Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
harpsi

Ai Aircraft And Bridges

Recommended Posts

Hi

I saw the behaviour of AIs and it seems that it is useless to have 8L/26R available for any kind of operations, since for taxi AIs need to cross one of the bridges and they are taxiing not over but under both of them. Is this normal?

harpsi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this normal?

Yes, because of the limitations of FS9, AI planes are not able to cope with the height differences while taxing! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am just about to install the scenery. It would be strange if the devs haven't thought about this. And solved it with on optional patch. A solution must be found! :D I'm definitely gonna try and do it myself.

I wonder why there is no info about this either way on the product pages. Slightly misleading.

Edit: okay, this is gonna be difficult, but not impossible. The taxiways change in height, not the roads and railways beneath. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's impossible for AI to do anything but taxi perfectly horizontal.

So... the solution is to remove the taxiway bridges and to lower the taxiways to ground level. And then to lower the roads and railways into a gutter below that. Not sure about the point where the two cross eachother. If (AI) aircraft will sink into the gutter. If that's the case, a simple yet visually unappealing plateau must be raised to remove the gutter at that point. It can be textured to make it look like there's nothing there, certainly from a distance. And while taxiing you wouldn't notice a thing, taxiway would be flat, trains and road traffic would pass underneath. This may not be a realistic solution, but one that can work. It's gonna take a bit of an effort, but I hope the devs will do it anyway.

And personally, I've never seen the real thing, so as far as I know, it would be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I hope the devs will do it anyway.

And personally, I've never seen the real thing, so as far as I know, it would be realistic.

I hope, they do not! The way it looks now is realistic. The bridges go well above apron-level; your solution would look really strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Folks,

If your referring to EDDP there was mention of this in the Limitations part of the manual about the AI and bridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a manual? :P

It does indeed mention it, of course, by the time you've installed it and read the manual, you've already bought it...

Anyway: "The Afcad-file has adapted this „non-feature“ and most of the traffic will use the southern runway in order to avoid the bridges."

AI is not aware of the bridges, so just how can they avoid it? It is true, most if not all departure traffic will use the southern runway, but that is because it's the closest runway for most if not all traffic. Arrival traffic will use the northern runway though if it's opened for landings.

I've made the southern runway a departure runway (may make it dual ops) and the northern runway an arrival runway. The airport is not that busy, so I don't think I'll see traffic go through the bridges all that often.

Still, I would like to hear some additional comments about this from the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, I would like to hear some additional comments about this from the devs.

You can have this:

The desition to make a realistic Scenery based for the need of the users Aircraft was done by the developers. The limitation for the AI Traffic is based on the desition by MS in there development not to implement this part.

To make a unrealistic flat airport with critical howls for the street was never a option, only to make the AI Traffic possible. You can try the freeware and you will see that there solution is also not optimal, because to lower the streets can bring other conflicts.

So, there will never be a "optional" Patch or Version with makes all flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there you have it, the harsh reality. I can accept that, though next time, I would want to see this kind of limitation on the product page up-front and not in the manual afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there you have it, the harsh reality. I can accept that, though next time, I would want to see this kind of limitation on the product page up-front and not in the manual afterwards.

I don't know why you are making such an issue out of it. It was quite clear from the outset that AI-Traffic would not work properly with this kind of special feature. It didn't work in Lukla, Dortmund or the Wasserkuppe Airport of Scenery Germany 4. G-Max objects that simulate slopes cannot be used by AI.

It's a known limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there you have it, the harsh reality. I can accept that, though next time, I would want to see this kind of limitation on the product page up-front and not in the manual afterwards.

The first statement you made was as expected, the edit you done shows that you dont read between the lines:

If the developers should follow your requestes, we all will never see any scenery again, because it is just impossible to follow every personal feeling and needs, wishes and requests, you and others will may have. Take it as it is and when you will follow all the posts here in deep, you should have seen before the scenery was released (and you had any chance to pay for it) that this limitation was discussed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first statement you made was as expected, the edit you done shows that you dont read between the lines:

If the developers should follow your requestes, we all will never see any scenery again, because it is just impossible to follow every personal feeling and needs, wishes and requests, you and others will may have. Take it as it is and when you will follow all the posts here in deep, you should have seen before the scenery was released (and you had any chance to pay for it) that this limitation was discussed before.

