Jump to content

RogePete

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RogePete

Recent Profile Visitors

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

RogePete's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • One Year In
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

17

Reputation

  1. Hi @Mathijs Kok and @SpoonHandled, an update on the LOC issue: normally I always check the content.xml after installing anything scenery related. This time I forgot doing this after installing LEMH. I recognized later, that LEMH was set above the Navigraph AIRAC (actually in the content.xml: below the main navigraph entry). I changed that and switched the navigraph entry back down to the last position in the content.xml and tried anyother flight to LEMH. I approached rwy19 ILS and had a perfectly aligned LOC this time. Just for your information. Don't know if I flew the LOC from the scenery before (which would be offset then) or if navigraph just don't like to be not the top (the last entry in content.xml).
  2. Had that too. (using Navigraph AIRAC). LOC is right between the rwy and the main taxiway. Coming from the south (landing on 01)
  3. Also here: https://www.flightsimulator.com/august-18th-2022-development-update/ under SDK Update > SIM Update 10: "NavData & Airport Data Reading API for SimConnect and WASM."
  4. I think the next section in the manual is also interesting. There may be a way to access the data of encrypted airports in the near future. As much as I understand the wish for encryption / copyright protection, these encrypted files make problems in more ways than just with GSX. Even more as people who DID pay for the airport have the problem. People 'who didn't' don't have it. I decided to not buy my stuff from marketplace anymore some time ago. Mainly because of the bad update situation. But this is also a reason.
  5. So this should be my final post and the conclusion: First of all: actually everything is configured correctly by default from the ST side (shoutout to @Simple Traffic!!). You can't do it in any other way (or you would mess up something else) - at least right now (who knows what future MSFS updates bring to us). If you're unhappy with the low populated airports with live traffic (especially in Europe) and would like to turn up Gound Aircraft Density (against the recommendations in the ST manual) you have to be aware of the following aircrafts which are randomly placed at a gate or parking position by the sim can be default Asobo AI liveries the amount of default Asobo liveries you'll see, depends on how the developer of the respective (addon) airport coded its parking positions and gates (some do it right, many do it wrong) If you want to get rid of these default Asobo liveries do the following (at your own risk, so make backups of the files you edit) go into your MSFS ../packages/official folder (where all the MSFS default and Marketplace stuff is) look for the Asobo generic AI aircraft folders. These folders are mainly "asobo-aircraft-generic-airliner-quadengines" and "asobo-aircraft-generic-airliner-twinengines" find the "aircraft.cfg" in every of the two folders and open it (with a simple text editor) look for the section that begins with [FLTSIM.0] inside this section look for the entry isAirTraffic = 1 and change it to 0 (zero) repeat that with any other following [FLTSIM.XX] section in the aircraft.cfg If you've done that correctly, you shouldn't see any Asobo AI airliner livery on any parking spot anymore.
  6. Just for your information: I made some further tests. I set all asobo generic twinjets 'isAirTraffic' to zero I set the ST default TJM livery 'isAirTraffic' (FLIGHTSIM.0) to 1. What now happens in EDDK (Aerosoft) is the following: on all positions which have some kind of a weird ",," in their parking codes (some are coded like ",,,DHL,TUI" - some are coded like "," - some are coded like ",,,,,") the white ST default twinjet livery is now used. On all positions with correct codes (e.g. "EWG,DHL,TUI" or just one code like "DHL") there are correct ST liveries. But also on all parking positions which have no parking code (emtpy) also the white default ST livery is now used. Next test: I will set the 'isAirTraffic' on the white default ST livery back to zero and see what happens (especially with the weird coded spots). BTW: one correction from my previous post: in the ST liveries, by default only the first white livery (flightsim.0) 'isAirTraffic' is set to zero. All others are set to 1.
  7. Thanks again @Simple Trafficfor the explanation. Very kind of you. I made some changes and had success. I took EDDK (Aerosoft) as a test object since there are always default Asobo 380 liveries at specific parking spots. I did add the icao_generic=0 in the stock 380 aircraft.cfg before (as you mentioned). But now I also added isAirTraffic = 0 in all of the respective FLIGHTSIM.X enries of the default asobo generic A380 liveries. Additionally (just for testing reasons) I took some default asobo B747 liveries (some 'fantasy liveries' from MSFS) and added isAirTraffic = 1 in their respective FLIGHTSIM.X entries. These also have no entry in the parking codes section. And now - instead of the stock A380 - the B747s appear on the respective parking spots. As you can see here: I still have to do the same with the asobo generic midsized twinjets: It really seems the system prefers empty coded planes/liveries over any other livery when finding stupid parking codes on an airport parking spot. Didn't test it yet, but I would assume it rather would take no plane at all (if it looks for