AFCAD - using multiple runways - question for Jim Vile

[Guest Robscho]

The work which Jim has done to write new approaches and activate new ILS's not coded into the base AP****.bgl files has been invaluable to realism in the FS community and revolutionised the traffic flow at airports such as EHAM, LEBL, KDEN etc.However realism still seems to be limited by the ability to not be able to close one end of a particular runway for takeoff or landing eg as soon as you open RWY 27 for landings at EHAM, you will start getting landings on RWY 9 when the wind blows from the appropriate direction. Landings on runway 9 would never occur on a typical day's operation.My question therefore is, could the guys that are clever enough to edit or rewrite the XML approach code to modify the approaches contained in the AP****.bgl files actually delete all the approaches for runways which are never used (such as all approaches to runway 9 at EHAM) such that when you open RWY 27 for landings at EHAM in AFCAD, you won't get landing on 9 when the wind turns round because FS cannot find any approaches for that runway to vector the AI planes down.Similarly, as soon as you open RWY14 at Zurich for landings, you'll get landings on 32 as soon as the wind turns around.

[RFields5421 1]

Flight Sim only uses two approaches for AI aircraft when the visibility is above three miles - in preference order they are:1. ILS approach2. Visual approachThe visual approach is not written into the airport - but is a base level part of the FS programming - if it cannot find another approach FS will CREATE and use a visual approach.If the visibility is below three miles, some of the additional approaches will be used and a visual approach should not be used.Frankly I have not tested to see if the traffic will be diverted to a different runway.One possible option which we have recently discovered is the ability to close one end of a runway. Should have found it earlier - it's in the default EDDF.Basically you can close Rwy 9 for landings AND takeoffs by (1) marking the Runway 9 properties closed for both - but the Rwy 27 end must be open for both; and (2) delete the start location for Rwy 9.That will make the runway one-way.But so far we have found nothing which indicates the ability to create a head/tail runway - i.e. landings only on Rwy 27 - takeoffs only on Rwy 9We haven't given up but don't hold your breath...

[jvile 1]

Once again Reggie's post is right on target !!!!Removing the ILS Approach data only closes the ILS runway for landing when visibility is below 3 miles.MSN uses many IF/AND/OR statements for the Approach Database, User Aircraft, AI Plane, Airport and Weather.When we are cleared by ATC to land on a ILS runway then that becomes very misleading because we believe what we hear from ATC. The voice words "ILS" are extracted from the ILS attached to the runway. All ILS fictious transmitters are nested inside the airport runway of the database. If someone adds a ILS to a runway using the AFCAD2 program then ATC will speak the phase "ILS" when cleared to land because the runway owns the fictious ILS transmitter. The new ILS added to the runway allows the User Aircraft to display the LOC/GS on the instrument panel. When a AI type Plane is cleared to land at this same runway you also hear the phase "ILS" spoken by ATC but the AI Plane is actually flying a base level IFR hard code of the default FS programming (visual approach)."IF" weather visibility falls below 3 miles (IMC) "AND" there is no proper Jeppesen Approach Plate written in XML (added to the FS9 database airport scenery) then the runway closes or is seen by ATC as a visual runway not a ILS runway."IF" weather visibility falls below 3 miles (IMC) "AND" there is a proper Jeppesen Approach Plate written in XML then both the User Aircraft and the AI Plane fly a set of instructions issued by ATC as per the Approach Data. You must always have 2 different distinct elements in FS9 for a ILS runway to stay open in all weather environments based on winds. Approach Data nested in the airport scenery and a ILS transmitter nested in the Runway properties.Removing the Approach data does not nullify a runway "IF" weather remains above 3 mile visibility. If the runway owns the actual ILS fictious transmitter then who in FS9 owns the Approach Data written in XML that is also part of a APnnnnnnn.bgl? The Approach Data is owned by the airport scenery not the runway or the AFCAD af2.bgl!!!!!The easist and most common way to break FS9 and corrupt a whole host of issues is to renumber a instrument approach runway with the new airport scenery and create a companion AFCAD. If this is done the default approach database must be rewitten to realign the approach runway numbers to the airport scenery runway numbers. Reggie's post answered the original questions. My post is just to add a little "food for thought".

