Sam Arnold 1 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Hi guys, I have bought the Mega Airport Amsterdam for FS2004, and when I recently flew there using the North AFCAD (wind from 348 at 6kts), I saw aircraft parked pretty un-orderly around the terminals. I put it down to the gate assignments, so simply opened up the AFCAD to edit them according to Wikipedia (http://bit.ly/pz7f18). As far as I thought, simply re-assigning the airlines to their respective gates, and altering the size of some gates to accommodate my AI's wingspan, had worked fine. So I went to open up FS, however when selecting EHAM from the airport list, I noticed all the RWY start points and gate start points in the drop-down menu had gone. Then, when I started at the "active runway", I was in the middle of some buildings near the tower and there was no AI or radio frequencies. The AFCAD had not loaded. I have many of Aerosoft's Mega airports: Frankfurt, Berlin, Heathrow, Paris-CDG, Paris-Orly, Madrid, Lisbon, and Barcelona. At all of them, I have made some sort of modification to the AFCAD file with great success, and never has the AFCAD failed. Luckily I had saved a backup of AF2_EHAM_01_North, and after putting it back, all was OK. However, do I have to put up with the poor parking assignments, or is there some way to fix this issue of the AFCAD not being recognised by FS? I was reading a post made in this section about one of the 18/36 runways not being open, but when the user went to modify the AFCAD, it didn't work in FS. So I'm not the only person encountering this. Perhaps I can send a copy of the AFCAD I want to be used to the developers and they can fix it to work? Any help is appreciated. Regards, Sam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Hello Sam, Which AFCAD Utility did you use to edit the afcad with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Arnold 1 Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 Hello Sam, Which AFCAD Utility did you use to edit the afcad with. I tried first in AF2 (by Lee Swordy), then a fresh .BGL in AF9 (ADE9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I tried first in AF2 (by Lee Swordy), then a fresh .BGL in AF9 (ADE9). Hello Sam, Can you attach your modified AFCAD to a reply so I can load it up in AFX and save it back out and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Arnold 1 Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 Attached one of the AFCADs I saved using AF2. Thanks.AF2_EHAM_01_NORTH.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Arnold 1 Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 How did you go with checking it out? I am having great difficulty flying to AMS with the current parking specs. The gate radius is incorrect for the wingspans of aircraft, so my 757's park in the 767 gates, the 767's park in the A330 gates, the A330's and 777's park in the 747 gates, and the A340-600 parks remotely. Because the 767's and 777's take the 747 gates, they are forced to park remotely. Turboprops, regional jets, A32x's, and 737's are fine. That's not mentioning the parking airline assignments. Perhaps If I buy AFX it will work? I don't want to waste my money on it for it to fail though. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Hello Sam, Opened in in AFX and then saved it again. Now attached to this post.AF2_EHAM_01_NORTH.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Arnold 1 Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 It works now, thanks Shaun. Maybe I will buy the AFX program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon74 1 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Hi, As an addition, is there any way the afcad files can be reprogrammed for improved (legal!) take-off and landing purposes? The scenery is stunning but the 4 afcads create nightmare scenario's. AI traffic lands on 36L, takes off from 36R, lands on 09, takes off from 06. The last one being offically open for take off but is a very rare option for ATC. On most occasions 09 is being used instead. All the other scenario's i just mentioned are strictly prohibited. It is clear that they also create a massive chaos for AI traffic on the taxiways. Also taxiway Alpha being used for clockwise moving traffic and Bravo for anti-clockwise moving traffic is not simulated, it is even programmed the opposite way around. This is letting me down so much that I consider going back to Cloud9 Schiphol where the afcads can be arranged in a far more realistic way. Any help saving Mega Airport Amsterdam for FS9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Hello Leon, Just a thought. Why not try your Cloud9 Afcads with the Aerosoft EHAM and see if they are aligned the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon74 1 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Hello Shaun, Thanks for your support. Well, yesterday I installed Cloud9 schiphol. It