Jump to content

atco

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

atco last won the day on September 12 2010

atco had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About atco

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The AFCAD supplied with this scenery is utterly brutal. First problem: Some taxiways exiting the runway do not have hold short nodes placed on them. AI must pass over a hold short node upon exiting the runway to be allocated a parking stand. Additionally almost all the parking spaces are radiused at 18m for small gate. For those of us who have radiused our models appropriately this means anything larger than a CRJ is not going to appear because there is no parking for it. A320s and 737s are radiused at 22-25m. Also there are many, many gates that are assigned to RAMP_GA rather than GATE_SMALL. In order to fix this you need to do some heavy work in ADE. First step. Ensure there is a hold short node on every taxi link that connects to a runway. Second step. Change the gate radius for the gate_small to 25m. Change most of the Ramp_GA/Ramp_Large etc parking to Gate_Small radiused at 25m. Ensure you have left enough GA spaces for however much GA traffic you have. The supplied AFCAD really is quite atrocious and you will need to spend some time to fix it so it works properly.
  2. No offence taken, my skin's way thicker than that. I don't seek to make any comment on the product, its functionality or lack thereof and yes you are right its perfectly possible to manually enter the waypoints on a procedure, my concern was correcting the impression that these procedures were hardly ever used in real life. Take an example arrival into CYYZ. The STAR begins at Buffalo on the YOUTH2, the aircraft will be given descent to cross LINNG at 10,000 and 250kts. Then after handoff to Arrival will be descended to 8,000 then will turn at VERKO, futther descent usually in steps to 6,000 a speed reduction to 210kts then descent to 4,000. The aircraft is making its way on the arrival to SETLO then it will be given a speed of 190 and its first vector to base a 330 heading or so. This is when the aircraft comes off the arrival for tactical ILS sequencing. Then it gets a 030 heading and clearance to join the 06L localiser. Even though there are vectors to final the aircraft has been on the arrival since Buffalo. When necessary of course we will take the aircraft off the arrival for vectors. No hard feelings at all.
  3. OK I get it, come in here with information from the real world and get attacked. Got it. I have no desire to chest puff, this is an online forum, my life simply isn't that shallow. For the record this is what you said: "Go to liveatc.net and sit there and listen until you actually here ATC tell a pilot to fly a STAR for his approach. You'll be there a long time. Do some research, actually learn how the real world fly's" I stated that controllers do not have to tell the pilot to fly the STAR approach because it is already part of the clearance. Example the aircraft will get his clearance from delivery "Cleared to Newark via BULGE V252 GEE SHAFF6, squawk 1234" etc. At no point does it have to be re-iterated, but just because the pilot is not given it again does not mean that it is not flown. Into busy airspace the arrival will almost always be flown up to around the downwind leg. The arrival is required almost all the time to ensure specific restrictions are met. You rather harshly told someone to learn how the real world operates and stated "real world hardy ever uses a STAR" yet I'm sorry to say you were not even close to right on that one. You know what though I give up here, I see how this goes. Enjoy your Airbuses everyone.
  4. Umm yes OK I Guess, but I see and have seen from 13 years of operational experience, flightplans going to places that are not London or the US/Canada. For example flights to Santiago, Sao Paolo, Buenos Aries, Mexico City, Punta Cana, Cancun, Rome, Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow, Bristol, Frankfurt, Paris, Munich, Athens etc etc which all get filed with the STAR arrival. In addition to working the London TMA (which covers airfields as far out as Birmingham, East Midlands, Bournemouth, Southampton etc) I have also visited ATC units in various countries (Including Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Brisbane, New York, Cleveland, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle to name a few) and have seen how operations work at those places. If you don't want to believe that then fair enough, I'm just posting information, can't be bothered getting into pointless forum arguments with people who apparently know better. Information is here do with it as you please.
  5. I am sorry, but as an active Air Traffic Controller I cannot let this one go by. I would estimate that 90% of IFR transport category movements that can fly a STAR do so. For example here in CYYZ we have RNAV STARs. examples are the YOUTH2, WTRLO2, MANS1 etc. Almost all of our inbound traffic files the STAR and will follow the RNAV legs pretty much onto the downwind leg where the Arrival guys will turn them base and final to fit into the sequence. Similarly we see departing traffic to the US will almost always file a STAR, this is part of the clearance issued by clearance delivery at the point of departure and does not need to be reiterated by the controller down the line because the airplane already has it from its ATC clearance. Everything I see on a daily basis going to a major US airport has a STAR filed, the WYNDE arrival into KORD, SHAFF and HELON into KEWR, IGN into KJFK, FLCON into KATL, SPICA into KDTW, GDM into KBOS, NOBBI into KLGA and on and on. Aircraft will follow the STAR almost until they are into downwind for the most part until tactical vectoring becomes necessary. STARs allow pilots and controllers to know what to expect and makes airspace utlisation much better. Also because of the significant sectorisation of airspace around busy airports it is often needed to ensure the aircraft miss certain sectors laterally or vertically. I was a controller in the United Kingdom previously too and almost everything inbound to airports in the London TMA (where I worked) was on a STAR. STARs in the UK are slightly different as they terminate at the holding fix rather than follow transitions almost to final as they often do in North America. SIDs and STARs are an utterly essential means of managing airspace and traffic for Air Traffic Control and without them the job would be almost impossible in busy airspace. I'm not going to comment one way or the other about the functionality in the Airbus product, but I simply had to respond to the suggestion that in the real World nobody flies SIDs or STARs, because the complete opposite is the case.