Welp, FSDT KORD has flat areas where the bridges are in real life. The bridges at KORD are no where near as large and lond as at EDDP mind you.

But getting to my point, it looks nothing like "real life" does, in real life the bridges are very pronounced. I would like to add the FSDT version of KORD is an awesome airport in FS even with this limit. They did what they had to with the limits of the simulator.

This is from the read me for EDDP...

Unfortunately it is not possible in FS2004 to let the AI Traffic taxi over bridges. The Afcad-file has adapted this „non-feature“ and most of the traffic will use the southern runway in order to avoid the bridges

I think EDDP is fine the way it is now. A great job on a fantastic airport by the GAP team. I feel like I'm in Germany while I'm there, even smells like Becks and schnitzel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
most of the traffic will use the southern runway in order to avoid the bridges

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean that (default) ATC will want to send the user's aircraft also there?

Best regards,

Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean that (default) ATC will want to send the user's aircraft also there?

Best regards,

Rafal

Yes, but when you fly under IFR ATC you can request a different runway before start, so you can ask for the 8L/26R on depature, even when the ATC default goes to the south runway. Same in approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why you are making such an issue out of it. It was quite clear from the outset that AI-Traffic would not work properly with this kind of special feature. It didn't work in Lukla, Dortmund or the Wasserkuppe Airport of Scenery Germany 4. G-Max objects that simulate slopes cannot be used by AI.

It's a known limitation.

I'm not making an issue out of the scenery or any aspect thereof. I have not followed the development of this airport, I do not visit these boards on a regular basis and I do not have any of the other sceneries you mention. I have no problem with the scenery, it's very good, I have no desire to get my money back nor to boycott future releases. :rolleyes:

the edit you done shows that you dont read between the lines:

If the developers should follow your requestes, we all will never see any scenery again, because it is just impossible to follow every personal feeling and needs, wishes and requests, you and others will may have. Take it as it is and when you will follow all the posts here in deep, you should have seen before the scenery was released (and you had any chance to pay for it) that this limitation was discussed before.

I can read between the lines just fine. And nowhere did I say I expected the devs to cater to my specific needs, I expressed my hope, nothing more. But the real point I'm trying to make, is one of poor communication on Aerosoft's part. (Talking from a SimMarket point of view, there's where I buy most add-ons.) I see EDDP has been added to the catalogue, I read the additional info, I see the screen shots, with aircraft on the bridge... Now, how hard would it be to add "Due to a limitation of FS9, AI can not make use of differences in elevation, such as the bridges."?

And how hard would it be to simply say, "We understand that you would like to see AI make use of the bridges. We have thought about an alternative yet less realistic solution, but we can not justify the amount of work it would take to accomplish it.".

It would render this discussion moot.

None of the aformentioned caveats. (The manual is not entirely correct either or it is a question of poor wording.) Instead, I get a very helpful "I hope, they do not!", while an optional patch on my setup-up would in no way reduce the simming pleasure of that individual. I hope... ;)

Then "You can have this:", looking at your other posts, I'd say it's more of lingual issue, but it rubbed me wrong way.

and when you will follow all the posts here in deep, you should have seen before the scenery was released (and you had any chance to pay for it) that this limitation was discussed before.

When I am a customer of SimMarket and not the Aerosoft shop and when I am not a regular visitor of these forums nor the Aerosoft site, the above is hardly part of what you can reasonably expect a customer to do.

And that's that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welp, FSDT KORD has flat areas where the bridges are in real life. The bridges at KORD are no where near as large and lond as at EDDP mind you.

But getting to my point, it looks nothing like "real life" does, in real life the bridges are very pronounced. I would like to add the FSDT version of KORD is an awesome airport in FS even with this limit. They did what they had to with the limits of the simulator.

That's a completely different situation. The taxiway bridges at KORD in real life are completely level with the neighboring taxiways and aprons. There is no slope involved. The highway and the people mover make a dip to go under the taxiway bridge and then go back up to terminal level. I know because I got ticketed for speeding when my car briefly accelerated well above the speed limit wihile going through that dip under the taxiway bridges at KORD! Beware of the traffic cops at KORD. They are very bored and in a very foul mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...