Nico,

1. I carefully re-read manual again and I assumed that if QF>40, then there is no second pair of figures for soft parkings.  

        Here us what we have as of today for Aerosoft EDDF
          EDDF 1.1.2   228  24/35  Frankfurt/Main 

That tells me that EDDF is quite bad in terms of real world parkings, however while I'm loading MSFS 2024, I can see that traffic movements are more or less okeish. Moreover, until recently EDDF used to be a postcard of PSXT capabilities. So, my question is what happened, and how to distinguish now an airport with good quality coverage from an airport with the bad one.

2. RT Ground Coverage monitor.

This has not been updated since 02-11-2026. The forum is also barely alive, when I tried to post a message. Any idea what's going on in the RT Camp?

Sorry for the confusion, but some clarification would be welcome.

Thanks a lot
Dmitriy.  

21 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

That tells me that EDDF is quite bad in terms of real world parkings, however while I'm loading MSFS 2024, I can see that traffic movements are more or less okeish. 

That’s why you shouldn’t focus blindly on the numbers. The QF formula is only a very rough indication.
But since you are interested in the criteria, here is the algorithm (that has not changed since the beginning). Hope you can read C++

  auto gf_qualityFactor(const std::span<StandData> stands) -> QfData {
    constexpr int32_t kNumDays{ 7 };
    constexpr int32_t kNumHours{ gk24Hours };
    constexpr auto kStandWithAtLeastOne{ 10'000.0 };
    constexpr auto kFlight{ 20.0 };
    constexpr auto kMaxBonusFlights{ 200 * kFlight };
    constexpr auto kUniqueDay{ 100.0 };
    constexpr auto kMaxDayBonus{ kNumDays * kUniqueDay };
    constexpr auto kUniqueHour{ 12.5 };
    constexpr auto kMaxHourBonus{ kNumHours * kUniqueHour };
    constexpr auto kHour{ 2.0 };
    constexpr auto kMaxHour{ 700.0 };
    constexpr double kMaxPerStand{ kStandWithAtLeastOne + kMaxBonusFlights + kMaxDayBonus + kMaxHourBonus + kMaxHour };
    static_assert(kMaxPerStand == 16'000.0);

    if (!std::ranges::any_of(stands, [](auto const& sda) { return !sda.flights.empty(); }))
      return QfData{ -1, -1 };  // indicating empty file

    auto res_real = 0.0;
    auto res_soft = 0.0;
    auto num_pos = 0.0;

    for (auto const& sda : stands) {
      if (sda.heli) continue;  
      if (sda.type == ParkingType::FUEL) continue;

      const auto weight = sda.radiusNm <= 7.0 ? 0.3 : (sda.radiusNm <= 10.0 ? 1.5 : 1.0);
      num_pos += weight;

      int32_t flight_cnt_real = 0;
      int32_t flight_cnt_soft = 0;
      std::array<bool, kNumDays + 1> days_real{};
      std::array<bool, kNumDays + 1> days_soft{};
      std::array<bool, kNumHours> hrs_real{};
      std::array<bool, kNumHours> hrs_soft{};
      size_t num_hrs_real = 0;
      size_t num_hrs_soft = 0;

      for (auto const& fda : sda.flights) {
        if (fda.fid == 0) continue;

        const auto day = fda.day;
        if (fda.soft == Soft::True) {
          ++flight_cnt_soft;
          if (day >= 1 && day <= kNumDays) days_soft[day] = true;
          num_hrs_soft += fda.bshh.count();
        }
        else {
          ++flight_cnt_real;
          if (day >= 1 && day <= kNumDays) days_real[day] = true;
          num_hrs_real += fda.bshh.count();
        }
      }

      if (flight_cnt_real > 0) {
        auto delta_real = kStandWithAtLeastOne;
        delta_real += std::min(kMaxBonusFlights, static_cast<double>(flight_cnt_real) * kFlight);
        delta_real += std::count(days_real.begin(), days_real.end(), true) * kUniqueDay;
        delta_real += std::count(hrs_real.begin(), hrs_real.end(), true) * kUniqueHour;
        delta_real += std::min(kMaxHourBonus, static_cast<double>(num_hrs_real)) * kHour;
        res_real += delta_real * weight;
      }

      if (flight_cnt_soft > 0) {
        auto delta_soft = kStandWithAtLeastOne;
        delta_soft += std::min(kMaxBonusFlights, static_cast<double>(flight_cnt_soft) * kFlight);
        delta_soft += std::count(days_soft.begin(), days_soft.end(), true) * kUniqueDay;
        delta_soft += std::count(hrs_soft.begin(), hrs_soft.end(), true) * kUniqueHour;
        delta_soft += std::min(kMaxHourBonus, static_cast<double>(num_hrs_soft)) * kHour;
        res_soft += delta_soft * weight;
      }
    }

    if (num_pos > 0) {
      return {
        std::clamp(gt_round_cast<int32_t>((res_real / num_pos) * (100.0 / kMaxPerStand)), 0, 100),
        std::clamp(gt_round_cast<int32_t>((res_soft / num_pos) * (100.0 / kMaxPerStand)), 0, 100)
      };
    }

    return { 0, 0 };
  }

21 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

2. RT Ground Coverage monitor.

This has not been updated since 02-11-2026. The forum is also barely alive, when I tried to post a message. Any idea what's going on in the RT Camp?

