Another bug that I noticed

[dubravko 0]

Hello FU3 fans,Here is the description of situation:Lets say that I'm landing at TOWER CONTROLLED AIRPORT and that there is another airplane called 1st AI plane landed just seconds before me and is now clearing off the runway. I'm on final and waiting for tower to say ...CLEARED FOR LANDING RWY... 1st AI plane clears off the runway and heads on the taxiway. Tower to me: ...CLEARED FOR LANDING..., and of course I respond: ...CLEARED FOR LANDING... 2nd AI plane to tower: ...TOWER, READY FOR TAKEOFF...Tower to 2nd AI plane: ...HOLD SHORT,LANDING TRAFFIC...2nd AI plane to tower: ...HOLD SHORT...Tower to 1st AI plane: ...CONTACT GORUND ON... and here is the PROBLEM/BUG!!1st AI plane switches to AIRPORT GROUND FREQUENCY without confirming to TOWER with ...CONTACT GROUND AT... and from then on TOWER IS JAMMED!!!I normally land and clear off the runway but TOWER is NOT TALKING to me or anyone else. Tower to 1st AI plane: ...CONTACT GROUND ON... DO YOU COPY...Still nothing...During that time 1st AI plane normally taxies to his parking spot after communicating with AIRPORT GROUND CONTROLL and everything works fine on the ground except that there is a takeoff line geting longer and longer since TOWER is NOT talking to anybody else.I also noticed that "tower silence" can be ended if someone (Player or some other AI plane) starts communication with tower. For example new AI plane has just entered pattern. Also I could contact tower but it would be stupid since I'm already on the ground. What can I say:...READY FOR TAKEOFF... or if I'm already on taxiway: ...NORTH OF THE AIRPORT FOR... It would be stupid for me to start communicating with tower since I just landed.I supose that tower thinks that runway is still used by that AI plane since it hasn't cofirmed to contact ground. Really strange!?Also I noticed that no AI planes confirms contacting ground to tower after landing althoug tower is instructing them to contact ground, but jamms like one as I described are not so often because someone soon after jamm contacts tower for landing or takeoff.Is there any way to fix this...this situation is not really often, maybe on 1 of 20 flights?Has anyone else noticed this?Regards...

[Christopher Low 5,331]

Yes, I have noticed incidents like that. If I am preparing for take-off, then it is OK. That's because I can repeat my request to take-off if the landed AI plane does not respond to the tower's instructions to contact ground.By the way, you should have been a beta tester for Looking Glass Studios ;-)Chris Low.

[Guest R_Driscoll]

I think LGS deliberately added some randomness in responses to make the ATC more realistic, for example planes that forget to respond, then get yelled at by ATC - this is documented somewhere, possibly in the FU2 manual. Possibly what you have seen here is an example. But in this case LGS forgot to add the code to remove the resulting problem.I used to run the UKS scenery with very high AI rates (using the flags in the configuration file you can increase AI as much as you like), and this was a good way of debugging packages. I found that when planes got blocked (eg two way traffic on a one way taxiway) then FU3 would leave them standing staring at each other for a while, and if nothing happened, simply delete them - the planes would suddenly vanish. This was particularly the case at Luton where planes had to taxi up the verge of the runway to get into takeoff position, since the taxiway feed was not at the runway ends, and these planes would often clash with landing traffic. Also at Luton I had a T-junction taxiway intersection that caused massive problems. But you don't normally see these problems at the default AI settings.Judging from Computer Pilot's article on ATC last issue, FS2004 has now included all of the features of FU3 (FS2002 was a fairly simple ATC), but still not as detailed as the old ATP of Sublogic. But the FS2004 version also includes features not in FU3, such as requests for altitude changes. From the screenshots, it looks like the ATC message options are spread over the top half of the screen - maybe there's an option to resize them more appropriately, I don't know. And I don't know if FS2004 gives you voice messages or simply prints everything on screen. I know I prefer to listen to ATC, not read them. Also FU3 ATC was designed for slow craft, and its reponse times are not good for large craft such as the B747.I had some very enjoyable short flights last night, the first from Luton to Stansted, in heavy rain flying the yellow Piper Cub (not strictly designed for IFR but I had a very patient lady on London Central), and the second from LCA to Heathrow in the DC3 in thick fog. This was Jon's Ansett version of Ansgar's DC3, and it kicks like a mule when the tail lifts in crosswind - I ended up spiralling off to the right, clearing the monorail (Docklands Light Rail) by a few feet, before I gained what might loosely be called control of the craft. The fog was so thick I missed Stamford Bridge completely and had to do a low circuit back again to see it.RobD.

[Guest effyouthree]

"I ended up spiralling off to the right, clearing the monorail (Docklands Light Rail) by a few feet, before I gained what might loosely be called control of the craft. The fog was so thick I missed Stamford Bridge completely and had to do a low circuit back again to see it.":-lol :-lol :-lolRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

[dubravko 0]

"By the way, you should have been a beta tester for Looking Glass Studios" I was really wondering how come LG beta testers missed those bugs. Some of them are really often.FU3 is really great but I think that it was rushed out on the market.It would be much better without some of those bugs that are so often. I think that good programmer could solve those bugs within one day.Regards,Dubravko.

[Christopher Low 5,331]

I'm sure that they could....if they had access to the source code.Chris Low.

[Guest effyouthree]

"I'm sure that they could....if they had access to the source code."Or, if those with rights to it didn't work under contract for Micro$oft, developing X-boxes :-roll (Face it, if you'd been burned by EA/LGS, having Bill offer you a cushy life in return for you agreeing not to work or consult outside the organisation for 5 years would seem OK).Or they get so wealthy they cast away the shackles of the dot com world they helped create and donate all the proceeds of all their copywritten code to charities...Maybe it would be easier to write some code to port the relevant parts of FU3 to FGFS? Again, we just need to know some code details!Regards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

[adams 1]

Thera are more important bugs in FU, IMO.B.Adamski