[Guest Robscho]

Thanks Guys - this forum provides better service than most commercial support organisations - two knowledgeable responses within 24 hrs!Forgot that the visual approaches are hard-coded into FS2004 - that is going to be difficult to overcome.However, am appalled that I have not been reading the forums enough to clock Reggie's idea. That should sort out landings on 18R at EHAM for me without getting any on 36L.If you close one end as described, do you have to have both landing and take-off open at the other end. eg if I closed both ends of EHAM runway 9, removed the start location and also closed 27 for take-off, not landing, would I get landings only on 27, or would the failure to leave 27 completely open mean that I would start getting unwanted action on 9?Presumably, only duplicate start locations in an AFCAD2 file are the cause of CTD's as opposed to no start location at all?Kind regardsRob SchofieldPS May also sort out Zurich - by closing 16/34 for landings at both ends and 10 & 32 at one end as described, it should be possible to achieve a situation where you get landings on 14 and take-offs on 16 (perfect) and takeoffs on 28, 34 and landings on 28 (not too disastrous) when the wind is the other way around

[RFields5421 1]

If you close one end as described, do you have to have both landing and take-off open at the other end.That has been a requirement as far as I can tell.I have not been able to make any airport work with three closed buttons checked for a runway.You have to remember that to FS there is not a Rwy 16 and a Rwy 32 there is only Rwy 16 with a reciprocal end.I do not think some of the issues you describe are solvable at this time and certainly not with AFCAD.We can only hope and keep trying.

[Guest Robscho]

ReggieJust had a go at trying to close one end of a runway as described in your earlier post.On my LSZH AFCAD (with STAR if that is relevant), I have closed 32 for take-off and landing in AFCAD and removed the 32 start location.But I still get landings on 32!Does it matter what you are doing with your other runways, or does the technique only work without stars?I did the same at EHAM, close 18L for landing and take-off, deleted start point and still got landings - with Jim's active ILS and a modified version of his AFCAD.Any help appreciated (in addition to your helpful insight thus far)RegardsRob

[RFields5421 1]

I'd have to test when I get home - I haven't done anything with those two airports in a while.Some of the basics - there must be an active open runway available for landing in all wind conditions. I assume this would not be a problem with 18L at EHAM.If I read your information correctly Rwy 34 should have been open for landings at LSZH.Are you using a saved flight at one of these airports to restart FS?Have you rebooted your computer since making the changes in AFCAD?Have you deleted the scenery.dat file for the folder holding your AFCAD files?FS seems to have a very hard time clearing out all its various cache files when we remove something from the setup. It's much better at indexing and adding than deleting and re-indexing.

[jvile 1]

RobConfirm that you have my files for EHAM installed in the proper folders as listed in the readme.Make sure my AFCAD has not been altered in any way as far as runway closures to start with. All runways must be open for takeoff and landing.Make sure you are using my AFCAD that has my Crosswind technique (stars) in the runway list of AFCAD.The FS9 default EHAM airport taxiway structure is corrupt in the database. To my knowledge I am the only one that rebuilt EHAM from the ground up so the taxiway network continues to be segmentized and free of compiling errors when run through BGLComp.The compiling errors in the default taxiway network are for planes that are assigned RWY 18L for takeoff. Also make sure all my taxiway letter segments are still intact. If they have een combined into a single letter this also has a ill effect on aircraft taxing around EHAM. Now tick runway 18L for both closed for takeoff and landing. Remove the Start Location for runway 18L.Planes that where normally assigned 18L for takeoff will now taxi to either RWY 24 or 27. This does not effect those planes that normally use 18C for takeoff. Keep in mine that what planes were suppose to use 18L will be added to those planes that normally will use RWY 24 and 27 for takeoff.Landing airplanes that normally would be assigned to 18L based on FP arrival direction will once again be split between RWY's 24 and 27 as long as the visibility is above 3 miles.If visibility falls below 3 miles then ILS RWY 22, ILS 27 and ILS 18C will be the active landing runways. Again, landing planes normally assigned ILS 18R will not be effected by visibility. My Crosswind Runway Technique enhances the possibilities and options available for takeoff and landing when you make a oneway runway.All airplanes assignd to land on RWY 18R have no effect with the complete closure of 18L.Winds set to 180 at 8kts for testing hope this helps

[Guest]

Thank you Jim for all your help with this great hobby. Would you consider an EHAM package for the great cloud9 scenery?

