Please put your post in the correct forum.
Today we had to move over 150 posts manually.  We do feel the forum structure is logical and the section names are clear. As redirecting posts pollute the forum a lot we will not add them anymore. So if you are unable to find your post, look for it in the most logical forum section.

Jump to content
Shaun Fletcher

Amsterdam Wish List.

Recommended Posts

+1 on the issues mentioned by Arnoud, and also +1 on the larger coverage of photorealistic textures. It does look quite stupid to fly over a highway that stops very suddently and cars that move on out in snowey landscape :-). Otherwise, tahnk you very much for bringing EHAM back in my simulator! Back to Gate C6 just as 10+ years ago biggrin.gif

Best Regards

Bjarne Sorensen / Denmark

Share this post


Link to post

Go to your NL-2000 folder and delete all files starting with EHAM. That's all.

Make sure MAP Amsterdam layer is above the NL2000 layers.

I'll try it, but I still think, if it's really that easy, it should be included as a simple option when you install the scenery. That can't be too much trouble for Aerosoft, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Shaun and all folks!

It is only a kind of feeling but what about the taxi-signs? Haven't read that issue here before.

I 'm afraid there have been installed much (!) to less not to get lost on this hugh airport especailly when flying online getting commands from a controller. To me it's the same as with Cornel's Arlanda before and has to be fixed very quickly in my opinion. Their positions shouldn't be that problem as many places are marked as bright(er) spots on the photo-ground where this signs stands in reality.

Thanks!

Bert

Share this post


Link to post

Shaun,

Any idea when a update or service pack will be released? I'm not flying with it yet but with a update I will :).

Thanks!

Evert

Share this post


Link to post

Evert, while the Mega Amsterdam certainly needs some fixing and tuning, just like any other piece of software btw, it is undoubtely is a very nice one. You dont need to wait for an udpate to fly it. On the contrary, fly it the most you can and if you noticed anything that'd need some update post it here.

Personnaly, the more I fly it the more I like it. It's not about bashing Schipol, it's about making it better than it is right now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Evert, while the Mega Amsterdam certainly needs some fixing and tuning, just like any other piece of software btw, it is undoubtely is a very nice one. You dont need to wait for an udpate to fly it. On the contrary, fly it the most you can and if you noticed anything that'd need some update post it here.

Personnaly, the more I fly it the more I like it. It's not about bashing Schipol, it's about making it better than it is right now.

Let's don't start a discussion as this is a wish list. I do find the airport very nice and the best of all other Amsterdam sceneries. But at the moment I'm continuing flying with the NL2000 v3 scenery because I want to merge Amsterdam with NL2000 and this takes some time and as it is my home airport and an airport which I visit many times, i'm only will start flying with it when it's perfect wink.gif.

Evert

Share this post


Link to post

Let's don't start a discussion as this is a wish list. I do find the airport very nice and the best of all other Amsterdam sceneries. But at the moment I'm continuing flying with the NL2000 v3 scenery because I want to merge Amsterdam with NL2000 and this takes some time and as it is my home airport and an airport which I visit many times, i'm only will start flying with it when it's perfect wink.gif.

Evert

With all due respect, but in that case you should not post things like 'when will there be a service pack?'.

Just sit back and wait wink.gif

==========

And now back on topic.

I agree with the issue that there are a lot of taxiways to be added. To my opinion it's one of the basic things. And, as this is quite a big airport, it's a must.

Share this post


Link to post

My first impression of this scenery was good. I still think it's good, basically.

Having moved arround "inside" the scenery it was nothing that appeared as to giving a bad impression except a very sparse number of taxi signs. I'm not so interested in those small issues as I'm going to sit in my cockpit when using the scenery.

Then I made some slewing, looking at the airport from above and a short distance out and finally made a "test" approach.

I find that Arnaud has made a right on the spot comments on how the scenery perform then. As we are pilots and not ground staff, Arnaud's pictures tell waht I think must absolutely be the most important thing to adjust/change.

Why bother to repeat what's already been said ? Just to tell that more simmers fully support Arnaud's point of view. I think we are many doing so, mainly because acting as pilot in the flightsim comes first, tourist guiding by far the next.

1. Processing the Arnaud-points

2. Taxisigns

3. All the details (cars in the grass, mirrored signboards, getting AC maintanance in hangar 73 instead of 72........and last but not least B-PIER gates(!))

As for the AFCADs, that Erik Brouwer so correctly has commented on almost allways are neglected by the scenery providers, I firstly thought was good. I haven't yet tried the "global" AFCAD, the one that manage all wind directions. However I have tested and adjusted the four other ones with more realistic gate asigments ( I think all simmers should develop their own skills to do so by the way) and some other things more suitable to my own standars. However, to get nearer to reality the STAR technique should not only be implemented to the "global" AFCAD but also the four AFCADs (North, East, South, West).

I have started this process to see what I could achieve with a mega airport as Schiphol with 4 base end runway directions.

Based on my experience now about what is achievable using the STAR technique for EHAM, I think it's possible to get the AFCADs working pretty much realistic.

