Jump to content

eddl

New Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, I am usually using the MSFS startup time to prepare my flight with SimBrief and other third party tools and I also enter the destination airport into PSXT. However when finally in the sim and launching a flight, the destination box in PSXT is suddenly empty again. I noticed PSXT will do some kind of automatic restart during the flight loading. But it does not remember the destination and clears that field. Any chance that PSXT can remember the destination (+ gate + learning yes/no) during an automatic restart? Thank you very very much for your kind support. ๐Ÿ™‚
  2. I can only give very positive feedback regarding PSXT & RT. It is a wonderful experience, but might not have the traction of FS Traffic or FSLTL in the flight sim market. The latter products are far more talked about in flight sim forums than PSXT+RT, at least my impression. But PSXT+RT is way better than those products on airports with ADS-B coverage, not having the AI flow issues everyone is complaining about. What seems missing from a product standpoint versus the competitors is the perfect "out-of-box-experience", which means having to learn airports first. But I am working on this currently and will happily share all the airport files later for everyone to benefit from it. Imagine having good base files for 300+ addons. Yes, spending too much money on addons.... Will check your reply regarding the collision unblocking later.
  3. In the RT GUI, I can see a line representing the runways. But I guess that is just RT using the Navigraph DB and not accessible to PSXT. I will think about it. Is there a website that shows all variables that you have access to? Not a fake name, I am from Dรผsseldorf area. ๐Ÿ™‚
  4. It is quite difficult to find good conditions for the air collisions to re-appear. I see several issues with the logic above, backtracking is just one of them. Just imagine doing a 180 degree turn at the runway end to see another aircraft re-appear and quickly coming closer and closer and all you can do is just wait for the impact... In VR you would have to close eyes. ๐Ÿ™‚ Some thoughts - possible conditions to unblock the air collisions: (1) User aircraft is on ground & speed max 8 knots (2) AND injected aircraft is on ground & speed max 8 knots (3) AND minimum distance 1500ft between user aircraft & injected aircraft That should in most cases make sure that at least one aircraft left the runway already, so no surprises on the runway. And the minimum distance avoids re-appearing in a directly conflicting situation. In my humble opinion, the unblock conditions should be more on the conservative side. Early unblock is more problematic than a late or no unblock at all. Personally I would still prefer to not show the air collisions on the ground to avoid any negative surprises, as we won't find perfect parameters to guarantee an unproblematic re-appearance. And nobody would miss this aircraft. Another thought: Any air collision can be shown as follow-me once on ground and <20 knots (if the follow-me option has been checked). That is a very simple check algorithm and is quite transparent to the user. You would have the choice to follow the car to a parking position or ignore it at all. And even if the car suddenly appears on the runway in front of me during backtrack, it is so small so I would not have any fear running into it and just ignore it. That also means that there might be two follow-me cars after landing (if two aircraft have been too close on approach), but you could just follow the one in front of you and you won't notice the one behind you anyways. Once arrived at the gate, the follow-me should disappear again. Still not perfect. Looking forward to check out whatever you implement. ๐Ÿ™‚ Many thanks!
  5. On the PSXT website is a file for EHAM: https://www.lekseecon.nl/downloads/aps_msfs/EHAM.zip
  6. The last conflicting scenario seems an aircraft lining up on the runway with the users aircraft being on short final. But that detection is going to be very complex. Are you up for a little challenge? ๐Ÿ˜‰
  7. That's why I asked. I guess there is no good moment for that aircraft to reappear on the ground out of nowhere - still likely being too close to the users aircraft even after landing. At bigger airports you won't notice that this single aircraft is missing. It might require very complex extra rules to have this aircraft show up again at a good place, so not showing it seems the simplest solution.
  8. Just being curious: (1) I guess you are not clearing any aircraft that wait on the holding position next to the runway which I am approaching, despite matching the proximity criteria - is that correct? (2) The aircraft which was blocked in the air due to close proximity (in front of me on the ILS) will not reappear on the ground as it never gets out of the predefined box around me again - is that also correct? Thanks a lot for clarifying. ๐Ÿ™‚
  9. Just tested the new release. Absolutely incredible! Being guided all across Schiphol to the Polderbaan, without bumping into anyone else and approaching Heathrow without getting squeezed in the approach sequence. That flight was an absolute joy. Thank you so much for all your work! Also thank you for being so open to user input despite all complexity introduced and time required. Too bad that my current favourite aircraft (Fenix A320) does not support the blocking with light switches, therefore I did not yet test it. But for sure I will do in a different aircraft.
  10. Please do NOT get me wrong. I am happy with it as it is and very thankful that you provide this application and in no means I am asking for new features to be implemented. When I see the progress of development, new features, multiple releases a month, I just had the impression you are very dedicated to it and maybe happy to get some ideas for further improvement. Being an IT guy and aviation geek myself I always have some ideas. ๐Ÿ™‚ But it is totally fine that you define the scope of PSXT and if my ideas are out of scope, it is OK. No hard feelings at all. Thanks for your honest feedback.
  11. Do you get a normal looking or nearly empty T5 with your file? Do you have auto-adjust on or off? Thank you.
  12. Adding to my idea above: the position priority parameter would allow to place pseudo-static aircraft in maintenance areas or in front of hangars.
  13. Are you guys talking about the same publisher, there is INIBUILD and another third party, there is Asobo and you have the default EGLL...? I have the iniBuilds one, but checking auto adjust first.
  14. Thanks a lot for.your feedback! ๐Ÿ™‚ I have not ticked the auto-adjust, all running with default settings in the Learner. I will check the XML files based on your comments and might get back to you with some findings. An idea regarding empty apron areas, which usually have aircraft in real world: is there a possibility to define an optional parameter "priority" for parking positions in the XML file? If set as true, then this position gets filled first by whatever flights are listed for that position. There must be flights listed though for this to work. This will allow to place hand-picked aircraft across the airport to bring more life to some areas. It would also allow me in the EGLL file to give priority to every forth or so position at Terminal 5, to manually balance this otherwise empty terminal a bit - having less parked aircraft elsewhere. This would be great and solve many issues listed above. ๐Ÿ™‚
  15. Still having questions related to this topic. I now have airport files with a lot of data from 24/7 learning. I go through them one by one to check the parking parameters fits the real world parking. Some issues I have seen: EGLL: BA's T5 is mostly empty , while all other terminals are completely packed. The airport file has a lot of BAW flights though. What could be the reason? What could I do to archive a more balanced parking? EDDK/EDDP: large cargo hubs for UPS/DHL with a lot of flights learned at night. When setting sim time to night, there is still the same aircraft distribution as during the day, mostly passenger aircraft at the terminal, but not much cargo aircraft to be seen. Also tried restarting PSXT, but no help. What can this be? While writing this I just thought about the snapshot data, maybe still all aircraft from daytime in there, ignoring my switch to night time. Will have to re-check. EIDW: very few EIN at the airport, but the northerly parking is completely packed with RYR. Airport file does contain EINs, where does the preference of RYR come from and what could I do about it? EDDM/EFHK: airports with a lot of based A350, but in the quite large airport files there is just a single A350 each in there. Also not a single A346 at EDDM. They seem to correctly appear in RT. Maybe gate matching for larger aircraft is more "strict", so harder to match a true parking position? Same with CLX in ELLX, totally underrepresented in the airport file. Strangely UAE A380/B77W appear at any major European airport without a problem. A bit puzzled here. ๐Ÿ™‚ For ELLX is manually added CLX flights, but this is hard for larger airports. Would be great to share near-optimum airport files and get more understanding of how they are read. Many thanks for your help.
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...