AFCADs for FlyTampa Copenhagen v2 (as of 24-04-2020) Both P3Dv4 and P3Dv5

[Er!k]

Hi, maybe this is not the right topic but EKCH is not working well with GSX Level 2 by FSDT. It seems that GSX is not reading the gates (AFCAD?) correctly. If I for example choose gate C33 within GSX the aircraft is placed somewhere on the tarmac but definintely not at gate C33. Is there a GSX ini-file missing in the scenery folder or how does GSX read the gates at EKCH? Any idea how to solve this?

Thanks Roland

Maybe you have a double AFCAD somewhere? And I would suggest creating a new topic indeed ;)

[johanfrc]

Roland,

There is a separate GSX profile coming soon. It couldn't be made in time for the release, as it takes a lot of time to do. But hopefully soon it will be there.

[Jammin16]

From the very beginning I've decided not to use 12/30 at all. At least not the AI AFCAD. It's quite simply because they, as you know, is not used a lot it's aroudn 1-2% for 12 for landing and about 5-6 % for 30. Those very low numbers compared to the percentage the 22's and 04's are used, don't really justify the use of 12/30. Also. Remember 12/30 is mainly used when the wind is VERY high. If I made a crosswind AFCAD, most of the time the landing runway would be 30, because it's more directly western. And with western wind about 70% of the time in Denmark, it would end up in 70% of all landing would happen on 30. And that's not something even close to realistic.

Please respect that. 12/30 is closed for AI. Can't say it more simple.

Yeah ok, if the 70% of the traffic activity would be on runway 12 and 30 so can I see it's not realistic.
Damn, if it was possible that runway 12 and 30 could be used 30% instead of 70% it could be nice. But after what you have tell me about it, so i think it's could be ok to holde runway 12 and 30 closed.

But so I hope runway 22R and 22L would be oppened up for traffic, I don't know why I didn't could land on 22L or takeoff 22R??? But you say AFCAD fix the problem???

[tenala]

Thanks Johan, that's good news. Cheers Roland

[Wolkenschreck2]

Hi Johan,

Thank you for the update. Everything is working fine now with the FSP models from OCI. It is great to see that FlyTampa closely works with the best author possible for an EKCH AFCAD.

Quick question about the gates C26 and C30: Could it improve the parking situation if those gates are resized to 19.1m for types up to the A321? You put so much effort and knowledge in the AFCAD so I am sure there is a reason for your choice. But, right now I have some overlapping wings with heavy aircraft parked on C26 and C30.

Also, I noticed by chance that CAI at gate C32 is coded with a redundant dot (SIA, VKG, AFL, MSR, CSC, THY, CAI., FEG, AUI).

Thanks again for your great work,

Christoph

[johanfrc]

Sadly not possible. Those gates are actually used by heavy birds IRL. So you have to live with overlapping wings. I know it's not good, but I simply can't do anything.

Also. The traffic amount in CPH is so heavy that gates are filled to the brim, especially the heavy gates. Usually when SAS returns with their big birds, some of them are moved to remote stands. But in the game they are not moved, so they have to park where they can. And that sadly leaves a lot of planes that can't be parked where they should because SAS is already filling that spot. So It's part of the deal with the AI and the AFCAD. It's either to make it as good as possible, or planes parked everywhere else but where they should. And I decided to go with the first.

So no changes of C26 and C30. Actually A26 will be removed in a later update, as the airport have stopped using it because they are expanding the terminal (more shopping area). So it will be an even bigger problem to have the heavies parked there. I'm not looking forward to that!

[Wolkenschreck2]

Thanks, Johan. I have assumed that you have done this intentionally and your points make very much sense. And you are totally right, some operations can simply not reproduced in the sim. But hey, it never gets boring this way! :-)

[yvesamuel]

Hi,

just landed on 22L. When I take the tway B to go to the terminal, I have AI on the same tway. Why don't they use the D.

Thank's
Yves

[johanfrc]

It's AI. Although it should be clever, it's not. So it's something we have to live with...

[clocki]

Can we use this profile to get pushback with GSX? In the standard installation I get placed correct but when asking for push it only gives me the option for custom or straight push.

Or better wait for another profile made by you or FT?

[johanfrc]

FT will come with one soon. I do have GSX, but only as a user. Not developer. So wait for that.

[MattGarner]

Does GSX work well with this yet? For example I pulled into stand C34 with the FSLabs A320 and stopped on one of the markers (blue lines) but GSX does not pick up you are at a gate so services aren't available.

I told GSX to warp me to C34 to see what it would do and it puts you quite further back on the line. As shown in the image attached to this post. Is there a way to make it work better?

[johanfrc]

It's not a AFCAD problem, but a problem with the distance that the jetways in SODE are read. Somehow the jetways at C34 are a bit too far away from the parking spots so the jetways can't reach them.

It's not only user planes but also AI planes that can't be reached. The AFCAD is not controlling anything regarding the jetways. Only if you are using default jetways (no SODE or GSX).

When using GSX I guess you are also using SODE. If that's correct the SODE model used have to be fixed.

It's a problem in the sim.cfg that should be fixed. I have seen someone fix it, and I do have the updated file. But I'll need to be coordinate it with Emilios to fix it for all. Will shoot him a message soon so he can release a quick hotfix for that.

[Julean]

It's not a AFCAD problem, but a problem with the distance that the jetways in SODE are read. Somehow the jetways at C34 are a bit too far away from the parking spots so the jetways can't reach them.

It's not only user planes but also AI planes that can't be reached. The AFCAD is not controlling anything regarding the jetways. Only if you are using default jetways (no SODE or GSX).

When using GSX I guess you are also using SODE. If that's correct the SODE model used have to be fixed.

It's a problem in the sim.cfg that should be fixed. I have seen someone fix it, and I do have the updated file. But I'll need to be coordinate it with Emilios to fix it for all. Will shoot him a message soon so he can release a quick hotfix for that.

I have the same issue with C36, C37,

All the best

Jens