Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Wothan

NOTE !! - Airport Map and addon scenery

Recommended Posts

I have found that many addon airports will not display taxiways correctly.

The problem is that many scenery designers uses "PATH for taxiways instead of "TAXI" in their AFCAD files, thus the taxiways will not be shown correctly.

The starnge thing is that sometimes they are shown, but other times not, especially at junctions

 

Either PMDG should fix this in their code (if possible), or scenery designers should be made aware that for compability with the PMDG 747-8 (and any other succesive PMDG aircraft with this feature), the change from "PATH" to "TAXI is required.

Edited by Wothan
  • Like 1

System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wothan said:

Either PMDG should fix this in their code (if possible), or scenery designers should be made aware that for compability with the PMDG 747-8 (and any other succesive PMDG aircraft with this feature), the change from "PATH" to "TAXI is required.

We're reading what we're provided. This is something the scenery designers must adjust. Please let them know.


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

We're reading what we're provided. This is something the scenery designers must adjust. Please let them know.

Sure...

I did not say that the ball is on PMDG's side, cause I don´t know how the ND map works, but it surely depends on how those path's in the AFCAD file is setup.

Question though..

Since this issue will become quite common, due to the way many addon airport AFCAD's are made - is there a chance that the ND Airport map could read those "PATH"' designators and display them as taxiways ?

Problem will at least remain for those addon sceneries, where there is no support from the developers, maybe because the scenery is of older date or they are unwilling to do so.

If neither PMDG is able to fix it on their side, or for the developers of the addon scenery - then at least it´s do'able by ourself via the "Airport Design Editor"

 


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PMDG interpreted all "Path" as "Taxi" the result would be more wrong then the existing situation.  Virtually EVERY airport would be wrong in the display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to Henry's response:  This would turn many apron areas into a matrix of paths.  The whole reason for a path is to provide a track for AI.  If you are not using AI then all paths could be removed and the airport would appear the same.  The reason scenery developers use them is because the scenery you see is independent of the paths and taxiways, which are hidden by the sheets of ground textures designed by the developer.  They get sloppy because it only effects AI until someone comes along with an EFB that actually uses aprons and taxiways.  They are going to have to clean up their products.


Dan Downs KCRP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now "converted" Aerosoft Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, Anchorage, Berlin Tegel, Berlin Schönefeld, Fly Tampa Dubai and Taxi gate Munich.

On those I replaced all "PATH" with "TAXI" and they do not look weird on the ND Map, neither has it any impact on the actual look of the scenery.

The Aprons do not become a matrix of path's. The taxi lanes ends where "PARKING" designators starts. On none of the airports I have converted so far, are there any discrepancy between what I see on the ND Map and on actual airport charts.

Also note that the default P3D airports, as well as those from some addon developers uses "TAXI" instead of "PATH", so the issue with "a matrix of paths" that You might fear does not hold true.

 

If I have to choose between "Wrecked" looking Airport maps with missing taxiways (I guess the intention of the ND Airport map is to guide during taxiing) or my converted AFCAD files, then I prefer the converted ones.

Edited by Wothan

System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are planning to creating a guide in the future for scenery developers on what will be the best way in creating their ground files to read on the -8. We have already made a lot of workarounds on this feature to be able to read the file as best as we could but we can't take care of all circumstances.

This is ultimately up to the scenery designer.

 

 


Chris Makris

PLEASE NOTE PMDG HAS DEPARTED AVSIM

You can find us at http://forum.pmdg.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Olympic260 said:

We are planning to creating a guide in the future for scenery developers on what will be the best way in creating their ground files to read on the -8. We have already made a lot of workarounds on this feature to be able to read the file as best as we could but we can't take care of all circumstances.

This is ultimately up to the scenery designer.

 

 

Sure - my intend was also not to point at PMDG - I just wanted to tell that for some airports there will be trouble, but also a workaround.


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle, Chris,

could you guys maybe do a little pinned (locked) topic about how to change this ourselves if needed? I feel there will be some more people come along with it and we all know how helpful AS is when someone tries to ask them to change something. Downvotes at most. We‘d be better adviced to wait for Godot... I‘m going to edit my airports too tonight. 

Edited by Ephedrin

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

could you guys maybe do a little pinned (locked) topic about how to change this ourselves if needed? I feel there will be some more people come along with it and we all know how helpful AS is when someone tries to ask them to change something. Downvotes at most. We‘d be better adviced to wait for Godot... I‘m going to edit my airports too tonight. 

I'm going to have to politely decline this request. We ask that people not modify our products for several reasons, but one of the simplest reasons is that user mods can create usability problems, and those problems can be a disaster for supporting them (note how something innocuous on the surface like EZDok's camera shake feature can cause planes to misbehave, or shader mods can mess up an authentication window...and that's not even "modding").

In a similar vein, we ask that users be cognizant of other developers as well. The methods they use are likely in order to sidestep some oddity of the sim, or to make something look better, or more photoreal, or something. There are literal, actual reasons why devs do what they do. Please respect their decisions. All the same, we'd like to collaborate with them, as Chris has mentioned, going forward.

