OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I have been thinking about the taxiways a lot, and I have seen no obvious way to make it easy. so I sat down and thought about what I could do instead. This is the result. It gives place for about five more plots, and a park. We would have to move the playground, and the info sign, and probably cut down some trees and stuff - rearrange some roads...etc. Nothing Andras cannot handle, I bet. Just a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Seems to be fun to taxi over with all these turns! Good idea. But 2 plots, just east of the runway, should really be removed then. They are way to close to the runway. I love the idea of having a park. Nice place to organize my barbecues! Thanks for the work you put in, I really think this is a very good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 26, 2010 Share Posted July 26, 2010 Lets discuss this on the 10th of August, at our 1st meeting, I really like this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 26, 2010 Author Share Posted July 26, 2010 Well I have another - simpler version that would keep the crisp look Andras Field has, more than the suggestion 1. No "fun" turns (sorry Sebastiaan) but straight lines all the way. I have put hangers down the new taxiway, and I have moved the park to a more distant location, so the kids will not be frightened with all the helicopters just beside the "old" location of the park, and further away from the runway also. I like this version a lot better than the first one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Hi Ole I like the second version! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Same here, seems to be less fun but easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaff 0 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 The Hangars will be to close to rwy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 27, 2010 Author Share Posted July 27, 2010 The Hangars will be to close to rwy Yeah the hangers need to be moved.... Ill move them before the Boardmeeting no worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I think the area in the middle should be used as well. could be used for a few more plots i would say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 I think the area in the middle should be used as well. could be used for a few more plots i would say... Sebastiaan. There are exactly two reasons why I disagree with you on this point. 1) Its important to not overfill the scenery. When you taxi around in a plane, you see that the area is not nearly as wide-spaced as it seems on the map. Flat areas with no housing are very important for the visual reference of Andras Field. Recreational areas are what makes urban areas attractive, so if we just do what was done in the urban areas in real life 50-60 years ago - draw roads on the map, and make as many plots and houses as can be possibly crammed in there, then we are going to lose the ability to let the scenery "breathe". Nothing more comforting than to be able to look out and see more than 30 feet. Its good for the soul. 2) Andras Field is stuffed with all sorts of things - every one of them takes a little framerate. We are not even close to have built all the houses that the plan on the map suggests will be built. and I can see that my computer agrees with me, when I say that IF we put in 30-40 more plots, and all that comes with additional plots, like trees, cars, more planes, ponds, dog-toilets - you name it, and we could do that, in the given area - then I need to learn to give CPR to my computer. And I think a lot of computers would go belly up on Andras Field, and I dont think this was the idea to begin with. So I think its important that we keep the place as wide-spaced as possible, and the amount of polygons down. for all our sakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Sebastiaan. There are exactly two reasons why I disagree with you on this point. 1) Its important to not overfill the scenery. When you taxi around in a plane, you see that the area is not nearly as wide-spaced as it seems on the map. Flat areas with no housing are very important for the visual reference of Andras Field. Recreational areas are what makes urban areas attractive, so if we just do what was done in the urban areas in real life 50-60 years ago - draw roads on the map, and make as many plots and houses as can be possibly crammed in there, then we are going to lose the ability to let the scenery "breathe". Nothing more comforting than to be able to look out and see more than 30 feet. Its good for the soul. 2) Andras Field is stuffed with all sorts of things - every one of them takes a little framerate. We are not even close to have built all the houses that the plan on the map suggests will be built. and I can see that my computer agrees with me, when I say that IF we put in 30-40 more plots, and all that comes with additional plots, like trees, cars, more planes, ponds, dog-toilets - you name it, and we could do that, in the given area - then I need to learn to give CPR to my computer. And I think a lot of computers would go belly up on Andras Field, and I dont think this was the idea to begin with. So I think its important that we keep the place as wide-spaced as possible, and the amount of polygons down. for all our sakes. You are right Free space is good to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andkozma 1 Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 This much is ready. What else is do you have in mind? Andras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 This much is ready. What else is do you have in mind? Andras Andras... Whoa, thanks, It looks excellent. I thought we were to discuss this on our board meeting - but of course I have three other "ayes" on it, and Ill ask Jane to say something too, and if she does say OK, too well then I have the version two of my suggestion pic above. This is what I would like it to be like... Here is a recap. Just not the hangers besides the Northbound taxiway. Too close to rwy.! But give it time. I need to announce it to the public, and it needs to be handled game-like right? constructed over several updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 How are we going to show the park. Will there be a sign? I suppose a few benches, maybe a fountain, along with some walking paths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 How are we going to show the park. Will there be a sign? I suppose a few benches, maybe a fountain, along with some walking paths Sebastiaan Im working on that right now - the ideas that is. But please keep it coming. I cannot wait to have you home on your FSX computer, so you can pour all those ideas out on paper (virtual paper that is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andkozma 1 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 If I may, I would rather suggest this: Andras posted to the wrong thread, sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiaan10 5 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Sebastiaan Im working on that right now - the ideas that is. But please keep it coming. I cannot wait to have you home on your FSX computer, so you can pour all those ideas out on paper (virtual paper that is) Yep, nor can I (In this case nice for the