  6. Being a part of a major AI group, my main focus is AI. I would say a massive no to a VATSIM only approach to ATC. The fact is, the vast majority of simmers do not use VATSIM, and VATSIM cannot control AI. There has to be another solution. My recommendation would be to either implement some kind of basic ATC system that can be improved on by a third party product, or what would be even better the ability to use a kind of "simconnect" module to allow a custom written thrid party program (a la Radar Contact) to have complete control over ATC that can be run on another PC. I would really love to see the ability to offload tasks on another PC in some way. So you could have the main PC using its multi cores to render the sim, then using a module have the ability to use other networked PC's to handle AI, weather, ATC, Road traffic etc. I think in this way it would be possible to have very high end visuals while adding complexity and maintaining frames. Going back to AI. Things the AI community have been crying out for for years: Ability of AI to fly SID's/STARs and hold Ability for AI to fly real routes Get rid of the 100 leg a week flightplan limitation Be able to have "2 week" rotations - some ultra long haul flights only work with plans of 2 weeks not one Better ATC spacing on final approach Ability to choose runways in use Better ground ATC of AI to avoid nose to nose confrontations I would strongly suggest having a talk to some of the guru's of AI - Jime Vile, Reggie Fields and Jon Masterson. Their knowledge of the AI system, what MSFS does well and does not do well is unrivalled and they would be able to give you the best idea of how to proceed in that way. I will point them towards this topic. If there is anything we can help with the Alpha India Group has expertise in modelling, flightplanning, painting and ADE/AFCAD design -we have most of the AI World wrapped up, we would gladly offer whatever assistance we could in helping with AI. On a personal level: Some kind of converter for MSFS models possibly - although I am keen to get away from the "backwards compatibility" ways of the ACES team Support for FSDS models ! Please, I beg LOL I only know how to model in FSDS and I have a few things on the go at the moment ! Sloping runways - definately. Imagine landing at EGBB with that famously humped runway, would add all kinds of challenge to landing Weather - We all know that FS has some serious limitations with its weather engine - How about getting the Active Sky folks to write a complete weather generator, again that could be run either outside the sim or even better on another PC There is probably a lot more I can't think of at the moment, and I have to head out to work now, but if I think of anything else I'll pop back in I wish you all the best with this venture, it's certainly not for the faint of heart.
  7. I'm not sure where you think anyone is going ballistic about it, I think most would accept it was a simple mistake. After 4 days of nothing being done about what was in the legal sense false advertising - I think some of us were wondering if it was going to be attended to. Anyway, thank you for attending to it, and I fully accept that there was no hidden intent behind it.
  8. Completely agree, can't believe it is still there. Almost none of those screenshots contain MyTraffic models or paints, but instead are the product of hundreds of hours of work by freeware authors like myself. I would like to see the comment removed immediately, because it is blantently untrue.
  9. The product page is misleading and should be changed: "Please note that screenshots have been made using MyTraffic" Screenshot 1: Iberia MD87 and 757 are AI Aardvark models Screenshot 2: Iberia MD87 is an AI Aardvark model Screenshot 5: Nose of The Fruit Stand A340-600 Screenshot 6: Iberia A321 is EvolveAI or DJC A321 Screenshot 7: The Fruit Stand Iberia A340-600 Screenshot 8: Swift Air ATR looks like PAI model and behind is EVAI/DJC A321 Screenshot 9: Delta 767-300 is AI Aardvark PW model Screenshot 11: Spanair MD80 is AI Aardvark model Screenshot 16: LAN 767-300 is AI Aardvark model Screenshot 18: Hola (Priviledge Style) 757 is AI Aardvark model Screenshots 19 and 20: PIA A310-300 is FS Painter model Screenshot 21: Iberia A340-600 is The Fruit Stand again Screenshot 23: Iberia A320 is EVAI or DJC A320 Screenshot 26: Aerolineas Argentinas 747-400 is AI Aardvark model Screenshot 27: Iberia 757 is AI Aardvark model Screenshot 28: BA 737-400 is AI Aardvark model, Iberia A319 is EVAI/DJC model Screenshot 36: Looks like all AI Aardvark, EVAI/DJC models Screenshot 37: AI Aardvark MD80 and 767-300 Screenshot 38: Fruit Stand A340-600s Screenshot 41: Portugalia E145 is EVAI or AI Malcontent Spanair A320 is EVAI or DJC Spanair MD80 is AI Aardvark Screenshot 42: Fruit Stand A340-600 model Screenshot 43: AI Aardvark 747-400 Screenshot 44: Santa Barbara 767-300 is AI Aardvark model Infact barely any of the screenshots have MyTraffic models in them at all. I think its very misleading to make that representation.
×
×
  • Create New...