3rd party Airports - why so many problems in the AFCAD?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

I sometimes load a 3rd party purchased airport into AFX to check the quality of the AFCAD. I don't ever recall seeing no problems found when running the checker option. The most common issue is broken links which surely affects how Ai aircraft move around the airport.

 

For freeware I don't really mind but for purchased airports is it not reasonable to expect a clean AFCAD. Are they created by some automated process or by human hand?

[phmcr 93]

Same here, in most cases I go to the AFCAD to adjust some issues.

 

Menno

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

But my point is with commercial scenery we shouldn't have to do it. The AFCAD should be perfect!

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

But my point is with commercial scenery we shouldn't have to do it. The AFCAD should be perfect!

I've always wondered this myself. Especially since making an AFCAD correct with no errors should be the easiest part of the whole process in my opinion. I think the only 3rd party airports I have never found errors in were FSDT'S and Flightbeam airports. I think that Umberto had said they always run the error checker on their's, but it seems like a lot of devs don't use that feature or know about it.

 

I guess for a lot of devs, AFCAD development is their weakness.

[mjrhealth 820]

Depends. I made a BGL for YSSY i had to braek a link to a link to the first taxiway on one runway, or the AI would land and use it and clog up the runway. Sometimes its needed but not always.

[Daveo 36]

I can't figure out how some of them figure the parking radius when cramming 3 or more parking spaces on top of each other. On some of them they are no where near tailored to the "average" FSX sized aircraft whether stock or addon.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

I'm going to check AFCADs tomorrow for the following:-

• UK2000 - EGCC
• Aerosoft Mega Airports - EIDW
• FSDT - KDFW
• FlightBeam - KIAD

I'll check each and raise a thread on each forum where I find errors reported. I'll post links here to each one.

 

If I knew more about how the AFCADs were created I might have a bit more sympathy if the process was complicated. But to create such complex airports and not pay attention to the AFCAD seems sloppy.

[Sbacchini 15]

I'm going to check AFCADs tomorrow for the following:-

• UK2000 - EGCC
• Aerosoft Mega Airports - EIDW
• FSDT - KDFW
• FlightBeam - KIAD

I'll check each and raise a thread on each forum where I find errors reported. I'll post links here to each one.

 

If I knew more about how the AFCADs were created I might have a bit more sympathy if the process was complicated. But to create such complex airports and not pay attention to the AFCAD seems sloppy.

 

I'm curious to see your results Ray, do let us know what you find.

 

Cheers!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

My curiosity got the better of me. I loaded AFX and ran a check on the airports and here's the results. Pretty staggering really.

 

Here are the error types:-

 

1) Hold short node too far from the runway

2) Node possibly unconnected

3) Node and Link not connected

4) Link Designator mismatch

5) Overlapping nodes

6) Isolated node

7) Apron Self-Intersection

 

 

EGCC Results (UK2000)

8 of type 1

320 of type 2

750+ of type 3

 

EIDW Results (Aerosoft Mega)

69 of type 3

 

KDFW Results (DreamTeam)
1 of type 1

100+ of type 3

1 of type 5

 

KIAD Results (Flightbeam)
21 of type 1

6 of type 2

61 of type 3

16 of type 5

3 of type 6

1 of type 7

 

Those are pretty damning statistics. I thought I could be looping round with UK2000 but the checker will stop when it reaches the end so I'm pretty sure those were unique records. At 750 I lost the will to carry on.

 

I'd be interested if anyone else would like to confirm these numbers. I'm using AFX v1.1. If you do use another utility please give details.

 

I'll post on the respective forums tomorrow.

[N60JBravo 27]

I wouldn't read too much into those error reports without understanding what they are saying and how it affects sim behavior.

 

One example is #1) Hold short node too far from the runway

 

That really only matters at HS nodes at departure ends of runways.

 

As for #3) Node and Link not connected, not sure what that means as a link connects 2 nodes, you can't have a link without it connecting 2 nodes. Possibly AFX is misreading the file?

 

#5) Overlapping nodes are often intentional when developers use links to draw lines that are not designed to be used for AI movement.

 

#6) Isolated nodes are not a problem, they have no affect on how the sim operates.

 

Bottom line, the error checker is to tell the developer about situations that might affect sim operation. It is up to the developer to decide if those issues need to be fixed or not.

 

Unless you are seeing a problem in the sim I would not spend any time worrying about this stuff.

 

regards,

Joe

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

Joe,

 

AFX is a commercial utility so I doubt it is not reading the AFCAD correctly.

 

KIAD has 21 of #1 and that doesn't look good. I don't spend time watching Ai at airports. Perhaps I should but then again I don't think it's unreasonable for developers to explain why these errors are being reported and what their significance is.

