I'm having good success with VoxATC in P3Dv5HF2, however, recently, I've run into an issue only at CYTZ (well, I haven't seen the issue at other airports yet) where after initializing, I get the "FATAL ERROR: disable VoxATC" error.  I had been using an addon CYTZ from a converted freeware orbx scenery, so I reverted back to the stock CYTZ and re-indexed, but still get the error.  I've also recently tried a commercial v5 compatible CYTZ but I still get the same error.  Any thoughts on why this might be specific to this one airport?  

EDIT: I should also add that I've tried several different flight plans including SimBrief and the P3D flight planner, including direct to and more complicated plans, doesn't seem to matter which planner or complexity of the route.  Also doesn't seem to matter if I start on the runway or at parking.  

EDIT 2: Seems that it doesn't matter if it's the destination or the origin either.

TIA,

sg

Edited July 20, 20205 yr by Gridley
Details.

Let me check the stock CYTZ.

Update: The intersection of RWYs 24 and 26 has two hold short nodes on taxiway D. I don't know why that would be a problem in VOXATC, but it is certainly a design error. My guess is that having two runways (24 and 26) so close to each other at an angle may be the issue, so let me try a few flights.

The two hold short nodes on taxiway C between the two runways are correct, but that could also be causing the issue.

Also, after taking a look at orthoimagery, the intersection of RWYs 24 and 26 is incorrect as it has the runways overlapping and sharing a runway node, which is also a bad design. RWY 24 ends just short of RWY 26 and there is a short taxiway that connects the two runways.  Also, the orthoimagery has the hold short nodes placed differently. Whether this matters or not, I don't know.

And the Bing imagery, which appears to be newer than Google Earth's version eliminates RWY 24 altogether. It is now inactive.

EDIT: The Google imagery is newer. There are now only two runways 08-26 and 06-24 (which appears to have been resurfaced), so I'll go with that design and create a new ADE file to test. The most recent online terminal chart is from Nav Canada and is effective 16 July 2020.

Edited July 20, 20205 yr by jabloomf1230

I created a nice clean version of CYTZ, based on the stock P3d5 airport. It makes no difference and a fatal error is generated. I passed the error log on to the developer and if anything is discovered, we will post it in this thread. My wild guess is that there are airports in the Toronto area that VOXATC uses in CYTZ flightplans and one or more of them might have something seriously wrong with it. Since VOXATC includes emergency procedures in its toolbox, it thinks ahead and makes a list of all the potential emergency landing sites that exist along your flightplan.

In any case, I have a revised version of Billy Bishop airport based on the 2020 Canada AIP data,  if you want it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7i6m4192h395lu2/CYTZ P3d5.zip?dl=0

Great! Thanks Jay!  I'll merge this into my edited version and repost.

And thanks for your effort looking into this.

Edited July 22, 20205 yr by Gridley

1 hour ago, Gridley said:

Great! Thanks Jay!  I'll merge this into my edited version and repost.

Keep in mind that if you started with a version of the airport for V4, you have to go through this exact method with ADE to make sure that all the V4 stock objects are excluded:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/transferring-p3d-v4-and-earlier-project-files-to-use-with-p3d-v5.447641/

Starting with the P3d5 stock airport avoids having to use that process.

9 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Keep in mind that if you started with a version of the airport for V4, you have to go through this exact method with ADE to make sure that all the V4 stock objects are excluded:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/transferring-p3d-v4-and-earlier-project-files-to-use-with-p3d-v5.447641/

Starting with the P3d5 stock airport avoids having to use that process.

Yep!  Learned that the hard way! 🤪

LM just likes to torture us. The crazy thing is, they changed many of the object locations when you compare V4 to V5 airports, but they didn't use orthoimagery to place buildings, etc., but rather used FAA (and other) terminal maps, like those on Flightaware, etc.. The problem with that approach is those maps aren't in any particular projection or scale.