Balthasar was two weeks in Switzerland for work. After that he had  problems getting back to Sydney via Dubai ... That may be the reason. Note that for Balt RealTraffic is a hobby project too, just like PSXT for  me.

 

 

Edited March 20Mar 20 by kiek

Nico,

Thanks for the response, unfortunately I'm not proficient in C++ at all.

I'm going to simplify my question. 

Two weeks ago, any airport that had qf>40 was considered as airport with good RT coverage (I know it for 100%, as I owe ~ 70 sceneries for US and EU airports). Now it's totally different. EDDF now formally has horrible qf, but real AI movements in MSFS2024 looks ok. The same is true for EBBR and KDFW.

So, how should we read qf now, as my purchase pattern for sceneries has been based on PSXT qf until recently. I will never buy a scenery product with bad qf, that's why I don't fly in China. Or maybe some other coefficient, rather than QF

Would appreciate you help here.
 

22 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Now it's totally different. EDDF now formally has horrible qf, but real AI movements in MSFS2024 looks ok. 
 

The QF is not an indicator of traffic movements at an airport. The real part of the Qf reflects the likelihood that a live aircraft is near a stand, allowing PSXT to conclude: “I think this aircraft is parking at this stand.”

It therefore depends heavily on PSXT’s find stand algorithm. The latest version is a bit more restrictive, as it also takes the stand type and aircraft category into account, in addition to wingspan versus stand radius. That’s why QF values may have changed. At some airports they are slightly lower, while at others they have increased; however, the average QF across 7,000 airports has remained the same.

How you interpret QF values is up to you, keeping this information in mind.

EDIT: I'll look closer to the EDDF airport, most likely there are some wrong stand types in the addon scenery.

Edited March 20Mar 20 by kiek

Understood. 
 

in this case I will be relying on RT ground movements radar. Hope Balt will be back home soon.

Do these lower QF's then affect real parking? I don't like to use soft parking since its not accurate.  It's disappointing to see large airports that were filled with real parking now have such low QF's. Example flightbeam KSFO is only 28 and KMSP is 18. MK studios KLGA only 22 many others as well

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

Do these lower QF's then affect real parking? I don't like to use soft parking since its not accurate.

Soft parking takes place during off line learning (here at me) only. You can disable soft entries from the airport file with the Soft checkbox in the UI.
I don't think real parking is much effected, at least not for the stands that are used regularly. That's because the find stand algorithm in  PSXT (when you are in the Sim) has an extension compared to the one that is being used offline. If a stand is not found within 55 meters it will look a bit further and if the stand is a stand where that airline with that type of aircraft parks (any time in the week) it will assign that stand.
That's the advantage of the more restrictive find stand algorithm that is used offline, it delivers information of a higher quality, that can be used to your advantage in the Sim.

I mean what is wrong with these numbers, as an example:

INIBUILDS
   EGCC 1.0.3   129  45     Manchester                              
   EGKK 1.0.0   187  53     Gatwick                                 
   EGLL 1.0.8   261  54     Heathrow                                
   EGNM 2.0.1    54  45     Leeds Bradford                          
   KDFW 1.0.2   248  64     Dallas-Ft Worth Intl                    
   KJFK 1.0.2   235  42     Kennedy Intl                            
   KLAX 1.3.1   247  44     Los Angeles Intl                        
   KMKE 1.0.0    96  40     Milwaukee Mitchell International        
   KSAT 1.0.9    56  53     San Antonio Intl                        
   LOWI          16  58     Innsbruck                               
   NZQN 1.0.3    15  67     Queenstown                              

FlyTampa
   CYYZ 1.0.0   262  50     Toronto/Pearson International           
   EHAM 1.2.0   270  42     Schiphol                                
   KBOS 1.9.0   201  64     Logan Intl                              
   KLAS 1.6.0   271  57     McCarran International                  
   LGAV 1.8.0   120  41     Eleftherios Venizelos Intl              
   YSSY 2.6.0   150  43     Kingsford Smith Intl                    
 

All and all I think you guys "are making a big deal out of nothing." 😉 

Go flying, enjoy the traffic.
 

 

Edited March 20Mar 20 by kiek

14 minutes ago, kiek said:

All and all I think you guys "are making a big deal out of nothing." 😉 

I agree we probably are haha. Thanks as always for all the hard work

I'm curious in cases like St Maarten. A few months ago, every landing resulted in planes being 1000ft above the threshold.

 

But right now, they're landing normally.

9 hours ago, simsuper80 said:

I'm curious in cases like St Maarten. A few months ago, every landing resulted in planes being 1000ft above the threshold.

 

But right now, they're landing normally.

That is more related to a QNH problem, not to the Qf.

5 hours ago, kiek said:

That is more related to a QNH problem, not to the Qf.

Ok. And if there happens to be a QNH issue at any other airport, it's not something that can be fixed right away?

On 3/23/2026 at 2:00 PM, simsuper80 said:

Ok. And if there happens to be a QNH issue at any other airport, it's not something that can be fixed right away?

No, its pure (temporary) wrong data...

Just now, kiek said:

No, its pure (temporary) wrong data... Like what they say: "garbage in .. garbage out"

 

1 hour ago, kiek said:

No, its pure (temporary) wrong data...

Oh ok. So if I see it again at another airport. It could eventually be fixed?

48 minutes ago, simsuper80 said:

Oh ok. So if I see it again at another airport. It could eventually be fixed?

No, but normally you do not see this behaviour.