>Jim, just one final note.>>While doing some monitoring at KATL and EHAM with 6500ft>runways, I've seen several larger aircraft take-off from them.>757's and 767's. I remembered you mentioned (empty) weight and>I checked the appropriate aircraft.cfg files and much to my>surprise I found incorrect values. Much, much too low. At>around 74000lbs. A figure I thought you mentioned somewhere in>this thread. I went to Airliners.net for more reliable data>and fixed these aircraft. I'm almost tempted to go check out>all my AI, almost, since that would be quite an undertaking.>:D>>I'm thinking that'll take care of at least these types. >>As you know, getting EHAM right is difficult, but I have it>working quite nicely now. South configuration, 24 shortened to>6500 for take-offs of smaller aircraft, mostly Cityhoppers.>(Plus the inevitable landing on occasion.) (18L for the rest.)>North configuration, 36C shortened. Large aircraft taxi all>the way to 36L and smaller aircraft use 36C (I've opened it>for landings as well).>>Using this same method, I'm also going to look at KDFW. Should>be able to get some traffic on 17C/35C. ;-)MikeMost the PAI are set correct (EW). WOAI uses some of the Arrdvark models and those will be very light on the EW. If you have ADE, AFX or FSXP grab my FSX EHAM AFCAD package file from AVSIM and open. I have EHAM set up also with weight restriction and oneway runways. It will give you another look at how I have EHAM working. I crosswind all runways which gives EHAM more options when using weight restriction runways.

Forever777Thanks for the confirmation.

Jim, did you try changing to rwy wideth to the main gear of the 747? I notice it still was 150'. Or did that cause problems. Can we change it in the afcad to say 100' so ai will be sent to ground sooner? You did a great job. Hope you could do that for kdfw.

JohnI forgot to do that when I released KATL. You can change/decrease the width to a minimum of 50 ft. (A380).

Those problem models were indeed Aardvark. And I've checked out your package.I see that 06/24 is completely open. Personally, I don't want any departures from 06. Nor landings on 24. Now, with my recent changes, I may get an inevitable landing on the latter, but that is something I can live with.Also, 18L is closed for landings and 36R for departures. Does that work in FSX?I've also chosen not to use 04/22 in my files.

My Afcads are for Cloud9's Amsterdam scenery. I have a package already in the Avsim Library, but I went a little overboard with adding nodes in that one. :DNumerous changes have been made since and I am about to get rid of a good percentage of the nodes. Also, none of the additional changes I talk about in this thread are in them. Give me a couple of days and I'll probably upload an updated package.

Thanks, I'll give that a try.