appeared that the situation is exactly the opposite of MA Amsterdam: the runways and taxiways are in perfect use but the aircraft are parked at anything but the right gate/dock. So, the best option was to go back to MA Amsterdam and accept that not everything is perfect. I'm not into AFCAD programming, don't have the time for it. For FSX there is a module which connects the MA Amsterdam scenery to the actual runway in use website of the Dutch ATC, so the runways are used more realistic then ever. FS9 might have had it's time for me. We'll see. Best regards, Leon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cptawsom Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I am resurrecting this topic because the question I have is a little relevant. Looking at the Navigraph charts (which are supposed to be the real thing - or at least very close to it), they contain the following TORA/LDA entries for runway 18R/36L: RWY TORA LDA 18R (not usable) 3530 36L 3800 3800 Which mean, that out of the 4 possible uses for this runway (take-off/landing from two different directions), only take-off towards the south is prohibited (no 18R TORA value). However, when I want to request a specific runway for take-off, from ground control, and the wind is blowing more or less from the north, it gives me as available runways 36R and 36C. It never gives 36L. Why is that? PS: Not to have to do with the scenery, but usually, when a runway has no TORA in one direction, is also has no LDA in the opposite direction - and vice versa - which is logical, if these restrictions are in place due to obstacles around the departure/approach path (high ground, buildings, etc.). However here, while there is no 18R tora, there is an 36L LDA. Curious. Is the no take-off from 18R not an obstacle restriction, but a restriction for other reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon74 1 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I am resurrecting this topic because the question I have is a little relevant. Looking at the Navigraph charts (which are supposed to be the real thing - or at least very close to it), they contain the following TORA/LDA entries for runway 18R/36L: RWY TORA LDA 18R (not usable) 3530 36L 3800 3800 Which mean, that out of the 4 possible uses for this runway (take-off/landing from two different directions), only take-off towards the south is prohibited (no 18R TORA value). However, when I want to request a specific runway for take-off, from ground control, and the wind is blowing more or less from the north, it gives me as available runways 36R and 36C. It never gives 36L. Why is that? PS: Not to have to do with the scenery, but usually, when a runway has no TORA in one direction, is also has no LDA in the opposite direction - and vice versa - which is logical, if these restrictions are in place due to obstacles around the departure/approach path (high ground, buildings, etc.). However here, while there is no 18R tora, there is an 36L LDA. Curious. Is the no take-off from 18R not an obstacle restriction, but a restriction for other reasons? Hello, There is an error in the Navigraph charts data. Landing on 36L is prohibited. Amsterdam Schiphol is all about restrictions because of noise abatement procedures to avoid some villages in the direct vicinity of the airport. There are also errors in FS ATC. Don't depend on it if you want to go as real as it gets. The major errors are in the AFCAD from MA Amsterdam Schiphol which allows prohibited departures from 36R and landings on 36L. Real charts are available here: http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/index.html Have fun, Leon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cptawsom Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Hello, There is an error in the Navigraph charts data. Landing on 36L is prohibited. Amsterdam Schiphol is all about restrictions because of noise abatement procedures to avoid some villages in the direct vicinity of the airport. There are also errors in FS ATC. Don't depend on it if you want to go as real as it gets. The major errors are in the AFCAD from MA Amsterdam Schiphol which allows prohibited departures from 36R and landings on 36L. Real charts are available here: http://www.ais-nethe.../aim/index.html Have fun, Leon That partially covers it, because if take-off is prohibited from 18R, then landing at 36L should be prohibited too. However, my initial question was not about landing on 36L, but taking-off from 36L. Logic dictates that taking-off towards the north should be permitted since landing from the north is permitted. Unless, an aircraft makes so much more noise during take-off, that while they permit aircraft about to land passing above villages located to the north of the airport, but they do not permit them if having just took-off. Anyway Leon, thank you for your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts