Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

421 profile views
  1. Thanks guys, awesome advice! I've considered adding FAOR as a second airport (in addition to FAJS) - the problem is that both have the same IATA code (JNB) so not sure what UTL is going to do when it sees this, though.
  2. Unfortunately FAJS does seem to have parking enabled, so it's not that easy of a fix 😞 Seems the issue must be with the ICAO, then (FAJS vs FAOR). Again, though, changing FAJS to FAOR in all the xml files just causes UTL to go into a loop and crash when you start a flight. Suspect it's because the schedule files (which we cannot edit) contains FAJS and it gets all upset when it doesn't find FAJS in the xml's. <airport_information> <iata>JNB</iata> <icao>FAJS</icao> <name>Johannesburg Intl</name> <city>Johannesburg</city> <state /> <country>South Africa</country> <iso>ZAF</iso> <location_name>Johannesburg, South Africa</location_name> <isoTZ>Africa/Johannesburg</isoTZ> <hasIntl>true</hasIntl> <isLarge>true</isLarge> <rank>3</rank> <loc> <Lat>-26.1336945</Lat> <Lon>28.24231667</Lon> </loc> <alt>5558</alt> <hasParking>true</hasParking> <parkingPacked>25|6|0|13|26|11|0</parkingPacked> <smlDestinations>FAPN|FAWI</smlDestinations> <medDestinations>FABL|FAMN|FAPH|FASZ|FAUL|FBTP|FXMM</medDestinations> <lrgDestinations>FABL|FADN|FAEL|FAKM|FAPH|FAUL|FAUP|FBFT|FBMN|FQMA|FQVL|FVBU|FVWN|FXMM</lrgDestinations> </airport_information>
  3. I have no idea, @Peter Webber is the one using it :)
  4. I've actually been looking into TG, but wasn't too sure if it's a good idea. As far as I know it uses bgls instead of injection (as UTL does), so doesn't performance take a hit? PS: Does TG have Kulula, Mango and Safair?
  5. Hahah indeed. Maybe if we could edit the files somehow. I tried editing all the xml's and txt's in the AppData folder to replace FAJS with FAOR, but that just broke everything. Reverted it back to stock for now. If the schedules are using IATA codes then they should be fine (since the IATA is still just JNB), just not sure why the airport's empty - the parking positions haven't changed between FAJS and FAOR except for a few new ones in GA.
  6. Well, considering that FAJS changed to FAOR in 2013, and FADN was replaced by FALE in 2010... I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect that they're renamed properly in any schedules, really. Seeing as the schedules containing FAJS has to be at least 6 years old by now.... ouch. However, not the point of this thread :) I've accepted that it's not in there, so be it - but I'm hoping there's a way to get it to at least *somewhat* work.
  7. I've noticed that the flightboard still shows Johannesburg traffic when I'm in FAOR, yes - which is great. However, the situation on the ground doesn't reflect what the flight board says at all. Reason being, FAOR is completely devoid of any AI traffic. When I go to FACT, it works fine and has upwards of 10 aircraft (which is normal for a small airport like that), but in FAOR there should be 30+, not zero. The only AI i see in FAOR are 1 or 2 planes 20nm out with nothing parked at all. Any ideas?
  8. Hi guys, For those of you who are using Ultimate Traffic Live - I was wondering if there's any solution to this particular problem: in South Africa, Johannesburg International was renamed to OR Tambo international a few years ago. The ICAO also changed from FAJS to FAOR. In addition to this, FADN (Durban International) was closed and a new airport FALE (King Shaka International) was opened nearby. UTL doesn't see either of these two airports, however. P3D natively still seems them as FAJS and FADN, but if you install payware airports it changes the ICAO codes within P3D correctly to FAOR and FALE, respectively. However, if you go to FAOR, it's completely empty - because UTL still thinks traffic should depart from / land at FAJS, instead of FAOR. With the lack of a powerpack, is there any way at all to fix this? FADN/FALE might be trickier since it's a completely new airport, but if I can at least get FAJS renamed to FAOR within UTL it will at least give me a major hub airport's traffic back.
  9. I tried that, it's still external (especially prevalent when you're in front of the wing instead of behind the wing)
  10. Hi guys, I own the 737 NGX, 747 QOTSII, and 777 (all for P3Dv4). Currently, I have my wing views set up via Chaseplane for both wings, forward and aft angles. It looks fantastic, but what grates me is the fact that you hear the external sounds while in those wingviews (because in order to see the wings, you need to view the plane's external model). Is there any way whatsoever to have the internal sounds in your wingviews? A small adaptation to the cfg's, or something? With the NGX it's "somewhat" possible because the wings are modeled in the interior view too, but only half of the wing is rendered properly and is designed purely to be able to see it from the cockpit when looking back. Any ideas? Regards, Rean Opperman
  11. It's always done that for me as well. I believe it's because PMDG uses a new panel texture for the "lighted" panel instead of an actual light source? Or something like that. I've never tried to disable HDR to test it - I'll try that tonight and see if it helps.
  12. For those who wanted to see more screenshots of the AS+SF combination.... I did another test flight today. KTPA to KEWR, with ActiveSky & SkyForce (clouds and textures, not the SF wx engine). Flight started in an overcast murky Tampa, and ran into some serious thunderstorms on the way to New York (it was set to historic weather in Aug2017). Screenshots of the trip are below:
  13. I'd also like to know exactly how the model & texture injection works when using AS2016 with SF. Tagging @timest - I know you guys are crazy busy over there right now, but if you have a chance could you elaborate a bit more on how SF functions when using external wx engines? Like the factors taken into account when injection happens, how often it happens, and how it reads the weather data - it would help us a lot to make sure we optimise the way we use it :)
  14. You know, this is actually a perfect summary and I have to agree 100%. So far today I've been running ActiveSky for the wx engine and SF for the cloud models & textures, and it's been a really pleasant experience. SF does cloud models and textures very well, and AS does weather very well. Mixing the two ends up being damn near perfect, to be honest. Again, it comes down to personal preference. I too like clouds (and especially good cumulus clouds), so for me it works out well.
  15. Agreed - to be fair, those towering CB's in thunderstorms are very, very well done. Personally I'd like the CB's to flare a bit more at the top, but the advances already made in the CB structure is really worth mentioning here. It also has to be said that a CB is accompanied by LOTS of lower-level cumulus now too, like it should be (and like it is in real life), unlike the "isolated" cumulonimbus formations that we saw so often.
  • Create New...