Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

martinlest2

Why does FSNavigator not draw taxiways?

Recommended Posts

I have a number of airports (including default FS9 airports) that show in FSNavigator as just parking spots and runways. The taxiways are not shown at all. AFCAD2 shows that the taxiways are indeed drawn as taxiways, not apron links, so anybody know why are they missing in FSN?

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I have a number of airports (including default FS9 airports) that show in FSNavigator as just parking spots and runways. The taxiways are not shown at all. AFCAD2 shows that the taxiways are indeed drawn as taxiways, not apron links, so anybody know why are they missing in FSN?

This should never happen with default airports. Move the scenery's add-on AFD file to a higher level than the scenery, which will have some other file in there (often taxiway signs) which FS Navigator is finding first. FSN only analyses the first file with AFD headers it comes across in each scenery directory and displays on the map the last it has read. You just need to force it to read the right one at the right time.

 

I gather you could also "fiddle" it by changing file names so that the desired one is found read first, but I have never done it myself. I generally copy and paste the taxi signs into the main AFD file and disable the other one.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I set my FSNav so that it ignores my FSDT AFCAD for KJFK when it builds its database and uses the default FS9 file instead. I did this because the taxiways in the FSDT file are all created as apron links - not sure why; they usually have a reason. But (as far as I understand it) that means they won't show in FSNav.

 

But to my surprise, the taxiways still don't show up: when I hover the mouse over the airport, it shows as being the AP******.bgl file in scenery/Name folder. The AFCAD of course uses taxiway links for the taxiways...Very odd!

 

I find the taxiways showing in FSNav very useful, as I use PFE for ATC and I can navigate to the runway using FSN, if the TGS (Taxi Guidance System) in PFE leads me astray (as it quite often tries to do). I am using Google Earth + FS Earth for this for the time being.. Great to look at but not always accurate to the FS9 AFCADs of course..

 

Any other ideas???

 

Thanks,

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I set my FSNav so that it ignores my FSDT AFCAD for KJFK when it builds its database and uses the default FS9 file instead. I did this because the taxiways in the FSDT file are all created as apron links - not sure why; they usually have a reason. But (as far as I understand it) that means they won't show in FSNav.

 

But to my surprise, the taxiways still don't show up: when I hover the mouse over the airport, it shows as being the AP******.bgl file in scenery/Name folder. The AFCAD of course uses taxiway links for the taxiways...Very odd!

 

I find the taxiways showing in FSNav very useful, as I use PFE for ATC and I can navigate to the runway using FSN, if the TGS (Taxi Guidance System) in PFE leads me astray (as it quite often tries to do). I am using Google Earth + FS Earth for this for the time being.. Great to look at but not always accurate to the FS9 AFCADs of course..

 

Any other ideas???

Same idea. I guess you didn't even try my solution.

 

You have another file with AFD headers causing this. Move whatever AFD file you are using (copy the default one if you must) to a higher position so it gets looked at by FS Navigator last.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I did understand what you said, but I don't think you read what I wrote, or maybe I wasn't explicit enough: I said that I have set up my FSNav database creation so that files which cause problems in how the FSN map appears in FS9 are ignored during the process. These files, such as the FSDT KJFK, are changed to an .xxx extension (via a batch script) before FSNav runs its database creation. So there are no files to move, one above the other, in the way you suggest - when I run FSNavDb the only active KJFK AFCAD (for example) in my FS9 setup is the default AP******.bgl file. And that is then the one that FSNavDb finds. Both AFCAD2 and ScanAFD find no other KJFK AFCADs, nor (as those two programmes do not always find every one) does searching my FS9 installation partition for *KJFK*..

 

To be doubly sure, I tried removing the entire KJFK/scenery folder from the scenery.cfg file (I already knew that a FSDT file called appr_KJFK.bgl was read as if it were an AFCAD, but maybe there were more: I know that bgl files for windsocks & taxiway signs in particular can be read as if they were AFACDs), but still the same result. (When FSNavDb is done, I obviously reinstate the bgl extensions from .xxx).

 

Even so, as I said, no taxiways appear in the FSNav map, which now shows the AP******.bgl file as the source of the airport map. Yes, like you, I don't see how that is possible with a default bgl file.

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read what you wrote. I feel certain you have a file with AFD headers that is messing things up for you. It may not have a file name like you might expect for a "proper" AFD file but it may be taxiway or exclude information only. This is the only possible circumstance I have ever come across.

 

I recommend you open the AP* file in whatever AFD editor you use and save a copy in a directory right at the end of your scenery.cfg layers. I have one there specifically for such purposes. I feel sure if FSNav reads it last it will display correctly. (The only teeny weeny thought in my mind is that said offending file may have different co-ordinates and thus both may be recognised as different airports by FSNav although almost on top of each other, but I don't think so).

