HI all,

This request is directed at owners of P3D v4 only.

Can you locate to two default airports and advise the number of parking positions available please? This is easily done if you have GSX by displaying the menu. CTRL+Shift+F12. Otherwise count the number in the Scenario Airport option.

They are KFAT - Fresno, CA and LPPR Porto, Portugal.

KFAT has only 5 parking positions in v5 but in v3.4 there are 13 gates and 15 parking positions.

LPPR has 5 gates, 5 parking positions and 1 fuel ramp in v5. In v3.4 there are 6 gates and 23 parking positions.

Can you advise how many are listed in v4 please? I want to use this info to point out to LM there are serious deficiencies in v5 that require correction. Not much point having AIG Ai when there are so few parking positions available.

Hi Ray,

I just checked LSZH (Zurich):

P3DV4: 162 parking sports

P3DV5: 26 parking spots
 

LSGG (Geneva)
P3DV4: 92
P3DV5: 23

EDDF (Frankfurt)
P3DV4: 180
P3DV5: 55

Edited November 9, 20214 yr by Swiss2259

@Swiss2259, thank you for that. Can you provide details for the two airports I listed please?

It does appear to be a global problem.

sure sry:

KFAT (V4): 28 (13 gates and 15 parking spots) 
LPPR (V4): 29 (6 gates and 23 parking spots)

edit: counted wrong... 😉 

Edited November 9, 20214 yr by Swiss2259

3 minutes ago, Swiss2259 said:

sure sry:

KFAT (V4): 27
LPPR (V4): 29 (6 gates and 23 parking spots)
 

Thanks. v3 and v4 appear very similar. They've either made a decision to reduce the number of parking positions or have messed up.

37 minutes ago, Swiss2259 said:

sure sry:

KFAT (V4): 28 (13 gates and 15 parking spots) 
LPPR (V4): 29 (6 gates and 23 parking spots)

 

Hi Ray

Can confirm the same numbers as above

 

Thanks @Tokitaumelie. I don’t need any more reports thanks.

If anyone feels strong enough about this feel free to comment here with other examples. http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6306&t=136987

I understand why people (should) expect default airports to get representation at least as good in v5 as they had in earlier versions.
With payware options, these default updates, and much bigger/'more exciting' areas for the P3D development team to tackle in the sim, I doubt that the default airport parking is going to get much attention. Not to forget that AFCAD/ADE files have always tended to be the poor relation in any scenery.

@Ray Proudfoot I see you've encountered Vaughan over on the P3D forums. I'm not sure I could keep such a cool head with his replies.
 

18 minutes ago, F737NG said:

 

@Ray Proudfoot I see you've encountered Vaughan over on the P3D forums. I'm not sure I could keep such a cool head with his replies.
 

👍

Edited November 9, 20214 yr by Sabre57

The stock airports have always been short on parking spaces.  Many regional airports with airline service don't even have airliner gates, just ramp spaces.

I spend a lot of time adding spaces using ADE.

Dave

I looked at KFAT in both v4 and v5, and I really don't think the number of parking spots tells a complete story.  The v4 version had more, but inaccurately placed parking spots, was missing the entire cargo ramp (it was built in mid-2005 a year before FSX was released), and had far more jetway gates than exist IRL.  The v5 version has the cargo ramp, has the correct number and placement of jetway gates, but is missing ramp parking spots at the terminal, cargo parking, and GA parking (both GA ramp layout and parking were way off in v4 anyway).

As a general representation of the airport, it suffices.  Plunking down some parking spots is an easy drill in ADE, provided the pavement is laid out correctly, which in v5 it is.  It's not something that lends itself easily to an automated process, though, and I don't see LM hand-jamming 30,000 airports to improve parking on the otherwise generic-looking default airports--IMHO it doesn't make enough of an improvement to justify hundreds or thousands of hours worth of manpower-intensive work.

So I don't think v5 represents a dumbing-down of the airport files--it has less of the inaccurate detail, but with the improved terrain mesh and updated, more accurate pavement layouts, I see it as a generally improved representation of the airport environment.  Default airport files have always been approximations, not complete models of airports.

46 minutes ago, F737NG said:

I understand why people (should) expect default airports to get representation at least as good in v5 as they had in earlier versions.
With payware options, these default updates, and much bigger/'more exciting' areas for the P3D development team to tackle in the sim, I doubt that the default airport parking is going to get much attention. Not to forget that AFCAD/ADE files have always tended to be the poor relation in any scenery.

@Ray Proudfoot I see you've encountered Vaughan over on the P3D forums. I'm not sure I could keep such a cool head with his replies.
 

I’m not expecting LM to keep enhancing parking positions version over version. But what we had in v3 and v4 has been obliterated in v5. Is that acceptable? In my book, no.

 I think they’ve screwed things up because I’ve reported taxiway signs in the middle of a taxiway and that was acknowledged within hours by LM. I almost fell off my chair.

Looking through that list in your link many are airports I already have. But sometimes I just want to fly into or out of a default and the lack of gates for AIG Ai is depressing.

Vaughan is a complete waste of space. How on earth did he ever get the mod job?

9 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

The stock airports have always been short on parking spaces.  Many regional airports with airline service don't even have airliner gates, just ramp spaces.

I spend a lot of time adding spaces using ADE.

Dave

Dave, v3 and v4 were fine for me. It’s quite a laborious process to add parking for an airport you might only visit once in a blue moon.

 In LM's "updated" airports for v5 they really dropped the ball. From what I've seen, they essentially only updated airport footprints and did very minor updates to the rest with most airports either horribly lacking in the number of parking spots or a VERY poor job of where the spots were located. 

31 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I looked at KFAT in both v4 and v5, and I really don't think the number of parking spots tells a complete story.  The v4 version had more, but inaccurately placed parking spots, was missing the entire cargo ramp (it was built in mid-2005 a year before FSX was released), and had far more jetway gates than exist IRL.  The v5 version has the cargo ramp, has the correct number and placement of jetway gates, but is missing ramp parking spots at the terminal, cargo parking, and GA parking (both GA ramp layout and parking were way off in v4 anyway).

Is it fair to say you only know that because you’re familiar with that airport? If you weren’t would it bother you? I suspect not. Most of the airports I’m familiar with I have 3rd party addons for and those give an accurate depiction.

34 minutes ago, w6kd said:

As a general representation of the airport, it suffices.  Plunking down some parking spots is an easy drill in ADE, provided the pavement is laid out correctly, which in v5 it is.  It's not something that lends itself easily to an automated process, though, and I don't see LM hand-jamming 30,000 airports to improve parking on the otherwise generic-looking default airports--IMHO it doesn't make enough of an improvement to justify hundreds or thousands of hours worth of manpower-intensive work.

Why not use the same process in v5 as they did for v3 and 4? At some point in the past someone did make the effort. With all the technology available these days surely we’re not talking about humans editing AFCADs by hand?

37 minutes ago, w6kd said:

So I don't think v5 represents a dumbing-down of the airport files--it has less of the inaccurate detail, but with the improved terrain mesh and updated, more accurate pavement layouts, I see it as a generally improved representation of the airport environment.  Default airport files have always been approximations, not complete models of airports.

I have to disagree with you. I don’t see any real improvement over earlier versions and the lack of parking positions is a pain if you have AIG. A couple might have sloped taxiways but my local EGCC has no hump in the middle as it should have.

But I reserve my greatest complaint for LM staff themselves and their continued silence on the discussion on their forum. No reply in 18 months. This is not a request for support. It’s pointing out deficiencies in their product. They should be proactive.