a quad jetted plane for instance and doesn't find an empty coded livery) than any livery with specific parking codes. But I still wonder why it doesn't take your default white livery which also would apply to that rule (as you mentioned above) and now prefers the B747. Maybe because in your default textured livery there is a isAirTraffic = 0 in the FLIGHTSIM.0 entry? So maybe - if you do activate GROUND AIRCRAFT DENSITY - the system uses this entry for orientation. Cause 'isAirTraffic' is deactivated in every of your liveries ( the respective FLIGHTSIM.X entries). Or?! The reason in this specific case is, that your ST default textured planes have no CARGO entry in the 'atc_parking_types' section. And at least in EDDK the mentioned spots seem to be cargo positions. But: the last two cargo positions with the generic twin jets have no parking codes and could/should also be populated with ST cargo liveries, which they don't - so I think it's more likely that the 'isAirTraffic=0' entry is the reason here. Although I'm not sure - editing the 'icao_generic' to zero - if the system now still would use any of the stock A380 models (even with your ST liveries). Maybe I have to keep 'icao_generic' activated and just switch any default livery off with 'isAirTraffic'. And btw: I don't use SU10 (beta).
  8. Hi there again, sorry to bother you but I made a discovery and maybe you have an answer for me @Simple Traffic. I crawled through my 'official' folders to get rid of the generic liveries (by modifiying the aircraft.cfgs). I also looked through the Simple Traffic content, just out of interest. And what I found is the following: in nearly every Simple Traffic aircraft folder, in every aircraft.cfg, the first "FLIGHTSIM.0" entry is a default one. which links to a default texture folder inside ST. inside this texture folder there is a texture.cfg which now links to the default asobo-generic-airliner texture folder (in the QJH default texture folder there is in fact only this cfg and no texture at all) these first flightsim.0 default entries in the aircraft.cfgs of your planes have no parking codes (just like the asobo ones) could it be, that these are (also) taken when some weird parking codes are used by an airport? would it help (maybe?) if you take these default textured planes out of Simple Traffic (if you... maybe... plan to update ST some time in the future)? Best wishes
  9. First, thanks for your explanation. Finally some content! 🙂 I've done this already. I've already done this (...partly). Have to check again. Yes, and the stock liveries codes should be empty, as far as I remember. Hence they would be preferred over the ST liveries on these weird coded airport spots. I guess I have to walk through my folders and check what I can do by hand. Thanks again. Hope future airport devs will give their positions normal codes or at least leave them blank.
  10. Hmm, maybe it's an issue with the airports and how their gates and parking positions are coded. In EDDK (Aerosoft) the respective positions (where I see default A380 most of the time) are coded with Airline Code ",,,,,". Whereas positions with ST liveries on them have no Airline Codes at all or specific ones (like DLH or something). (btw: I checked this with LittleNavMap, where you can see how the positions are coded)
  11. I understand what you're trying to say. And yes, the Asobo developement is a bit sloppy, to say the least. Well, this is a big ship and we're all kind of unintentional early adopters. And you're abolutely correct to not doing changes on basis of a beta.
  12. With all respect, Oliver. I understand how annoying it is, having to adapt your own products for several times, cause the main platform changes. But with this sim, we have a company which is dedicated to develop the platform to a higher level. I havn't seen this with MS simulators... well, since I'm flying these things (for 25 years now). And I'm very glad Asobo and Microsoft made this commitment. Even if things brake from time to time (and hell they do!!), overall it's a good thing that this platform is beeing developed further. So, to say 'it's the sims fault, they should fix it' seems a bit of a short thinking, from my perspective.
  13. Yes, you're correct. It's about the ground aircraft density (I called it 'static' for lazy reasons 🙂 ). And I think we both know (OP and me) that this should be turned off, according to your manuals. But as I said, in Europe online traffic does not really populate even big airports. Hence, if you don't want to feel alone (with 1 or 2 other planes docked) you have to pull up GAD a bit. I have mine set to 35, I believe. And @mopperle, we know that this is not recommended, but what should we do? This was no critisism of Simple Traffic at all. I know why that happens and that it is sim driven. But maybe there's a way to turn off the stock livieres at all, so the sim at least chooses any real / Simple Traffic livery instead of the stock ones. That was the question.
  14. Jepp, me too. Saw it in EDDK (Aerosoft) for example. It seems there are mainly stock A380 liveries (but also some other planes). I think this happens if you (like the OP mentioned) turn on static traffic in the sim settings. Which I do too. Cause at least in Europe, the online AI traffic doesn't populate the airports very much. So, to have some (more) planes docked at gates gives a more realistic sight of airports. Never saw a moving stock livery though. I wonder why the sim chooses the default liveries at all and I wonder if there's a quick and easy way to completely deactivate those.
×
×
  • Create New...