Any chance of gates at Saba?

[Mage]

Hi Martin -

I've enjoyed the scenery very much this past few days and I thought I'd add some gates to Saba so I could get to see AI there. Needless to say I've screwed up the airport entirely by adding 2 small gates (>18mtr) and will probably have to reinstall the scenery just to get the original afcad back. Unwanted bumps of terrain, shimmering (sometimes missing) apron textures are what I got for my supposedly minor tweak! Well, just before the sim crashed with a Util.dll error. I guess this is because AFCAD is saving the airport at a slightly different altitude (and probably why there were no gates to begin with)?

Is there any hope that an official AFCAD might be forthcoming a/ to save me a reinstall (!) and b/ to satisfy several users who want AI to be able to operate in and out of Saba?

[paavo]

From page 11 of the pdf


Saba (SABA/TNCS) is a User-only airport, not suited for AI aircraft. The reason for
this is that the airport sits higher then the actual Mesh terrain. Adding taxilines and
parking spots to the AFCAD file will modify the mesh in a way that it interferes with
the visual airport terrain.

[martin[flytampa]]

Is there any hope that an official AFCAD might be forthcoming a/ to save me a reinstall (!) and b/ to satisfy several users who want AI to be able to operate in and out of Saba?

I did some more tested with the Saba Afcad since the release. I am no Afcad expert really, as far as I can see this is what happens:

Parking spots can be added no problem, what influences (screws up) the terrain are the taxiway and apron links needed to connect the parking spot to the runway. Runway links don't have this effect, but one cannot use a runway link to connect a parking spot. I also tried placing an Afcad apron shape/area and then the taxilinks on top, no difference. Also a dummy runway surface under the taxilinks didn't help.

[Mage]

Okay, I'll experiment with dropping the AFCAD level as microscopically as I can and see what that does, and also try removing the gates etc before I go through a reinstall (I have my sceneries on a separate drive to FS and the default install can't cope with that, so my install is a longer process).

Thanks for the info, Martin.

[Mage]

I see what you mean about the parking links. I created a temporary version with disconnected gates so that occasionally I'll see something parked there, but the parking connectors are a real bind. I tried hand-editing the XML to force the links to be runway all over, but that doesn't seem to be behaving either even though it compiles okay.

There's a way of keeping the terrain flat, which involves creating a 360ft wide runway and positioning the northern edge along the real runway. On my system there was no bleed-through or flickering and the terrain was behaving. The one problem then is that the Afcad runway shows to the east of the apron, jutting out into mid-air as the terrain falls away, and being a hard-coded texture I couldn't override it to remove that effect.

Still, at least I don't need to re-install since I know the parking connectors are the culprits.

[martin[flytampa]]

There maybe a chance to add parking and AI, but keep in mind already that virtually no AI aircraft will do a proper landing on that short runway without FDE tweaking.

[Mage]

I think the fact that the parking connectors mess the scenery mesh up is probably a showstopper. I'm wondering whether putting the AFCAD at a very low priority might make a difference. I'm guessing not.

Regarding the short runway, there are ways of resolving those sorts of problems provided you know how the AI behaves. Unfortunately these strategies only work visually when an airport is in a flat area and has ground bitmaps (you make the AFCAD runway longer than the visual one and adjust the length so that an aircraft's float to the AFCAD's touchdown point actually puts it right on the end of the visible runway). Even so, Saba would present a challenge, being on a plinth of its own I'd expect the extra length of such a runway to be visible. Maybe someone could tell me whether the STOL runway markings also modify the touchdown behavior of aircraft, putting them down on the first few feet of pavement!

I don't know why I'm so fussed about it, the airport's more fun to fly into than to watch other aircraft doing it!

[Mage]

From page 11 of the pdf

Saba (SABA/TNCS) is a User-only airport, not suited for AI aircraft. The reason for
this is that the airport sits higher then the actual Mesh terrain. Adding taxilines and
parking spots to the AFCAD file will modify the mesh in a way that it interferes with
the visual airport terrain.

My problem is that I read things like that and still don't quit trying.

I had a think about this. Perhaps what Saba's apron area needs is a column of "mesh" that sits beneath it at the correct altitude so that parking lines can be placed on the apron and actually sit on the mesh. The mesh would be invisible but would prevent parking connectors, taxiway routes and apron routes from raising the underlying mesh - because its already at the apron height.

I don't know whether I'm seeing all aspects of the problem, but if the links are raising the mesh that sounds like a possible solution. Still, maybe that's easier said than done?

[martin[flytampa]]

what Saba's apron area needs is a column of "mesh" that sits beneath it at the correct altitude so that parking lines can be placed on the apron and actually sit on the mesh. The mesh would be invisible but would prevent parking connectors, taxiway routes and apron routes from raising the underlying mesh - because its already at the apron height.

What you describe is the usual way airports are done. The reason it is not as easy at Saba is because when you elevate the mesh to apron height (via flatten or something), the cliffs that this mesh generates are not covered by the custom terrain, instead they stick out. What has an impact on how much the mesh sticks out, is how steep the cliff can be made. A straight 90 degree cliff would be best. The behavior of FS's mesh & cliffs varies with the user setting max_vertex. The higher the setting the more refined the mesh. Saba can probably be tweaked but it will only work at one certain max_vertex setting.

[Mage]

Saba can probably be tweaked but it will only work at one certain max_vertex setting.

That sounds like the aspect of the problem I was missing!

Ah, right. I can't see too many users being happy with that if the setting varies from what they have been using happily. It also makes the scenery less user-friendly in other ways - less "install-and-fly"! I can see why you made your choice.

The setting you mention would be quite high, 21+ I guess, finer than 20 metres, since the area is so small. I can't see many people opting for that.

The only way I could see you getting sheer cliffs is by making a very tall mesh spike and using a flatten to cap it.