300 parking spots) is for the User that wants 100 percent AI Traffic or a lesser percent value. All my testing is done with 100 percent KATL AI real world FP's in place and active to push Atlanta to its full load capability. The approach and ground AI Aircraft behavior (12 hour continuos testing) is now in progress on 4 different computers including a very high end (computer) Vista32 OS. It is very important that I have the ILS approach hard floor and Contact Tower trigger set correctly for airports such as KATL which has all 5 runways in operation at the same time. This issures that the FS2004 default arrival seperation code (no AI Smooth or Seperation Utilities added) have as few go arounds as possible. This also makes sure that departures are timed properly and are airborne before the next arrival touches down. The above type AFCAD I call a skeleton AFCAD which does not draw any type taxiway, apron and lighting scenery .bmp textures. Many Scenery designers do not understand that when their scenery is in place we do not need the default ground airport scenery to try and show because it won't. By decreasing the draw of the default airport textures we inturn increase the FPS value because the only processing is now entirly on the 3rd party airport scenery and lighting (including runways, taxiways and aprons. The only reason why I still have to show a runway is because no matter what a designer does or adds FS9/FSX still uses the default runway width as a XML code. The runway in XML carry's the target point for touchdown and the trigger based on width for knowing when the AI/User plane is clear of the runway. This is based on the contact points of the main gear and once the gear is clear of the runway texture (width) the AI Engine releases the plane so the next arrival will not go missed.Many go arounds are also based on the placement of the Start Location. The Start Location is also a triggering XML code for closure of a runway. When the Start Location is not located on the actual runway texture (such as ImageSim) and located on a taxiway the Flightplan ending point for both the User and AI Plane in some cases cannot be processed so the plane goes missed for no apparent reason.Before final release I will go back and decrease the runway width to be only as wide as the B747/A380 main gear. This will also aid in fewer go arounds and cannot be seen because the Imagesim runway is the priority runway and not the FS2004 runway texture. Probably more then you wanted to know.

[Mike... 7]

Don't know about the others, but keep the knowlegde coming! ;-DI've always relocated my start locations and placed them on the runway, but it's interesting that their position plays a significant role. What if the runway is closed for departures on both ends and there are no start locations? Won't that throw off the system?I also find the runway width issue fascinating. As you'll know, many Afcads come with runways that are 'ridiculously' wide. This to enable placement of hold short nodes on top (or below if you will), the visual hold short nodes that are part of the scenery. This to make sure (departing) AI stops at a realistic point. Now, I'm questioning that practice, especially if that same runway is used for arrivals as well.What I myself have done in the past as well, is move (exit) hold short nodes halfway between runway edge and the visual hold short node, to enable a quicker hand-off, but if I understand correctly, that will not clear the runway quicker for the next arrival. I suppose I could have figured that out during testing, but ahem, I often skip real testing...Finally, you mention 300 parking spots, but I thought 250 was the maximum? I swear I read that recently.

[deaconblues 0]

And of course I ALSO have Gary Widup's STL, and it is BEAUTIFUL... it is also a framerate-gobbling monster. I can always feel its presense when I'm setting up a flight across the river at KCPS.And for ATC Scott --- an STL scenery from Mach 1 would be outstanding!

[jvile 1]

