Gate Assignment from ATC

[dnldbllngs 0]

Upon landing and contacting "airport" Ground, I am given a gate assignment ftom ATC. Most often the gate assigned is not of the livery of the aircraft I am flying, e.g. after landing at ORD with an AA aircraft, I am assigned to a gate at the United terminal, not at the American. Is there a way for ATC to assign a gate for the airline your are flying?Thank you,Don

[Kimchoc 1]

Don, I believe those assignments are made in the afcad. Someone will probably chime in with the exact method of how to fix it. I've seen the parameters when I've been editing some of them.

[Opa 6]

Unfortunately the answer is no - ATC will only direct AI aircraft properly if the AI aircraft and the Afcad for the airport have been properly configured. Even that will occasionaly not work properly. You are basically "on your own" for aircraft you are flying. I think most simmers just ignore ATC and park where they wish.

[onurksn 1]

>Unfortunately the answer is no - ATC will only direct AI>aircraft properly if the AI aircraft and the Afcad for the>airport have been properly configured. Even that will>occasionaly not work properly. >>You are basically "on your own" for aircraft you are flying. I>think most simmers just ignore ATC and park where they wish.>Yep, I'm one of them, after vacating the active, I'll just park anywhere the ATC clears me to. However, I do understand the desire of realism but in real world, at major airports different companies do park side by side.

[thepilot 571]

Quite a disgrace that not even FSX features stuff like this. All hopes on FS11, huh...

[dnldbllngs 0]

Thanks David,Before I begin a flight, I'll check with AFCAD for an appropriate gate from which to start at the departure airport, and then get the arrival terminal also from AFCAD. Knowing this and with the arrival Airport Taxi Diagram, I'll have a good chance of finding a vacant gate.Thanks for your continued help and wisdom.I continue to review your "Tips and Tricks" for ideas I may have overlooked.My system is a 4yr old Dell with upgrades to main memory and video card memory. And with all the tweaks From the flight sim communityI can say "The good sim, FS2004, exists when we stop wanting a better one".Thanks again,Don

[Chuck_B 2]

If you have the AFCAD software, you can actually set gate assingments yourself. No guarantee it will work every time, but it's one of the choices Lee Swordy included.What an incredible piece of software he gave us, and didn't charge a lick for it. Thank you Lee, where ever you are!

[Opa 6]

Yes, we all own Lee an enormous debt of graitude for his many contributions to our hobby/addiction.You can add Parking codes to the spots via Adcad, however they will not affect how ATC interacts with a users aircraft. If you happen to get directed properly, it is coincidental.The codes you add, coupled with a required edit to the aircraft.cfg file of AI aircraft, will almost always direct AI aircraft correctly but has no effect on users aircraft (one which you are flying).I have no idea why feature was not implemented in FS2004. I hear it is not implemented in FSX either. Perhaps it is not possible to program.It would have been really cool.

[tgibson 11]

According to the FS bloggers the AI and ATC system are considered "legacy" features and they have no plans to improve them - ever. Both are assumed to have been replaced by multiplayer.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Mike... 7]

Ignorance is bliss. Theirs, not yours. :(

[jvile 1]

>>Yes, we all own Lee an enormous debt of graitude for his many> contributions to our hobby/addiction.>>You can add Parking codes to the spots via Adcad, however they>will not affect how ATC interacts with a users aircraft. If>you happen to get directed properly, it is coincidental.>>The codes you add, coupled with a required edit to the>aircraft.cfg file of AI aircraft, will almost always direct AI>aircraft correctly but has no effect on users aircraft (one>which you are flying).>>I have no idea why feature was not implemented in FS2004. I>hear it is not implemented in FSX either. Perhaps it is not>possible to program.>>It would have been really cool.>> Sorry DavidI have to disagree with most everything that has been said in this thread.Statements such as >>Quite a disgrace that not even FSX features stuff like this. >continues to place blame on Microsoft and not the User. The Designer/Developers and the User destroys the parking scheme that MS gave us since FS2002 was released in Oct 2002.For the past 6 years FS has told us we MUST reserve a parking place at all the airports we visit if we want the User plane to be told by ATC to park in the correct place.The following statement by FS2002, FS2004 and FSX works just fine but remember we the Users are the ones that break the Flight Sim parking scheme.>>The largest parking space of each type (ramp, >cargo, gate, etc.) is always reserved >for the user aircraft and the rest may >be allocated to AI traffic.>Based on that statement by ACES, if the parking spot amoung a group of American Airline parking spots is the largest in meter size then ATC will direct my User American plane to that reserved spot at KDFW.We broke FS2002, FS2004 and FSX because no one will play by the rules. For the parking spot code rule to work for the User Airplane then the FS Traffic DataBase Builder Flight Plan compiler must also be used that enforces the parking rule. There is NO Flight Plan available (for the last 6 years) that is a realistic AI Traffic Airliner schedule compiled with the FS TDBB Compiler. That cannot be done so if I change the Compiler that enforces the correct User Parking scheme code then FS can no longer enforce the User Aircraft parking code. Is this the fault of FS2002, FS2004 and FSX? No!We the User demand realistic Airliner Flight Plans (can only be done with the TTool type compilers) and then complain that FS is a disgrace. Someone ask a questionThe next person says it will not workThe next poster agreesThe next post says its a disgraceMore post continue to agree that it will not work and it is like a snowball becoming an avalanche into the FS world as a fact and MS gets the blame.We decided as users of FS a long time ago that the TDBB had too many restrictions and it is best to continue to use a TTool type compiler for FP's. That means we broke /lost the ability to have ATC direct us to a proper parking spot so we went back to work to solve that problem.Many of us use different techniques to get ATC to direct my User Southwest B737 airplane to a SWA parking spot at KHOU or KJAX but Reggie Fields solution is the most consistant.Many of his post over the years say User plane - it works best with two things - a parking code to keep other planes out of the parking spot and a parking radius smaller than the same type AI aircraft.If you want a gate at KDFW reserved for your flyable American Airline MD-83 - set the parking radius of the gate to 16.1M and your aircraft wing_span value to 104.00 feet (FSX) or model.mdl to 16M (FS2004). In that 16.1M parking spot - set the parking codes to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. You want this parking spot to be one of the first parking spots on the list of parking spots using AFCAD2 for FS2004 and ADE for FSX.Update the user Aircraft.cfgatc_parking_codes=AALatc_parking_types=GATENow you will have to do this, reserve a parking spot for every airport you want to fly to with your user Airline plane.You will also want to make sure there is enough overflow parking of various sizes (for the turbo props, small jets and large jets) with no parking codes so AI aircraft are not forced into your reserved user parking spot. Now when I arrive a KDFW with my American Airlines MD-83 there is a parking spot reserved for me sitting amoung all the other American Airline planes and ATC sends me there instead of to the UAL Terminal parking spots or even out in left field somewhere.

[Mike... 7]

Nothing personal is meant by this Jim, just general observations, thought I'd make that clear as some things can easily be misinterpreted.At the end of the day, MS is to 'blame'.Whether or not we deviated from the path is irrelevant. Fact is ATC handles AI and user differently. AI and user: 737 23m GATE AAL. At an airport such as KMIA with an Afcad that is very well done, why do both aircraft not end up in the same parking spot if presented to ATC at a runway exit under identical circumstances? Why did MS design it that way, why won't they do anything about it? Other than slapping a legacy label on the feature...Sure, there are tricks and they work, but why do we first need a couple of people with a PhD in Flight Simulatorism to get some very basic features to work?This problem is just about the most often brought up problem there is. Are you saying that in all those cases the user is to blame? And not Microsoft? Well, excuse me, but I beg to differ, vehemently.And MS just doesn't listen. You can make a good point that we are a niche, but then why did they waste their time on these boards for so long? True, some went a little overboard with their criticism, but a lot of it is fair. But no, we're criticasters... so say the a really excited user...Another observation. I can remember 'playing' Flight Simulator on an Atari, since 98 I have bought all versions, pro/deluxe when available. Yes, even FSX, though I regret that to this day and don't use it. And I don't plan on buying FS XI on release day. Unless it includes the specific changes I want. Since it looks like ATC and AI will get about zero attention (don't care about multiplayer), FS9 may very well be my last sim.To this day, there are still people who think that this transition (9 > X) is just like the previous ones. How those people can still be in denial, I do not know. It's abundantly clear the current situation is unlike we have ever seen.And MS has done nothing wrong?! Yeah it is me, not them...If MS wants third party devs to truly develop those systems, fine, but then give them the tools and the information to do so. There's still too much that goes undocumented.It's frustration, it's disappointment... End rant.

[Opa 6]

Thanks ever so much for the detailed procedure.I have made many similar experiments with very inconsistant results but apparently have not tried it with the radius values edited. Back to the drawing board.It was never my intention to "blame" MS - but only to suggest it would have been a nice feature to have been included and documented. Some who replied obviously have a different view.Your advice is always appreciated.

[mnmon 0]

I have to agree with FJMike. The MAJOR disappointment with regards FSX for me was the refusal to address some of the issues with AI. I will never do multiplayer, and I find AI adds a tremendous amount of realism to the sim. To not address just some small issues as traffic flow on ground and air which alone would be a huge improvement, was a killer for me in purchasing FSX. If Tom is right abut MS no longer supporting AI, then FS9 will also be my last sim. And I've also started way back when with BAO, and then also excursions into x-plane and FLY. Mike

[tgibson 11]

Jim,I also beg to differ. I have done many experiments and while this usually works, there is *no* airline preference. If I create American, United, and Continental gates with the same (large) radius, I am not always sent to the gate that matches what I am flying. In fact it is rare if I have many such spots.What I am forced to do is to use AFCAD to change the correct parking spot each time I fly. Not a good idea (with AFCAD causing rounding errors each time it's saved).I do not deny we are asking for something that MS did not intend - that is the whole point! I would much rather have this one thing than all the little animated animals in all of FSX. That's the difference - MS is coding eye candy while I want to fly more realistically. Why bother with FSX (and FS11) if this is the result?--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___