hero93

I experienced the UDP error around 0910 UTC today at EDDM. It was gone at 0930 UTC but reproduceable when offseting the time in RealTraffic.

I can assure you we take always a lot of time optimizing the AFCAD, especially for AIG traffic! In this case it was an error introduced shortly before the release due to a misunderstanding which was sadly not caught during beta. Takeoffs were of course working during development. I am very sorry for this and a fix will be provided.

Try a lower mesh resolution (about 5-18m), Maybe it is an interpolation error.

@padrot Keep in mind that when you apply the changes while the simulator is already running there is a transition phase with mixed runway assignment. It can take up to half an hour to settle, or reload your AI.

I had the very same problem with the Aerosoft Professional Version of LSZH (DLL version 1.0.0.3). Great tool btw! Many thanks!

Under "Windows ProgramData Path for P3D" in the settings menu "Program Config Path" I link to a custom folder where I have a copy of the scenery.cfg created by the LorbySceneryExporter.

Hi Roland, I still use your AI Controller 1.4 and it works satisfying with P3D v4.52. Is there a setup where AI Controller can be used in combination with your new tools or will they interfere? In my opinion there is nothing more exciting than AI following SIDs and STARs, so this has the highest priority for me.

I really enjoy the modern approaches you use and how flawless they work. It would be most convenient if the base color could be specified with a HEX Code or similar to match the operator's Corporate Identity. But I don't know the effort this would require.

Oh man, just repainted a bunch of the GSX vehicles in custom colors. I should have waited a bit longer. I wonder if the base colors can also be changed parametrically via DirectX now, as the pushback truck has a bit more complicated scheme now.

Yes

Had the same problem. There is a thread somewhere in the Lockheed forum. I had to set the autogen draw distance to medium to see autogen at the destination. I hope they'll fix that,

Do you know a workaround when the aircraft all stay too long to high and start the final approach too late so they land way too far at the middle of the runway. I tried it with custom Approaches (via the Converter) and the files you provide (My Problem is at SFO).

I don't really see myself as a commercial member of the community. Developing AFDs is like another hobby for me, that I get occasionally payed for. I am not part of any company and I don't make money by selling Add-On Products.

Ray, as the developer of the Flightbeam and some other payware AFDs I want to comment this briefly: First of all: Did you experience any real problems with the AFD while simming, or did you just run the fault finder? Those errors you mentioned are relative, when we produce the AFD for an airport with custom ground poly we don't use the links as intended. We add way more nodes to ensure the AI aircraft are taxiing on the centerline, thus there are overlapping nodes at some complex intersections. But those are not errors, as otherwise the AI would taxi via shortcuts or off the centerline. The maximum holdshort distance has some tolerance. The fault finder will of course use the minimum, but its sometimes necessary to nearly reach the limits. And as others already wrote, this is only important at the runway ends, as the AI won't get the takeoff clearance if they are too far from the runway. At the middle runway intersections, those errors are irrelevant and at a large airport like IAD with four runways you might get a large number but it doesn't say anything. There are sadly lots of limitations and problems with FSX (i.e. runway usage). Be sure those faults are the smallest concern in AFD design. When I am in the progress of developing the AFD. I run the fault finder every 30 minutes and fix the real mistakes. I spend hours simply monitoring the AI movement, searching for the important problems and trying to increase the traffic flow. At all Flightbeam airports also the service roads are traced in the AFD so GSX works as intended, this sometimes produces more node related error messages which are irrelevant. About Aircraft Parking and Gate description: By using specific gate types we prevent displaying of the default service vehicles independently from the user settings. There is a big limitation on gate identifier. All Traffic Add-Ons use different aircraft properties (wing span, Airline Codes,...). It is impossible to match every users AI. Our priority in parking distance is the user aircraft, as there is less variety and to ensure you don't start your flight inside the terminal. I have to agree with you all, that there are a lot of bad AFDs even from the "big players", but a lot of problems you adressed are because of limitations we sadly can't change. If you have any other specific questions I am glad to answer them. Sorry for my bad English and grammar, it's late...

Maybe you could get in contact with the ADE developer and develop a new AFD-Standard and a future ADE Version could convert the default AFDs.