Apparently, an other well known AI group has been offered the chance to beta test Afcad2. What is going to make it interesting is that from reading the forum messages from the two sites, there is apparently some friction between the two. There is already been a few barbs thrown. Alot of it seems to be over "standards" on how AI aircraft and gates should be classified with each group going in their own direction. Also noticed a well known payware developer posting a list of "standards" that he wants to use on his site. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather the beta testing be about just producing a bug free program and let the end user determine on how he wants to use it. There were no standards when Adcad was first released and it seemed to work fine for the majority of users then. If I can just add some parking, I'd be happy. Hell, I bought FS9 to fly aircraft, not to see if the Crash & Burn Airline Co. parks at Terminal B, Concourse C, Gate B4. I hope L. Swordy doesn't let this turn into a grudge match between the 2 groups. Just my 2 cents (yea, I know, thats all it's worth). I'll sit down now. John Fitzpatrick

Maybe a naiv question, but who are the 2 groups?PAI and...???Wolfgang

Yeah John, Who are the 2 groups that you believe are producing this friction?It would be nice if some factual evidence of such friction was shown so that we simply don't have to take anyones word for it.Heck, the beta forums are open to the public in case most of you don't know.Hop on over to www.forums.flightsimmer.com and check them out for yourself.If you've ever been in a major beta test, then you know that some good conversation and the occasional rub is good for the program.With so many talented people on this beta, it's only natural to have differing opinions.Fact is, many people want their AI to park just as realisticly as they fly. And since one of the major features of AFCAD2 is parking, then why not do it right the first time?Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so here's mine. I think this post is simply trying to fan a fire that is not really there.BTW John, if you don't care 'if the Crash & Burn Airline Co. parks at Terminal B, Concourse C, Gate B4.' then why even start this post?KJp.s.I just read the 'frictional' post at AIA. A tempest in a teapot IMHO.David set everyone straight and I believe things will proceed along just fine.KJ http://fsgateway.com/frank/fs9paibeta.jpg

Good Lord no, the last thing I am is a flamer. Just wasn't sure if you were allowed to post names here. Anyway, it's PAI and AI Ardvark. Just read the lastest posts in each in groups forum. In the MY Traffic forum, you will also see a post listing a set of standards that they want. My only concern is if there isn't some sort of agreement between these groups, then this could go on until MS releases FS2027. As for my Crash & Burn comment, even some of the beta testers have commented that perhaps they were getting off track with all the standards testing rather than just trying to get the bugs out of the basic program. No flame war here fellows, just some idle chitchat.Heck, even my baseball cap has an patch on the front that says "Life is Good" John Fitzpatrick

John,Thanks for your recent post.With so many people working on this, there are always going to be the types that want to make sure every facet of their 'favorite' part of the program is going to work the way they want it to.I know the guys at PAI, and they spent a lot of time working on the RAFCAD method. They know their stuff when it comes to AI parking. That's one reason they were invited to the FS9 beta. If no one realy care about parking, then they shouldn't worry about such things as are being discussed in the beta forums.But if they do, then Matt Fox and Kevin Au are the guys to follow.In closing, I think it's great to have 2 or more groups helping Lee test his work. It should make AFCAD2 even better.But just remember everyone, someone will always have a negative comment about it no matter how hard you work to perfect it.KJhttp://fsgateway.com/frank/fs9paibeta.jpg

The "standards" are already in place as determined by the internals of FSCOF AI and scenery engines. Different products and methods can be used to produce the required compilations meeting the FSCOF data.Whoever wishes to use the AFCAD2 tool as an interface will conform to that utility's input as well as the new TTools suite.In 2K2, I use both PAI and AIA aircraft and have no problems with the mix.Each application's user interface and methods can be unique as long as the result fits. I use AI Traffic Mover, others use Ultimate Traffic, AI Traffic Editor, etc. Just choose your shoe to fit when all of these become available.