 

If I open KJFK in AFX (my editor of choice but others should show the same) a file is listed named appr_kjfk.bgl and I feel sure that is your problem although you say it isn't. It lists three in total:

  1. Flight Simulator 9\Scenery\NAME\scenery\AP928170.BGL
  2. Flight Simulator 9\FSdreamteam\JFK\scenery\appr_KJFK.BGL
  3. Flight Simulator 9\Addon Scenery\Scenery AFD Mods\scenery\AF2_KJFK.bgl

(The latter is a custom mod of the add-on's AFD to include taxiways in preference to apron routes)

 

As I can't remember whether I merged/removed any other files to achieve this I suggest you replicate this structure exactly. It works for me.

 

John

post-129954-0-16016900-1387869099.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Thanks. I am sure it is not the file appr_KJFK.BGL, as I have always removed that before compiling FSNDb. I will try copying AP928170.BGL to a high priority folder (I have a special folder near the top of my scenery list especially for files that need high priority) before I compile, and remove it afterwards: I already have a number of other bgl files I have do this with before recompiling the database, so I can just add AP928170.BGL to the FSN batch file which does this.

As to which file may be interfering with the depiction of the airport, I can try removing AP928170.BGL altogether (plus the FSDT KJFK scenery folder of course) and see what FSN then depicts for the airport, or whether it is then missing.

(I might perhaps add that I wrote my 'batch file' for the FSN database some years ago and have been tweaking it ever since. I wrote it because I was fed up of the process hanging so often, every time it reached a 'problem' bgl file. FSN now creates its database from a custom folder structure which mimics the FS9 original folders but contains all my FS9 AFCAD files, from wherever they may be (FS9 and 3rd. party), but none of the scenery bgl files that can cause problems. The process now takes literally less than 15 seconds to completely scan all the folder and never, ever hangs in the middle: the results are perfect, as far as I can see. Should I ever find an airport missing because its AFCAD has a strange name and has not been picked up by FSN, I just add it manually to my script file. I can also exclude files like appr_KJFK.BGL by having the script delete them from the custom FSN folders created before the database programme starts. I know this may sound like a recipe for problems, but I feel I am reasonably fluent with all this side of FS9/FSX now and in fact, after so long tweaking the script to get it right, it works very well, as I say).

Have a good Christmas...

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

Thanks. I am sure it is not the file appr_KJFK.BGL, as I have always removed that before compiling FSNDb. I will try copying AP928170.BGL to a high priority folder (I have a special folder near the top of my scenery list especially for files that need high priority) before I compile, and remove it afterwards: I already have a number of other bgl files I have do this with before recompiling the database, so I can just add AP928170.BGL to the FSN batch file which does this.

 

As to which file may be interfering with the depiction of the airport, I can try removing AP928170.BGL altogether (plus the FSDT KJFK scenery folder of course) and see what FSN then depicts for the airport, or whether it is then missing.

There are other files with that scenery with names that make them look suspect - exclude.bgl, exclude_sign.bgl for example but that is not to say the offender isn't named in a way that doesn't draw suspicion. The clue often is the size of the file - I wonder what the boldly named KJFK.bgl does, for instance, given that it is so small.

 

But the key thing is that the important file is at the top - there is no need to remove it after building your database, it will do no harm if it stays there. Mine does.

 

I'm not sure I would copy the AP file directly, though. They contain a lot more data than just airport layouts and are not just for one airport either. I have no idea what effect duplication might have but results might be unexpected. I would still recommend you make a new AFD file from that to achieve the desired result.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I excluded the whole FSDT KJFK folder, so any files in that folder that could create a problem, won't be doing so.

 

I don't just copy the AP files BTW, I change the ones in the fs9/scenery folders to an xxx extension at the same time, so there's no duplication. All returned to their proper state after FSN has run of course.

 

But even so, having done all I said above, I still, to my amazement get no taxiways showing at KFJK in FSN!! Which means that some other file(s) in a completely different folder must be the culprit. It'd be a nightmare to track it/them down, as I can't see any other way than by trial and error, and you have to go through the FSNDb compile each time. Could take for ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, such files could be anywhere. You and I are doing things differently and I'm not saying one way is necessarily better than the other in all cases. But you have asked for a solution and my method must work if you follow it implicitly because there are no files at a higher level to cancel out the data of the one you have placed there. If it isn't working for you there is something critically different between what I do and what you do and I have given you some pointers - such as not copying the original AP file across.