 

If they can explain why there are so many errors that may help me feel happier about them. But without an explanation we're all in the dark and with respect, your knowledge sounds about the same as mine with a degree of guesswork involved.

 

The utility isn't just for developers. It's available on Flight1 and has the following advertising blurb... AFX is a powerful airport editor for FS2004 and FSX for both novice and expert Flight Simulator users. It goes on to say... A Fault Finder will find many common problems in the airport design.

 

At $30 it's a serious tool for interrogating AFCADs so I expect what it reports are genuine problems. The bottom line is I want to know why there are so many reported problems and is there a reasonable explanation why AFX is reporting them.

[Capt Speirs 52]

Joe,

 

AFX is a commercial utility so I doubt it is not reading the AFCAD correctly.

 

KIAD has 21 of #1 and that doesn't look good. I don't spend time watching Ai at airports. Perhaps I should but then again I don't think it's unreasonable for developers to explain why these errors are being reported and what their significance is.

 

If they can explain why there are so many errors that may help me feel happier about them. But without an explanation we're all in the dark and with respect, your knowledge sounds about the same as mine with a degree of guesswork involved.

 

The utility isn't just for developers. It's available on Flight1 and has the following advertising blurb... AFX is a powerful airport editor for FS2004 and FSX for both novice and expert Flight Simulator users. It goes on to say... A Fault Finder will find many common problems in the airport design.

 

At $30 it's a serious tool for interrogating AFCADs so I expect what it reports are genuine problems. The bottom line is I want to know why there are so many reported problems and is there a reasonable explanation why AFX is reporting them.

 

Glad to see that i am not the only one seeing major AFCAD issues with Payware Airports. My biggest gripe is the aircraft parking. If the aircraft is not parked too far in or out, it's not lined up center of Jetway. I have run That checker on several airports only to find that there were so many issues that I just gave up, some I uninstalled those airports waiting for someone to publish a better AFCAD. I would actually pay for corrected AFCADs just to not have to deal with it myself. We have enough to deal with keeping FSX working, we don't need payware that is lacking. Fortunately most payware works fine, how ever most payware has incorrect gate descriptions, another problem I have no patience for.

[Glynn 405]

 

 

At $30 it's a serious tool for interrogating AFCADs so I expect what it reports are genuine problems.

 

Ray,

You may want to look at ADE http://www.scruffyduck.org/

It seems to be the most used AFCAD editor these days by scenery devs, and its free.

Be aware that opening an AFCAD with AFX that was created in ADE and then saving it can strip out some features in the AFCAD.

Which is why I no longer use AFX

[Boeing or not going 578]

uk2000 have an updated afcad section, do you have their latest? http://www.uk2000scenery.com/afcad/index.htm

[hero93 12]

Ray, as the developer of the Flightbeam and some other payware AFDs I want to comment this briefly:

 

First of all: Did you experience any real problems with the AFD while simming, or did you just run the fault finder?

 

Those errors you mentioned are relative, when we produce the AFD for an airport with custom ground poly we don't use the links as intended.

We add way more nodes to ensure the AI aircraft are taxiing on the centerline, thus there are overlapping nodes at some complex intersections.

But those are not errors, as otherwise the AI would taxi via shortcuts or off the centerline.

 

The maximum holdshort distance has some tolerance. The fault finder will of course use the minimum, but its sometimes necessary to nearly reach the limits.

And as others already wrote, this is only important at the runway ends, as the AI won't get the takeoff clearance if they are too far from the runway.

At the middle runway intersections, those errors are irrelevant and at a large airport like IAD with four runways you might get a large number but it doesn't say anything.

There are sadly lots of limitations and problems with FSX (i.e. runway usage).

Be sure those faults are the smallest concern in AFD design.

When I am in the progress of developing the AFD. I run the fault finder every 30 minutes and fix the real mistakes.

I spend hours simply monitoring the AI movement, searching for the important problems and trying to increase the traffic flow.

At all Flightbeam airports also the service roads are traced in the AFD so GSX works as intended, this sometimes produces more node related error messages which are irrelevant.

 

About Aircraft Parking and Gate description:

By using specific gate types we prevent displaying of the default service vehicles independently from the user settings.

There is a big limitation on gate identifier.

All Traffic Add-Ons use different aircraft properties (wing span, Airline Codes,...).

It is impossible to match every users AI.

Our priority in parking distance is the user aircraft, as there is less variety and to ensure you don't start your flight inside the terminal.

 

I have to agree with you all, that there are a lot of bad AFDs even from the "big players", but a lot of problems you adressed are because of limitations we sadly can't change.

If you have any other specific questions I am glad to answer them.

 

 

 

Sorry for my bad English and grammar, it's late...