|
|
Post by darrenvox on Feb 28, 2022 13:18:32 GMT -5
cool good to know
|
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jun 28, 2022 10:11:26 GMT -5
Quick update- Progress on the AFCAD for KMCO is slow, but steady. Gate assignments for the 3 main airsides are just about complete, a few obscure codes remain but will be ironed out. Regional gates at airside 1 and 3 are in progress and I will get around to the jetway logos at some point. The freight/charter/miscellaneous ramp assignments will follow. In the meantime, here are a couple previews.     |
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 1, 2022 21:40:35 GMT -5
I do think I have figured out AirTran's wild gate assignments, in noticing that all footage I can find shows only the 737-200s parking at the Delta airside, and all DC-9s parking elsewhere. My guess is that it has something to do with ex-ValuJet slots or whatever. I'm going to put a special gate code in to differentiate these parking spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 13, 2022 16:17:35 GMT -5
It's a given that you folks are tired of my rambling, so today I have a bit more food for thought. MCO has a case in which that many of the gates 30 years ago had different orientations(?) for the parking spaces. The gates were in the same place (for the most part), but the parking direction is not the same. Because this rendition of MCO I am using is rather modern, this creates a discrepancy. I thought I might have been able to get away with modifying the textures for the ramp in order to re-arrange the spots but the way it is done (several .bgl poly layers- absolute nightmare) I don't think I can do it. I have a couple of examples of these gates. The first situation has an optional misalignment, and the other, not so much.  This is gate 10 of Airside 1. Historically the parking heading was much more perpendicular to the terminal branch itself and featured a more retro noseloader-style jetway. It is what I have recreated here.  These are gates 36, 38, and 39 of Airside 3. The jetway of Gate 38 was removed by 2010, and so were the ramp markings for parking there. Unfortunately, this means that adjacent spaces 36 and 39 overlap quite significantly with where Gate 38 should be. This makes up nearly all of the Northwest gates. No parking is available on the side of the airside branch above the right-most 757 due to USAir Express and other feeder parking. My question for all of you is, how misaligned could the gates be from the scenery before it is unacceptable, both visually and parking-wise? And if the misalignment isn't necessary, should it be modelled anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by FSMuseum on Jul 13, 2022 22:54:48 GMT -5
The way I treat my AFCADs, I usually follow the included parking spaces of the scenery as closely as possible, assigning the airline codes and sizing the gate to the correct types as much as possible. In the situation where that isn't possible (for example, the USAir express parking at LAX), I just throw in the spots as necessary based on Historic Aerials imagery. Seeing the aircraft park in the correct locations is more important than lining up exactly with the lines to me, but I try to do it as much as possible. I also make sure that the gate falls in line with the correct markings that indicate the furthest aft point that an aircraft can park to assure tail and wing/vehicle clearances. It's not so much about exact accuracy, more about achieving close enough. Granted I use FS9 and many sceneries depict airports as they were more than a decade ago, so this is easier for me to do usually.