>Don't know about the others, but keep the knowlegde coming!>;-D>>I've always relocated my start locations and placed them on>the runway, but it's interesting that their position plays a>significant role. What if the runway is closed for departures>on both ends and there are no start locations? Won't that>throw off the system?>>I also find the runway width issue fascinating. As you'll>know, many Afcads come with runways that are 'ridiculously'>wide. This to enable placement of hold short nodes on top (or>below if you will), the visual hold short nodes that are part>of the scenery. This to make sure (departing) AI stops at a>realistic point. Now, I'm questioning that practice,>especially if that same runway is used for arrivals as well.>>What I myself have done in the past as well, is move (exit)>hold short nodes halfway between runway edge and the visual>hold short node, to enable a quicker hand-off, but if I>understand correctly, that will not clear the runway quicker>for the next arrival. I suppose I could have figured that out>during testing, but ahem, I often skip real testing...>>Finally, you mention 300 parking spots, but I thought 250 was>the maximum? I swear I read that recently.I will explain.When we talk about runway closure that can mean several things based on the objective. Closing a runway on both ends with the checkmarks (either takoff or landing) means there must be another fully ILS operational runway parallel (within 7.9 degrees) to the closed runway. This means the runway is still active for either takoff or landing as long as ends of the runway are closed the same way. In that case you leave the Start Locations in place because the type closure is based on parallel runway rules.If the closure is for landings we use the Start Location for "Go To" in the airport dropdown menu. If the runway is closed for takeoffs we leave the Start Location so the FP ends at its proper location on the runway texture. Parallel runway rules differ from closing non parallel runways. Take for example runway 05/23 at Heathrow (EGLL). Runway 05 is closed both for takeoff and landing in the default FS2004 airport database (use AFCAD to view). Since 05/23 is a non parallel runway and only 05 is closed for both takeoff and landing then the Start Location is also missing by default. There are other Airports in FS2004/FSX that only have one runway end active so the Start Location must also be removed.However when MS closed runway 05 they did not lower the runway selection score as low as it should be. MS corrected the closure of RWY 05 in FSX by reversing the Base end. Whatever end is closed completely must always be the secondary end of the runway so it list in the XML as 23/05. By reversing the runway Base End that gives the secondary runway a much lower score and should always be the runway end that is closed. Parking Space count. What you should have read is that the true XML compiled to a bgl and then processed by the .dll will not compile if the parking spot count is higher then 255 (with exceptions).Exceptions areWhat compiler was used?What is the count with a airline code vs a parking spot without a airline code?Most users that enhance FS9 airports do it with utilities such as AFCAD and AFX. These utilities use the Compiler developed by Lee Swordy that does not use the same rules as the MS BGLComp compiler. AFCAD and AFX will allow as many parking spots that you want but when the .dll processes these compiled bgl's it puts limits on them and the airport may not work the way it was designed. The BGLComp compiler has the limits built into it along with reading the <?xml version="1.0"?> which is the BGLComp.xsd file. The limits assure that the compiler cannot exceed the .dll processing of the airport. Parking Spots cannot have more then 255 when a airline ICAO code is added to the http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...4&mesg_id=45304

[B777ER 2,486]

Thanks Jim for the update. I use the static aircraft for online flying so I am keen to get the one for the static. Thanks.

[kerosene31 349]

FYI - it looks like Imaginesim dropped KPHL or KSTL because of the freeware releases and changed the next airport poll to:KIAD Dulles or VHHH Hong Kong (aren't there already good freeware for these airports as well?)http://imaginesim.com/future01.htmAnyway cast your vote if interested.

[Mike... 7]

I don't like those choices either. I sent a mail to their what's next address saying I wouldn't mind a new version of KLAS and/or KIAH.

[Forever777 0]

Simflyers KLAS is fantastic. KIAH could use a redo.

[psolk 3,041]

I wrote in for Honolulu... A new PHNL that could have AES would be great...Primary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E8500 468X9.5 @ 4.45Asus Maximus Extreme2 gigs OCZ Reaper DDR3 @1400Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[Silverbird 115]

>I wrote in for Honolulu... A new PHNL that could have AES>would be great...>>Primary Rig>Liquid Cooled>Intel C2D E8500 468X9.5 @ 4.45>Asus Maximus Extreme>2 gigs OCZ Reaper DDR3 @1400>Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs>24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAF>Dual 19 inch LCD's>Raid-0+1>PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLI>http://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.html>>>Backup Rig>AMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.7>2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2>XFX 7900 GTX >Raid-0>lol everyones voting all diffent kinds Paul I voted Honolulu phnl also! :)

[WAD3 0]

I wonder how many people would actually buy Hong Kong now that 9 Dragons is out and supported by AES. I dont think I would ever bother with VHHH now that I use VHHX. Seems they have been pushing that Airport for a while. It seems to always come up on the list and never wins their poll. There are alot choices like PHNL or how about PANC or KPIT. KIAD has been recently done. Bad choices IMHO.

[edetroit 933]

Has anyone made Orlando Sanford (KSFB / SFB) :-hmmm

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

[cshark172 20]

I would definitely vote for PANC if that was an option. Anchorage has been ignored forever in FS.KyleFS box: Q6600 (@ 3.24 GHz), ASUS P5E3 Premium, 4 GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (Cas 6-6-6-18-2T @ 1440 MHz), BFG 8800GTX 768, Soundblaster XFi Fatality, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Samsung Spinpoint F1 750 GB, Silverstone TJ09 case, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 PSU, Vista Ultimate 64http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg