Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
RobbieHe

Two simple but much needed improvements

Recommended Posts

Let me begin by saying that FS2004 is great! It is so close to being right on the money, and that is why I think FSX is so anticipated. These requested improvements are much needed "out of the box improvements," and they don't, as I believe, equate to requiring rocket science type programming to get them right.I hope, and am pretty sure, that FSX will be released with 1> gates that are commensurate with aircraft size and not the 747-400 gate sizes that are currently present at airports like ATL. And, 2> the ability to plan a flight in FSX from, say, ATL to LGW, using high altitude airways without having to go through Alaska first. Flight planning to many international destinations is problematic in FS2004. I am pretty sure that will also be corrected in FSX.What do you guys think?RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1> How about gates that fit all heavies in FSX? Do you think it will come about?2> Do you think the flight planner will work for international flights (using high altitude airways) in FSX?RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fjorko

How about getting a proper 3rd party flight planner ? No Offense MS !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fjorko

But there is already one in the box.If you want to go more advanced, go for a more advanced planner like FSBUILD or FSNAVIGATOR or even Jeppesen (spelling?) if u have the money to burn. The standard one in the box ( I would say ) is more for the novice pilot that just wants to get from point A to Point B using general airways..... they don't care if the AIRAC cycle is up to date or if the airway name has changed since last month etc etc....So basically FSX should come with a standard "generic" flightplanner ( can probably be improved a bit - i do agree ) but to do really hardcore planning - i'd use a 3rd party tool.This will let MS get on with the more important things and let them concentrate on getting things like smooth DYNAMIC WEATHER with SMOOTH VISIBILITY transitions sorted out - Hint Hint ;-) ;-):-hahPleez MS...Pleezzz:-hah:-hahCheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

every time I see someone saying "simple request" (or something similar) I just know that person has no idea about the effort needed to implement his request.Yours are no different, what you're demanding may seem trivial but isn't.And in case you've never seen jetways at real airports, go and take a look. They're pretty much all the same size irrespective of the aircraft parked at them (only difference being the special jetways at Schiphol, formerly at JFK, and maybe one or two others that have 2 exits specifically designed for 747s).And you as said already don't have to go through Alaska to fly from the US to the UK, you just have to know how to use the planner provided (or use a 3rd party planner, but the integrated planner can do it as well if you're not too lazy to manipulate the plan created a bit sometimes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, you can make a flight plan from JFK to LAX using the standard FS2004 Flight Planner. However, the same planner will not take you directly to LHR from JFK, unless you use the GPS option. The two flights are similar in terms of complexity, except the one from JFK to LHR is slightly longer. So, are you saying that a flight from JFK to LAX is for the novice pilot and one from JFK to LHR should require a more advance planner? I think you should be able to do this right out of the FSX box. If Microsoft are going to take the time to make a detailed world and include a flight planner, then they should allow that flight planner to be utilized directly to fly from one part of that world to another.I do agree with you on the Dynamic Weather and Smooth Visibility are more important improvements, but I think the above could be fixed with only minimal programming.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how it would be that difficult to vary the height of the gates at various high definition airports. At KATL, for example, 747s or 777s only park at Terminal E. Right now, you have gates that are sized only for the 747-400 or 777s at the T-Gates, Terminal A, Terminal B, Terminal C, Terminal D, as well as Terminal E. The 737-sized aircraft look ridiculous at the gates. How difficult would it be to at least vary the height of the gates so that other heavies can fit at the various gates and terminals too?Also, we are not talking about rocket science. I mean, I know the individual or individuals who created FSBUILD and FSNAVIGATOR is/are bright, but don't you think it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the programmers at Microsoft can't do the same thing without requiring average users to "manipulate" a particular flight plan to make it work?RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about jetways that automatically adjust to the door height of various aircraft, and snug up the accordian seals? What that satisfy your desires? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

but the jetways at Schiphol don't fit my ATR in the real world...That's not realistic!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken an ATR from Schiphol to Norwich, Endland. You are right. In that case, we had to take a bus out to the ATR. However, the ATR was not parked at the terminal, and the ATR is not a heavy. You have to account for the majority of heavies (i.e., 737s, A320s, MD-80s...) in terms of gate sizes.Now, back to the flight planner in FSX. RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>How about jetways that automatically adjust to the door>height of various aircraft, and snug up the accordian seals?I should point out that this is already possible in FS9, thanks to the efforts of Arno G's tools, as well as other great scenery modelers... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've boarded aircraft parked at jetways where the jetway could not connect to the aircraft.It meant everyone having to take the stairs down the side of the jetway and walk up to the aircraft and in using airstairs.And that wasn't just Fokkers and ATRs, it was propliners, 737s, once or twice a DC-9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

rather what you want is the exception.Most airports (in fact all I know of) have a standard size jetway to which all aircraft should fit.If they don't fit, passengers have to be transported to the aircraft some other way.The default jetways are low poly models that don't model the complex docking mechanisms that make that flexibility possible and that's for a very good reason: performance.Adding that would likely add several thousand polygons to the average airport terminal, seriously slowing down most machines and causing reams of complaints about poor framerates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

<>Okay, we'll make a special version just for you that doesn't have them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the height. You can vary the height of the gateways keeping everything else the same (keeping the low polygon count or whatever). Again, this is not rocket science. At KATL, for example, use only the 747 and 777 sized (as in height) at terminal E. All other gates (T-Gates, Terminals A, B, C, and D) should be at a lower level to properly fit 737, MD80s, 757s...AT LHR, for example, this might be more problematic, since there are more 777s and 747s. However, you can still vary the heights of the gates to fit more aircraft more appropriately, keeping all other variables the same.RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

much appreciated.I'd like to not have them at dirt airstrips most of all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kaltenbrunner

#Adding that would likely add several thousand polygons to the average airport terminal, seriously slowing down most machines and causing reams of complaints about poor framerates.#Well, that's ####. Few thousand polys here or there - you'll hardly notice it on even the slowest computers. In fact, I'm really impressed how small impact on FPS high-poly objects have. Poor framerates usually come from using lots of high-res uncompressed textures with alpha channels. If gates are low-poly, use LODs and have small well-compressed textures, then there is no remarkable FPS hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...