However, I need to know which runways are in use during different wind directions. Could anyone be so kind as to provide me with such data ?

Not to forget, I'm still hoping the developers give priority to Arnaud's points.

Carl

Share this post


Link to post

Hey people,

Herewith our AFCAD.

To use it, knowledge of AFCAD by Lee Swordy is required. The runways can be shutted and opened as you like them to be.

You can leave 04/22 open for takeoff, so the GA-birds use it. Heavy traffic from Maintenance will not use it.

The following runway configs are generally used:

180-270 24TO, 18R/18C for landing

270-300 24TO, 27 for landing, also depending on wind strength. Use of 09/27 is restricted because of noise reduction.

300-000 36L/36C TO, 36R for landing

000-090 36L/36C TO, 06/36R for landing

090-180 18L TO, 18R/C for landing

This is in general how the runways at AMS are used. It almost never happens 4 runways are in use together (excl. 04/22) So select your runways on inbound/outbound peak.

Due to FS limitations, it will very rarely happen traffic lands on closed runways. Especially shortly after booting FS. THere is nothing we can do about that, sorry.

And of course you will hear all the fakerunways in the ATIS.

Use of Jim Vile's app file on avsim is recommended. Haven't tested the AFCAD without it.

Have fun with it, and please do not upload this anywhere else!

Comments are welcome.

Rgds,

Erik

© Jeroen Eekhof for the gate assignments

© Erik Brouwer for the STAR-Technique and other minor corrections to the AFCAD

AMS_AFCAD.zip

Share this post


Link to post

Hey people,

Herewith our AFCAD.

The following runway configs are generally used:

180-270 24TO, 18R/18C for landing

270-300 24TO, 27 for landing, also depending on wind strength. Use of 09/27 is restricted because of noise reduction.

300-000 36L/36C TO, 36R for landing

000-090 36L/36C TO, 06/36R for landing

090-180 18L TO, 18R/C for landing

© Jeroen Eekhof for the gate assignments

© Erik Brouwer for the STAR-Technique and other minor corrections to the AFCAD

Thanks for the above data. However, in order not to mess up any exchange of views about AFCAD for the EHAM scenery within this topic I have opened a separate thread for this purpose. Hope that will be found appropriate and acceptable.

Carl

Share this post


Link to post

Here are some new ones that have not been reported yet. Of course I'd like to confirm the lacking of enoug taxiway signs, the intensity of the lights which is not high enough, the centre lights not being in the centre of the runways and the aprons that are a bit empty. Here it comes:

- The 'spotter place' located south of runway 06/24 is still in the scenery. In real life there are some new buildings of new shipping agents.

- Between the D- and E-pier, at the remote stands, four blue cars are located, but they are grey at night. These cars are located at D92-D93-D94 and D95.

- A crossing place between the C- and D-pier for car traffic has been made in the scenery, but shouldn't be there anymore. This means that the white lines on the taxiways have to be removed there, and that the grass has to be made clear of asphalt.

Good luck!

Stefan

Share this post


Link to post

My 5 cents:

1. Improve performance and...

2. Processing the Arnaud-points

I think improving performance is impossible!

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone mentioned wintertextures yet?

I know Schiphol isn't that often covered by snow (except during this winter.. :huh: ), but it is strange to see the "rest of the surrounding world" (at least with UT) covered by snow and when you cross the Schiphol ground texture boundary (which is way to tight around Schiphol), get into spring like ground area's.

Best regards,

Frank van der Werff

Share this post


Link to post

Remove any non-AFD (Airport Facility Data) elements, such as exclusions and other objects out of the Afcads... so we can edit the Afcads with our editor of choice without the fear of destroying fundamental aspects of the scenery!!!

Just because some editors now allow the addition of untraditional elements, doesn't mean it's actually a good idea to do so...

:angry:

I also agree with Arnaud.

Finally, an airport scenery of this magnitude requires more betatesters than the four listed in the manual.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Comments are welcome

Hello, Erik!

When I deactivated the original AFCAD and replaced it with the one you attached here I got some problems at Schiphol:

- double buildings (towers)

- misplaced taxiway signs

I have also applied Jim Vile's APP file (in the Scenery\Generic\Scenery folder).

After returning to the original AFCAD (but leaving the APP file active) the problems disappeared.

Strange things, I admit. Just thought you would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post

So far research shows that the Afcad included with the scenery contains XML for 61 exclusion rectangles, 19 scenery objects and funnily enough 20 model files (or are they exclusions as well and how many do you need?!).

Also, a decompiler such as NewBglAnalyze hangs on the Afcad. When you end the process, there is some decompiled XML, but not all of it. It looks like it doesn't get further than the runways (possibly runway 9/27). Same goes for BGLXML. It wouldn't suprise me if the tricks performed to get the ILS Idents correct (the INOPs) actually cause issues.

EHAM is already a peculiar (AI/ATC/Afcad) airport by default, add the runway renumbering and needed approach file, add this bloated Afcad and INOPs and you've got a recipe for disaster.