 

In simple terms, this is how FS and FSNav differ:

  • FS reads every file with AF data of some sort in it, starting at the bottom of the pile. Each time it reaches one for a location it has already read, any data in that freshly discovered file that duplicates previously read data over-rules those parts of it that duplicate. At the end of its read, FS might be taking some date from one (i.e. the layout) and some from another (e.g. taxi signs).
  • FSNav reads every file with AF data of some sort in it, starting at the bottom of the pile. I think that every time it reaches one it discards all information gleaned from previously read ones (but don't quote me on that). It certainly also moves on to study the next scenery layer directory as soon as it has read one file and doesn't look for any others in the same layer.

By this you will see that placing a proper AFD file at the top of the pile cannot fail to work, however much tat there may be lower down.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree, in theory! In practice, it clearly doesn't actually work 100% of the time, because, as you know, I already moved (not copied!) the AP928170.BGL file to my highest priority folder (temporarily) and I still didn't get any taxiways.

 

It's OK, I thought about this some more and tried again (not with much hope, as I tried this once) removing the whole FSDT KJFK folder before running the FSN Db - and lo and behold, now I have taxiways. No idea what happened before.

 

So now, simply by renaming the FSDT scenery file as sceneryxxx or something and setting it back when the database is done (can do this easily via my scripts), I should be OK. Will post back (once I have torn out my hair) if it doesn't work this time, but can't see why it shouldn't.

 

Thanks for the ideas John,

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree, in theory! In practice, it clearly doesn't actually work 100% of the time, because, as you know, I already moved (not copied!) the AP928170.BGL file to my highest priority folder (temporarily) and I still didn't get any taxiways.

 

It's OK, I thought about this some more and tried again (not with much hope, as I tried this once) removing the whole FSDT KJFK folder before running the FSN Db - and lo and behold, now I have taxiways. No idea what happened before.

 

So now, simply by renaming the FSDT scenery file as sceneryxxx or something and setting it back when the database is done (can do this easily via my scripts), I should be OK. Will post back (once I have torn out my hair) if it doesn't work this time, but can't see why it shouldn't.

 

Thanks for the ideas John,

 

Martin

I am sorry if this sounds rude but they were not "ideas" - I gave you the solution and if you had applied it implicity, as I suggested, you would have got there far sooner. Instead, you used my ideas selectively, and badly, and then said they didn't work. I didn't at any point suggest you copied or moved the AP file and it is quite clear that you didn't properly "disable" the add-on scenery correctly as you thought you had - we can all make mistakes during testing but my method didn't call for it to be disabled so would have worked regardless.

 

We all have different ways of wanting to set up our system, that's fine and natural. But if you are given a solution please at least try it as given in future, and once you are working then adapt it to how you want your system to be. Otherwise you just cause a lot of unnecessary repetitive work for those trying to help you.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an unnecessary, 'queeny' tone to adopt! I am surprised at you: I thought you were a better person than this, from what I have read of you before. There are quite enough people posting on forums across the web whose sole aim seems to be to make themselves look smart simply by trying to make other people look stupid (a juvenile trick), without you adding to their number!

 

Oh, I am so, SO sorry if I used your ideas 'selectively' rather than as I saw fit. I didn't realise that you expect people reading what you advise to follow through on your input blindly, pearls of wisdom from guru to pupil. You really need to get over yourself a bit!

 

I have been using FS since FS2000 came out and design airports/scenery etc. (some in the AVSIM library): I am not an FS9/FSX idiot by any means and, though, like everyone else, I am quite capable of making silly mistakes, I very much resent being patronised like this, as would most people I think. EVEN if you are right and I SHOULD have done exactly what you said, to write in such a high-handed, imperious way makes a pretty poor impression.

 

Apart from that, there is enough misguided nonsense (and I am NOT classing what YOU wrote to me as nonsense of course, so please don't come back to me to say I am) posted as 'fact' in pretty much every forum on the net that I would have thought using some discretion and looking at advice from the perspective of one's own experience is almost obligatory. Following all forum advice "implicitly" will quickly lead to tears, that is for sure.

 

If you feel a poster is wasting "people's" time (that is, YOUR time, here, no one else's), the answer's simple: just don't bother to reply to them. No one is twisting your arm to post here. And PLEASE don't say that in writing your last reply you were 'only trying to help' and that I am being ungrateful. I thanked you for your positive input before, but your last reply is just a silly exercise in self-aggrandisement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed. I say 'have a good Christmas' and 'thanks for the input' and he replies to me like that. Maybe I am too 'sensitive' for internet forums these days, but I am also rather dismayed, even a bit upset when I see folks replying to others (not just me!) in this manner, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Can't imagine people saying this kind of thing 'face to face'.

Well, some will agree with me, others not at all. But I make no apology for being a bit 'old school' and maintaining a degree of respect for the people I am replying to.

That's it.. I shall unsubscribe from the thread after this, as it seems to have more than run its course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.