If anything, I would reach out to the dev to see if they have a suggestion, of if they could, perhaps, put up an alternate file for people to use with our product (or even submit your own version of it for them to evaluate to put up as a user-submitted file).


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

The methods they use are likely in order to sidestep some oddity of the sim, or to make something look better, or more photoreal, or something. There are literal, actual reasons why devs do what they do. Please respect their decisions.

I didn‘t think of that, but you‘re definitely right. I see your point.


,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this coan be true, it could also be because they never knew that their AFCAD files would be used for something like this and that it is easier to use "PATH" than "TAXI.

 

I´m not here to sir something up, but it seems that alot of addon airports (at least the majority of my own) aren´t fully compatible with the ND Airport mapping.

I guess most people spend money on these 3rd party airport addons, cause they prefer to use them over the default ones, also with the 747-8.

"Fixing the airports is rather easy, but also a bit time consuming and I´m not going to urge people doing so, if they feel uneasy, but the chnages I have made so far, did not add anything to the visual apearance of the airports or the way AI aircraft and other animated stuff behaves. All I get is ND Airport maps that actually helps me navigate the taxiways of my favorite addon airports, exaclty what this feature is meant for.

 

Edited by Wothan

System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wothan said:

While this coan be true, it could also be because they never knew that their AFCAD files would be used for something like this and that it is easier to use "PATH" than "TAXI.

 

I´m not here to sir something up, but it seems that alot of addon airports (at least the majority of my own) aren´t fully compatible with the ND Airport mapping.

I guess most people spend money on these 3rd party airport addons, cause they prefer to use them over the default ones, also with the 747-8.

"Fixing the airports is rather easy, but also a bit time consuming and I´m not going to urge people doing so, if they feel uneasy, but the chnages I have made so far, did not add anything to the visual apearance of the airports or the way AI aircraft and other animated stuff behaves. All I get is ND Airport maps that actually helps me navigate the taxiways of my favorite addon airports.

 

Finn,

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Nobody can read the future, so the fact that we are now using the files for what we're using them for could not have been foreseen. We are not asking them to have foreseen it.

What I'm saying is that:

  1. They had no idea this was coming,
  2. They usually have legitimate reasons for developing in the way they develop,
  3. Our use is new, so
  4. Give them time to adjust, and/or bring this use to their attention.

I'm not asking people to simply accept the reality of the situation. I'm asking people to be patient as the market/community reacts, and assist us in facilitating that reaction. Simply telling people how to modify files isn't going to help with that (and can open up a whole host of other issues if their edits accidentally delete things, or modify things improperly).


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Finn,

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Nobody can read the future, so the fact that we are now using the files for what we're using them for could not have been foreseen. We are not asking them to have foreseen it.

What I'm saying is that:

  1. They had no idea this was coming,
  2. They usually have legitimate reasons for developing in the way they develop,
  3. Our use is new, so
  4. Give them time to adjust, and/or bring this use to their attention.

I'm not asking people to simply accept the reality of the situation. I'm asking people to be patient as the market/community reacts, and assist us in facilitating that reaction. Simply telling people how to modify files isn't going to help with that (and can open up a whole host of other issues if their edits accidentally delete things, or modify things improperly).

Lol...

I fully agree with You on this.

Thats why I have retained from putting up a simple "How to do" guide", and only has converted the files for my own personal use, being able to go back to the original files once more official fixes are made.

I also hope that the various developers will come up with fixes for their Airports, but we should also be prepared for those who are unwilling, or not present in the FS community anymore, leaving us to fix this ourselves.

I have never said that this is PMDG's fault, but offcourse hoped they could fix (or rather add the extra feature) this in the ND code, since that would be the sleekest way, making us independent on a bunch of other developers. But offcourse, if this probable solution does not exist due to hardcoded limitations, then it´s answer enough for my request.

 

Anyway,  I feel that the PMDG 747-8 is a really great addon, with a ton of really great and helpfull features - don´t get me wrong on this. So far I had quite a few flights with the 747-8, that all worked out smooth and pleasant. I even feel that performance has improved compared to the 747-400QOTS II , before it was updated in conjunction with the 747-8 release.

 


System: i7-10700K, 32GB RAM, RTX2070S 8GB, 1TB SSD, 2 TB HDD, Win10 64bit Home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

I'm going to have to politely decline this request. We ask that people not modify our products for several reasons, but one of the simplest reasons is that user mods can create usability problems, and those problems can be a disaster for supporting them (note how something innocuous on the surface like EZDok's camera shake feature can cause planes to misbehave, or shader mods can mess up an authentication window...and that's not even "modding").

 

Hey Kyle!

Nobody has suggested to modify YOUR product!!!

Only to modify the scenery that YOUR product is reading.

 

Edited by soerennielsen

Boeing777_Banner_Pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    31%
    $7,930.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...