[jvile 1]

AlexI also agree that Cloud9 has done great wonders with the airport scenery at EHAM. Because it is Payware and my ILS Approach bgl must nest as part of the airport scenery this could be a legal issue with a public upload to AVSIM. Remember, the airport sceney (Default/Freeware/Payware) in FS9 owns the approach data and not the ILS in a AFCAD af2.bglThere are proper channels that Payware/Freeware can use to get my bgl approach files into their scenery. Most of what I read is that people are pleased with Cloud9 being a visual only (not IMC/ATC compatible) User/AI airport multiple AFCAD type scenery.Just a word of cautionDo not add my EHAM approach bgl to any 3rd party scenery.My single bgl has delete element statements, many exclusions for RWY 18R, multiple GUID's, Terminal_Waypoints and default airport scenery approach data to realign the renumbered runways that must coincide with a proper AFCAD af2.bgl. Additional CTD's will occur within the 108SM airport scenery visual zone due to the old style TCA that FS9 has coded in borders/layers.

[Guest Robscho]

Thanks again guys.I have made sure that the scenery.dat has rebuilt etc.I guess the fact that it does not work msut be something to do with my opening/closing of other runways eg (Jim):At EHAM, I have 4/22 closed at both ends for landing. I have closed 9 at one end, 18L at one end, and 36L at one end, with 18/36C fully open. I tend to put your *ilsjv.bgl file in the Generic or base directory and the AFCAD in the addon scenery/scenery directory which should be fine.At LSZH, I have 32 closed at one end (as decribed in Reggies post), have 10/28 fully open and 16/34 closed for landings at both ends, when the wind is from the east, i get landings on 10 and 14 and departues on 10 and 16 (perfect apart from the use of 10). But when the wind comes from west, I get takeoffs on 28 and 34 (fine), landings on 28 (fine), but also landings on 32 (not good)I will have another fiddle around tonight.PS where is the original post on the disovery that you can completely close one end?RegardsRob

[jvile 1]

RobWe all know what "Easter Eggs" are in FS9. What is not well known is that MSN will also code certain scenery, airports, runways, and approaches in unique ways that differ from the normal routines.When we find these unique behaviors then it allows us to see some of the potential that is coded by design in FS9.Example is my curved approach technique for AI Airplanes landing at certain airports.I read a post several years ago where Reggie Fields was explaining when weather is below 3 miles visibility AI Planes fly unique offset LDA approaches to runway 26L at PHNL rather then straight in through the mountains. Another unique airport in the default database is PADU. MSN added a fictitious Runway 36 (invisible to us but in the coding) and once again Reggie posted several years ago on unique AI Aircraft behavior into this airport.These type airports are the foundation I use for my curved approaches into LOWI, PHNL and KLAS. One thing that I did differently then MSN was made the approaches visible both VMC and IMC.There was a post on Flightsimmer.com (Reggie probably has the link)refering to EDDF and the reason MSN stacked 2 runways on top of each other. Again Reggie's findings tells us why MSN did this which is another unique airport in the default database.EDDF has one other unique issue in the default database. MSN closed runway 36 by removing the Start Location and closing one end completely (ticks in AFCAD) making this a oneway runway.My testing yeilded good results at other airports when this technique is used. After proper disclosures and discussions with Reggie I posted my results and how to close a runway as per MSN here http://www.flightsimmer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41989

[Bigmack 29]

Hello JimI read your post over at PAI. Concerning closing down rwys. Have you or anybody tried this idea at KSFO. To get AC to takeoof from rwy1 L/R instead of 19 when crossing rwys is used??Thanks for all your helpBill M

[jvile 1]

BillI closed runways at many different type configurations and it always worked.Examples, Forced all departures at KATL, KLAX, KORD to the outer parallel runways for departure and landing along with many other type combinations.Airports with runways configured like KLGA which is simular to KSFO but has parallel operations (crossing with 90 degree intersections) forced all aircraft to the single open runway.Parallel runway operations are unique (KATL, KLAX, KSFO, KDEN, etc. not EHAM) because they are hardcoded overlay airports. Those type airports allow closing of a runway with the Start Location intact. If you remove the Start Location it adds a 3rd potential to runway usage.Combine that to my Crosswind Technique and more potential for runway selection now exsist.The negative to all this is in Reggie's post which saysQuote"But so far we have found nothing which indicates the ability to create a head/tail runway - i.e. landings only on Rwy 27 - takeoffs only on Rwy 9""We haven't given up but don't hold your breath..."