Andras Flight School ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaneRachel 4 Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I totally concur with how this is panning out. I think the easier the taxiways the better, so the more we can simplify, whilst still avoiding all the issues works best for me take care Jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted August 2, 2010 Author Share Posted August 2, 2010 If I may, I would rather suggest this: Andras posted to the wrong thread, sorry... Andras GREAT to have the new way going directly to the runway area. But since the others dont like the hangers, being that close to the runway, please dont include the taxiway that ends in the red X. Other than that, its simply stunning. Do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Here is the very latest AF plot map including the taxiway alterations. All the owners (as of 03 Aug 2010) are also in. btw this plot map is at half size. Before we go public with this version I have the following comments/observations: 1. The house on plot AF09 seems too far to the left to me and it will affect AF08 and AF07. If AF08 is also shifted to the left then there will be little left of AF07. Can/should the property on AF09 be shifted to the right? 2. Flyways on plot AF61 is huge (looks like the biggest building so far in fact). If these buildings are going to be this size then we will have major issues fitting people in on adjoining plots. Already it looks like we will have to remove plot AF66 altogether and make plots AF60 to AF65 bigger. 3. Would it not make sense to extend the new taxiway all the way up to Artwick Ave as per my example? 4. Would be nice to come up with a name for this new taxiway. Any ideas? 5. I have suggested some hold points for the runway. Should these be included? 6. I have left the direction arrows in for now but I am in fact keen to get rid of them altogether as they make little sense. What is the consensus? Should all taxiways be two way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted August 3, 2010 Author Share Posted August 3, 2010 Here is the very latest AF plot map including the taxiway alterations. All the owners (as of 03 Aug 2010) are also in. btw this plot map is at half size. Before we go public with this version I have the following comments/observations: 1. The house on plot AF09 seems too far to the left to me and it will affect AF08 and AF07. If AF08 is also shifted to the left then there will be little left of AF07. Can/should the property on AF09 be shifted to the right? 2. Flyways on plot AF61 is huge (looks like the biggest building so far in fact). If these buildings are going to be this size then we will have major issues fitting people in on adjoining plots. Already it looks like we will have to remove plot AF66 altogether and make plots AF60 to AF65 bigger. These are for Andras to address I believe. I have no comments on those. 3. Would it not make sense to extend the new taxiway all the way up to Artwick Ave as per my example? I like the extension of the taxiway. Makes sense. In my first and second versions it was also all the way up, and it should be of course. 4. Would be nice to come up with a name for this new taxiway. Any ideas? How about "Connex drive" as the taxiway (besides making one way traffic possible) connects the seaway to the rwy 9/27 and the northern Artwick Avenue if Konrads extension stays. Or Deadzone drive - for no particular reason other than me liking the word. 5. I have suggested some hold points for the runway. Should these be included? Holding points are fine. I vote "stay" 6. I have left the direction arrows in for now but I am in fact keen to get rid of them altogether as they make little sense. What is the consensus? Should all taxiways be two way? Well I vote for them to stay. The direction on the taxiways were the entire reason why I started this alteration. The taxiways are not nearly wide enough for two way taxiing, and I couldnt think up a system that would make the taxiing around the airpark safe and easy. This one way system was what I came up with. The new taxiway was the exact way to make a one way taxiway. So If anyone are in favor of removing the direction arrows, then I say lets forget the whole change entirely, as it would then make no sense at all, to me. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andkozma 1 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 1. The house on plot AF09 seems too far to the left to me and it will affect AF08 and AF07. If AF08 is also shifted to the left then there will be little left of AF07. Can/should the property on AF09 be shifted to the right? No idea what you are talking about regarding 7-8-9. AF08 and 09 are sold and the houses are there, on 07 there is a house ready, you just don't see it yet. 2. Flyways on plot AF61 is huge (looks like the biggest building so far in fact). If these buildings are going to be this size then we will have major issues fitting people in on adjoining plots. Who said these plots need to be identically placed and similar in size? AF61 is empty now, if I didn't go crazy that is... Which house is there???? 3. Would it not make sense to extend the new taxiway all the way up to Artwick Ave as per my example? That's what I suggested, didn't I? 5. I have suggested some hold points for the runway. Should these be included? When ready: yes. Andras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 @ Andras 1 & 2: Corresponded via email. 3. I do not see it on your proposal above. But either way I think we all agree on it so let's do it. 5. Ok ----- @ Ole 4. Connex Drive sounds good to me. Deadzone drive is a bit dodgy... 6. I understand why the taxiways are (mostly) one way but the way we have it now is a bit awkward. For example plot owner AF01 has to go ALL the way around the park to get to the runway or the field. Same applies for anyone coming from the Illasbergsee slipway to any plot in the lower end of the park - they have to go ALL the way around. The amount of extra fuel usage (and noise polution) this will create is significant. Perhaps it may be an option to include one or two passing points in strategic places which allows ac to pass each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andkozma 1 Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 4. Connex Drive sounds good to me. Nice, but in case this map is to be made public, I would wait with that. To make that connection I need TIME. I need to modify 6-8 different 3d files for that plus the main bitmap below, so it will not be a one hour venture. Andras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleAndreasen 88 Posted August 4, 2010 Author Share Posted August 4, 2010 Nice, but in case this map is to be made public, I would wait with that. To make that connection I need TIME. I need to modify 6-8 different 3d files for that plus the main bitmap below, so it will not be a one hour venture. Andras Andras No rush. This is not something that needs to be done in a hurry. Take your time. I wont make any map public until you are ready for that. But how about playing the game? At some point we could put the map up, and you could throw in some construction machinery into the scenery - so the thing dont change in one big swing of a magic stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts