1 hour ago, kiek said:

No, not for PSXT. PSXT does not need that data.

Yeah but it comes with a different kind of issue.

Since PSTX uses realtime ASB-D Data, it is dependant on the Airport layout being 100% accurate to the current realworld layout. If not, the aircraft will simply taxi through buildings and parking lots that don't exist in real life any longer. One such example is San Diego.

Well, if in order to make BATC runs its traffic correctly I have to fix a million of missing or broken taxi links, then I pass on it. I had been fixing those issues extensively during FS2004-P3d days, when we had excellent sdk and rock solid ADE with error checker.  It was flawless streamline process. Not anymore with MSFS2020, ask AIG guys, if you don’t believe me.

So,,,now as I have all PSXT, BATC and FSHud 🙂 for traffic source I will obviously stay with PSXT. BATC injector works very well, but Ai ground handing is a horror story. I wish I would stay with BATC for immersion purposes, but it lacks customization for ARR/DEP procedures. I read they promised to add it later. With that being said, FSHUD will be my immersion choice for now. They fixed voices in v2 dramatically. 
 

 But core problem remains - without proper ADE there will be no proper AI traffic on the ground. 

 

Edited December 9, 20241 yr by G-YMML1

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

Yeah but it comes with a different kind of issue.

Since PSTX uses realtime ASB-D Data, it is dependant on the Airport layout being 100% accurate to the current realworld layout. If not, the aircraft will simply taxi through buildings and parking lots that don't exist in real life any longer. One such example is San Diego.

Default KSAN, LFVR KSAN Or Amsim KSAN? Three different situations. The latter is the most recent rendition, so you should not have issues with planes taxi through terminals. 

I noticed a couple of AI planes taxi out to a runway at LGAV Athens (FlyTampa), and then turn off again further down. This was during a taxi down to the runway 03R threshold. I assume this is because there is a missing link on the main taxiway parallel to the runway. I know that there is a version of ADE for MSFS, but I do not know how easy it is to use when compared to the P3D version. I made adjustments to taxiways and parking spots at literally hundreds of airports in P3D and FSX, but I really do not want to have to go down that route with MSFS. It would open a massive can of worms for me, because when I spot errors and misalignments in AFD files, I am never comfortable until I fix them!!

2 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I noticed a couple of AI planes taxi out to a runway at LGAV Athens (FlyTampa), and then turn off again further down. This was during a taxi down to the runway 03R threshold. I assume this is because there is a missing link on the main taxiway parallel to the runway. I know that there is a version of ADE for MSFS, but I do not know how easy it is to use when compared to the P3D version. I made adjustments to taxiways and parking spots at literally hundreds of airports in P3D and FSX, but I really do not want to have to go down that route with MSFS. It would open a massive can of worms for me, because when I spot errors and misalignments in AFD files, I am never comfortable until I fix them!!

Yes, ADE for MSFS is like walking into a minefield. 

6 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

All MSFS default traffic and all other injectors OFF. You need FSLTL or AIG models and liveries, though. Did you see a yelloe INOP sticker over the traffic settings?

I have experimental and am using all 3 livery versions so no INOP.  No injectors. 

I had default traffic off during busy time and was seeing few planes.  When I turned back on default, airport was full.

1 hour ago, knich said:

I have experimental and am using all 3 livery versions so no INOP.  No injectors. 

I had default traffic off during busy time and was seeing few planes.  When I turned back on default, airport was full.

Well default traffic is just filling gates without any sense, so that's not something you can compare with. I suggest getting on their Discord and posting your logs. Any setup errors will be quickly found in those.

If you don't want to do that, it's a guessing game, but anyway more information would be needed: Which airport, which time of day in-sim? Which scenery?

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

If not, the aircraft will simply taxi through buildings and parking lots that don't exist in real life any longer. One such example is San Diego.

Lol, well that, at a world wide scale, does not happen very often. At least a lot less then airports with bad ADE files.

Edited December 9, 20241 yr by kiek

20 minutes ago, kiek said:

Lol, well that, at a world wide scale, does not happen very often. At least a lot less then airports with bad ADE files.

It does however. Each method has its pros and cons. I'm not sure whether wake turbulence will be simulated on AI in MS2024, but if it is then there is a new hazard people will have to keep in mind when flying with PSXT which only shows you what the real aircraft are doing and does not care or know, where the player is in sequence.

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

 I'm not sure whether wake turbulence will be simulated on AI in MS2024, but if it is then there is a new hazard people will have to keep in mind when flying with PSXT which only shows you what the real aircraft are doing and does not care or know, where the player is in sequence.

That is no problem in PSXT, because the PSXT aircraft are "ordinary airplane objects" moved forward/up/down by PSXT in small steps, up to 100 times per second. They are not subject to wake turbulance simulated by the AI engine of MSFS (if at all available)

 

 

 

Guys no one expects you to fix these errors yourself. That's up to the scenery devs, who just simply have to stick to the SDK. Full stop.
As I said most (more than 90%) of my payware work perfectly with BATC, so it's not that much of a problem.

After all it's a tradeoff you have to make: Do you rather want realistically controlled AI traffic that reacts and communicates much more realistically, with the negative that every once in a while a scenery doesn't work correctly, or do you rather want default AI traffic with all its flaws? It's really that binary.

I wonder how FSHud handles those things, since it does the same as BATC? What happens if e.g. a taxiway link is missing to the runway?

7 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Default KSAN, LFVR KSAN Or Amsim KSAN? Three different situations. The latter is the most recent rendition, so you should not have issues with planes taxi through terminals. 

All of them, as far as I remember.

12 hours ago, Farlis said:

as far as I remember.

That's not a very clear statement, you better try again and report back.

4 hours ago, kiek said:

That's not a very clear statement, you better try again and report back.

What does it matter? It was just one example, and as far as I recall none of the sceneries had the new Taxiway A. I haven't checked whether that has changed with the default version of MS2024 though, just MSFS.

 

Edit: Just checked default in MSF24: Still outdated layout.

Edited December 10, 20241 yr by Farlis

20 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Guys no one expects you to fix these errors yourself. That's up to the scenery devs, who just simply have to stick to the SDK. Full stop.
As I said most (more than 90%) of my payware work perfectly with BATC, so it's not that much of a problem.

After all it's a tradeoff you have to make: Do you rather want realistically controlled AI traffic that reacts and communicates much more realistically, with the negative that every once in a while a scenery doesn't work correctly, or do you rather want default AI traffic with all its flaws? It's really that binary.

I wonder how FSHud handles those things, since it does the same as BATC? What happens if e.g. a taxiway link is missing to the runway?

Imagine blaming procedural and data issues on scenery devs, instead of fixing the issue.... Lazy approach. 

Why I switched to another AI program.. they gave us a way to edit and fix the data ourselves.. They don't use incomplete sim data, and instead manage their own database... All of it shows ownership of the issue. And it reflects in their quality... Never had an airport fail due to scenery issues with them..

I don't understand why the community puts up with this from batc??