I feel AS must provide a separate (was going to say clean, but I'll clean up the Afcad myself...) Afcad ASAP (this means before SP1). A separate exclusion file and a separate scenery file with the objects and models. Should only take a couple of minutes really, working from the source files. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

When I deactivated the original AFCAD and replaced it with the one you attached here I got some problems at Schiphol:

- double buildings (towers)

- misplaced taxiway signs

Rafal, as Mike wrote, that's because some exlude files are included in the AFCADs that come with the scenery. Erik was perhaps trying to help, but providing people with self-made files and omitting to caution users that they need an exclude file (not included) can cause only problems like the one you have.

I saw other posts around, from people having issues, because of those AFCADs.

The exclude file can be found here, by Mike Strasser:

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=32485&st=0&p=208779&#entry208779

Mike, very interesting findings there. That could explain some of the serious stutters encountered when flying to and out of the scenery.

I noticed that even when flyin away from the airport, the sim coughes and pauses just when you pass the limits of the airport area.

I definitely agree that the exclude files must absolutely be separate.

Share this post


Link to post

I think some more autogen closer to the airport would be nice. It's kinda naked out there, especially around the Polderbaan, and there are at least some trees there.

Share this post


Link to post

My one request would be for some optimized/reduced tecture files. I'm finding the FPS a little low, compared to sceneries of similar quality. Thanks...

- daniel

Share this post


Link to post

It is clear that many of us have comments and questions regarding the Mega Apt EHAM version, be it AFCAD trouble, texture problems, bumping taxiways, default scenery buildings popping up and others. How nice the add-on is made, it is clear that it apparently is not completely according to the Aerosoft add-on standards as we expect it to be like, historically. Comparisons being made with the Mega Frankfurt sceney and others, and for example the brand new Balearic X scenery-almost being without bugs either in FS9 or FSX -my compliments, and it IS possible to do it that way! By starting this thread, it looks like Aerosoft is understanding that we have a problem here. We indeed need a thorough update and I hope it does come, even if it may take a while but let it be well done.

Tompie

Share this post


Link to post

Concerning the taxiway sign issue, I can help you with some specific signs, as I discussed this issue before on the Dutch division forum of IVAO.

These are the signs at:

-the low-visibility reporting points VK, VL and VM (not included (yet, I hope blush.gif ) in the scenery)

-the holding points Z1, Z2, Y1 and Y2

I'll provide you with some images showing how it looks like. These images were made by a KLM Cityhopper pilot.

This is how the situation is at the low-vis reporting points:

Signs:

IMG_4706.JPG

You can see that the low-vis point VM is indicated by 'yellow-on-black' (location sign). This sign is followed by another location sign, indicating that the pilot is on taxiway victor.

Gound marking:

IMG_4707.JPG

On the taxiway surface the low-vis crossing point is indicated by a dashed line and 3 low visibility lights.

Holding points Z1, Z2, Y1, Y2

Signs at holding point Z1:

IMG_4704.JPG

Here you can see that the signs are white-on-red for both the runway indicator and the 'Z1' sign. Same goes up for Z2 and Y1/2.

And the ground marking:

IMG_4705.JPG

A normal holding runway hold-short marking with a red block with '36C-18C' in white painted on the taxiway surface.

I hope this helps you for improving things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to add a vote against any Leipzig-esque bridges. I don't want to see AI go through them and there is a lot of that at EHAM, more so than at EDDP, where I didn't like it much either...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Schipol people :)

Since Shaun has started that thread and since it sounds like there's going to be some rework of that nice scenery, I feel the urge to point at what I think is a major issue with Mega Amsterdam.

There are lots of small details that could be improved when you are right on the airport, but there in my opinion a serious problem when you're actually flying toward the airport.

It must have to do with the LOD architecture of the scenery, and perhaps, with the 'under the sea level status of Schipol.

Better than a long post full of typos, those screenies will show the problem:

eham_1.jpg

eham_2.jpg

eham_3.jpg

eham_4.jpg

eham_5.jpg

eham_6.jpg

eham_7.jpg

3 nautical miles from the airport and no 3d objects is abnormal, and that is a problem. I know some bits of the makings of a scenery, LODs etc, but here that's really exagerated, and that must be sorted.

Always difficult to compare with other sceneries, however if we look at other mega airports from AS the story is a whole different: Madrid, Heathrow, De gaulle, Frankfurt, Brussel (same deisgner) etc,

as far as 10NM away you can already see the main buildings first LODs.

There is also something wrong with how AI aircrafts remain untextured in Mega Amsterdam: I know some AI models loose their texture from the distance and their lowest LODs, but here, even at 1 mile

they're still naked. That should really be worked out, I hope Cornel reads this.

Seeing a vast empty area filled with naked AI aircrafts instead of an airport, when you're on final at less than a few nuatical miles and few hundreds feets is defintiely not pleasant and not the way it should be. Again, no other Mega Airports from Aerosoft looks like this.

In fact, I am thinking that the buildings popping up in view like they do, making the whole think look quite weird, is because they are not built with LODs.

Which nowadays, cant be.

Hope this help us all.

Regards

I have the same problems as above :(

I don't have these issues with EDDF, LFPG and EGLL. Hope EHAM can be brought up to their standard.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...