FSDT's KJFKv2

[vc10man 732]

Is it a slight of hand ploy by FSDT to force GSXv1 users to v2? I ask this because after a very long flight from Flightbeam's KSFO to default RKSI, at night, despite seeing a jetway there at the stand, as soon as I chose from the GSX menu for the jetwaay to be operated, up flashed an ad to buy GSXv2. How subtle is that, eh. In the end, because the usual Ctrl+J to operate a jetway has been disabled, I opted for staircases. Is there some kind of tie-up, financially, between SODE and FSDT?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,956]

2 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

 That itself isn't a duplicate of course, but why then put them in their own folder and doesn't the FSDT Live update detect that a file is missing and replace it on it's own?

It might well add the missing BGL but my own is safe in another location. FSDT updates can be useful but they’re not perfect and if I have an AFCAD I want to keep I’m happy with my procedure. Choosing Yes instead of No for AFCAD replacement can undo a lot of work.

[G-RFRY 1,712]

I have edited all my FSDT airports to the old gate style Small Medium and Heavy, and after the live update it takes just a few copy past to put my custom CAD file back.  

[Dave_YVR 973]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It might well add the missing BGL but my own is safe in another location. FSDT updates can be useful but they’re not perfect and if I have an AFCAD I want to keep I’m happy with my procedure. Choosing Yes instead of No for AFCAD replacement can undo a lot of work.

 That's exactly why you just say no to the afcad update, there's a lot more to the live updates than changes to the afcads.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,956]

18 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

 That's exactly why you just say no to the afcad update, there's a lot more to the live updates than changes to the afcads.

I’m well aware of that Dave. I’ve had JFK and other FSDT airports for years.

[virtuali 4,421]

- About the supposed "strange" naming convention used in JFK:

It's NOT possible to make a proper naming convention for JFK with "just" the AFCAD. You cannot always call a terminal with its own proper name, since the standard assumes a Gate will either have no terminal, or if it has one, it will have a letter. Something like "Terminal 8 Gate 31A" and "Terminal 8 Gate 31B" (both exists at JFK), cannot be done with the AFCAD. The AFCAD naming convention is not flexible, and it simply cannot work at JFK.

Fortunately, there's GSX to the rescue, because GSX can connect a parking named following the AFCAD conventions (which are the only ones that can be used in an AFCAD), to a different naming standard, so parking will have their real world naming, so whey you use the GSX menu, you'll see the real names so, what is really called "GATE_B" with a Parking Number of 831 in the AFCAD (which is the most sensible choice, and far for being silly...), will be shown in GSX with its real name, "Terminal 8 Gate 31B".

This is done with the internal customization we made for JFK, which works inside GSX, but in order to work, the AFCAD *must* be the FSDT one and, if your really want to customize it, it *must* have both the same name AND the same parking names, because if any of this will change, the GSX customization cannot link the ACAD name to its own data.

- About the parking type being either GA or CARGO, this is not something strange, new of FSDT-specific (other developers use the same method), and it's done this way in order to prevent default Ground Traffic to appear, which will SURELY conflict both with GSX and with custom ground traffic and additional details on ground. Again, it's a common method, and it doesn't have any issues even for AI, as long they have proper atc_airline_codes in their aircraft.cfg (and a proper AI pack SHOULD have those), and it's not a problem for you identifying the parking as long as you always use the GSX menu, because there they will be labeled with their real user-friendly names. Yes, they won't look very nice on the standard Go To airport, but that's precisely why GSX has a "Warp me there" function, which simply move the airplane without starting any services: so you can simply stop using the standard Go To airport menu.

Using the Warp Me menu in GSX, has also the additional advantage the airplane will be parked by taking into account the GSX parking position, which is far more realistic than the simulator parking position, since the default menu will always place the airplane center of mass in the center of the parking, which is hardly realistic. Also, instead of a long list of 215 parking (which is how the Go To airport menu would look like), sorted in a funny way, with Parking 11 after Parking 1, it's much easier to find a parking, since they are *grouped* by Terminal, which is only logical, since you surely reason in terms of Terminal first, then parking.

- About the Live Updater supposedly removing your customization. The current solution is the only one that works for both the vast majority of users, those that are not interested in customizing the AFCAD, and the small minority of those who what to do that, and is that, as long as you don't change the AFCAD name (which you shouldn't, if only for the above reason), when the updater will run, it will ASK you if you want to download the FSDT AFCAD, and it will ALSO make a backup.

And of course, you CAN "silence" this message, by creating a DONTUPDATE file in the scenery folder so, if you are annoyed by having to constantly restore from the backup, after an Update, you ALSO have this option.

- About the FSDT AFCAD being "wrong".

They obviously are not "wrong" but since this is a scenery which was designed in 2009 and last updated in 2013, I'm sure airline assignment have surely changed, parking spots might have been rebuilt/renamed/enhanced, etc. But each time I ask on our forum to anybody that complains on having to edit the AFCAD, my usual request is always the same "provide me with a complete list of all the changes you would like to see, so we might integrate them in the official AFCAD", but at this time I still have to receive a single feedback. Sorry, but we simply don't have time to do a research for a scenery made 6 years ago, which will be remade anyway after KORD, because each minute we lose doing that, it's a minute lost doing (for example) that KORD update that everybody is waiting for. So yes, I'm asking for your help to SAVE time: a simple text file with all the things you would like to see changed in the AFCAD will be very useful. Of course, you cannot expect changes that would require to rebuild the scenery just to match the AFCAD. Yes, we know we have a terminal that doesn't exist anymore. The scenery is old, and just like KORD, it's based on old technology which was cutting edge in 2009, so it's not really worth updating it now. But whatever we can fix with the AFCAD, we'll try, if you are willing to help.

- About the supposed lack of parking spaces for a 747-8 in GSX, as explained so many times on our forum (of course it's in the GSX manual too), GSX checks the wingspan of the airplane and, if the parking radius is smaller than half of the wingspan, it will say the parking is too small to be used. The PMDG 747-8 has a wing_span setting in the aircraft.cfg of 224.42 ft, which equals to 68.4 meters, divided by 2 it's 34.2 so, GSX will consider valid all parkings with a radius larger than 34.2 meters.

I just checked the AFCAD that comes with the scenery, and I counted 42 NON-CARGO parking with a radius bigger than 34.2 meters. Of course, GSX will tell you exactly how many are in each terminal, with its own menu, so it's not they are difficult to be found. 

And course, using the GSX scenery customization page, you can override the maximum wingspan used by GSX, by clicking the small airplane icon, which will adjust the parking with the wingspan of the currently loaded airplane, without having to edit the AFCAD.

- About the conspiracy of having disabled the default jetways just to sell GSX Level 2. Some users asked why we haven't enabled the replacement SODE jetways only at the Trial airports and of course (as with everything we do), there's a sound reason why it's made that way. In the whole simulator, there's only ONE single jetway model used everywhere. This means, it's very easy to remove all of them everywhere by patching just a single file, the one that contains the default jetway model.

Instead, if we really wanted to disable default jetways only at selected airports, we would have to patch their AFCAD individually, and while almost nobody replaces the file which default jetway models, almost *everybody* replaces default AFCADs, if only by means with Traffic products, freeware replacements, freeware additions that partially integrate with the default one, etc. It would have been very risky doing so, potentially affecting other addons, screwing other people work, and risk way more unexpected bugs.

In addition to that, you would be forced to go to such airports to see the new jetways, while the main point we wanted to make, was to let you see them everywhere, with their logos changing according to the area and the airline codes of the airport, and see the disabling/replacing process was made in a very safe way, without causing any issues to any non-default airport or default airports that have been enhanced.

Of course, while GSX Level 2 is in Trial, the replacement SODE jetways won't move but, it's very easy, and it's of course explained in the manual (at the very beginning, Page 4, the chapter aptly named "Trial Limitations"). If you want to go back to the original default jetways, it's just ONE click on the GSX Control Panel utility, and they'll be back.

If we didn't had static jetways in place of the originals, a "hole" would appear where jetways used to be because, as I've said, you either disable them everywhere, or not at all, and if we did that, we would have been bombarded by questions from angry users, saying "I installed GSX and my default jetways disappeared" so, at least, with a static version in place, and with a clear message from GSX saying that if you are in Trial they won't move, users (at least those that didn't read Page 4 of the manual) might assume there's a conspiracy to sell you the Level 2 expansion, but at least nobody would think jetways disappeared due to some kind of bug!

Edited January 27, 2019 by virtuali

[virtuali 4,421]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Choosing Yes instead of No for AFCAD replacement can undo a lot of work.

The Updater makes a backup in a sub-folder under the \scenery folder called "backup", with a copy of the AFCAD which was active before the update, and the date/time of when it was replaced appended to its original name (so you'll have multiple backups too) so, the only work you will have to do, even if you choose Yes "by mistake", is having to copy it over again from the backup folder.

Edited January 27, 2019 by virtuali

[Dave_YVR 973]

On 1/26/2019 at 1:49 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

I just wish someone would supply an alternative AFCAD with correctly named gate sizes.

 You have looked at the gate numbering at FSDT JFK? It's quite simple, selectable in GSX by Terminal it's just that the gate numbers include the terminal. 702 is Terminal7, gate 2 etc. If you don't use GSX for gate selection, then it's still just as easy.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Dave_YVR

[downscc 1,327]

By watching Flightaware and Google Earth, I've set up B748 parking for DLH at Gate 103 (Term 1 Gate 3) and others at Gate 424 (Term 4 Gate 24).  My Atlas B748 parks over at the cargo ramp at stand 12.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,956]

36 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

 You have looked at the gate numbering at FSDT JFK? It's quite simple, selectable in GSX by Terminal it's just that the gate numbers include the terminal. 702 is Terminal7, gate 2 etc. If you don't use GSX for gate selection, then it's still just as easy.

Having read Umberto’s overnight reply I will stick to the official AFCAD. Yes Dave, I have gathered that 702 is at Terminal 7. I’ve been flying Concorde to JFK for a number of years and always park there. 😉

[Dave_YVR 973]

Perfect, all I'm trying to say is that the method to Umberto's parking is actually pretty good and not the doom and gloom it's so often made out to be.