|
|
|
|
Post by chasensfo on Jul 14, 2022 2:40:46 GMT -5
Looks awesome, it'll make me fly to MCO for sure. I do think I have figured out AirTran's wild gate assignments, in noticing that all footage I can find shows only the 737-200s parking at the Delta airside, and all DC-9s parking elsewhere. My guess is that it has something to do with ex-ValuJet slots or whatever. I'm going to put a special gate code in to differentiate these parking spots. Valujet and AirTran had just merged, so AirTran, being MCO-based, was established. They didn't have extra gates for their 737 hub and the DC-9s moving in, so they probably were spread out in 98/99. |
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 14, 2022 6:37:26 GMT -5
The way I treat my AFCADs, I usually follow the included parking spaces of the scenery as closely as possible, assigning the airline codes and sizing the gate to the correct types as much as possible. In the situation where that isn't possible (for example, the USAir express parking at LAX), I just throw in the spots as necessary based on Historic Aerials imagery. Seeing the aircraft park in the correct locations is more important than lining up exactly with the lines to me, but I try to do it as much as possible. I also make sure that the gate falls in line with the correct markings that indicate the furthest aft point that an aircraft can park to assure tail and wing/vehicle clearances. It's not so much about exact accuracy, more about achieving close enough. Granted I use FS9 and many sceneries depict airports as they were more than a decade ago, so this is easier for me to do usually. I'm thinking that inching that space away from what's marked is just about my only choice when it comes to the Northwest gates. It's pictured in the lower half of that image but there are markings for an alternate space. Might be the only visual reference for this particular gate. As for the first example, I'll put it back to what it should be and angle the jetway accordingly, since it does not need to be oriented that way for spacing. Oddly enough this gives the Gulfstream International spots more room than what they did have historically. |
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 14, 2022 6:48:23 GMT -5
Looks awesome, it'll make me fly to MCO for sure. I do think I have figured out AirTran's wild gate assignments, in noticing that all footage I can find shows only the 737-200s parking at the Delta airside, and all DC-9s parking elsewhere. My guess is that it has something to do with ex-ValuJet slots or whatever. I'm going to put a special gate code in to differentiate these parking spots. Valujet and AirTran had just merged, so AirTran, being MCO-based, was established. They didn't have extra gates for their 737 hub and the DC-9s moving in, so they probably were spread out in 98/99. There is no historical reference of AirTran's D9s at Airside 4 where the 732s are, but I will put the code in there for the D9s anyway as a redundancy. Airside 1 has just over half of the ~67 total airline assignments for the whole airport, and the D9s happen to park within Airside 1 where the variety (and scheduling) is most dense. I have code priority set for the more exotic visitors, and I'd rather the D9s park in a semi-accurate spot than out on the ramp. |
|
|
|
Post by chasensfo on Jul 14, 2022 23:12:55 GMT -5
The way I treat my AFCADs, I usually follow the included parking spaces of the scenery as closely as possible, assigning the airline codes and sizing the gate to the correct types as much as possible. In the situation where that isn't possible (for example, the USAir express parking at LAX), I just throw in the spots as necessary based on Historic Aerials imagery. Seeing the aircraft park in the correct locations is more important than lining up exactly with the lines to me, but I try to do it as much as possible. I also make sure that the gate falls in line with the correct markings that indicate the furthest aft point that an aircraft can park to assure tail and wing/vehicle clearances. It's not so much about exact accuracy, more about achieving close enough. Granted I use FS9 and many sceneries depict airports as they were more than a decade ago, so this is easier for me to do usually. I'm thinking that inching that space away from what's marked is just about my only choice when it comes to the Northwest gates. It's pictured in the lower half of that image but there are markings for an alternate space. Might be the only visual reference for this particular gate. As for the first example, I'll put it back to what it should be and angle the jetway accordingly, since it does not need to be oriented that way for spacing. Oddly enough this gives the Gulfstream International spots more room than what they did have historically. Personally, if a gate fits physically, I just ignore the ground markings. Maybe an airport will have a few gates you can't really use realistically as a user, but at least all the traffic is in the right spot. In cases like PHX, if you don't include the extra gates, there is not nearly enough parking. |
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 15, 2022 3:51:49 GMT -5
There are a couple overflow issues. I can see only one American Eagle gate in historical photography and the plans have upwards of 2 or 3 aircraft in the airport at a time. I'm out of the country so I can't do anything solid until I return in a few weeks, but I'm probably going to make up another gate and add the eagle codes to the normal AAL gates as a fallback. Good old turboprops putting a thorn in the simplicity of such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by chasensfo on Jul 15, 2022 5:14:13 GMT -5
A lot of times, they would fit 2-4 commuter aircraft in one aircraft envelope. Even in modern times, from about 2013-2021, United turned gate 84 at SFO into a 4 CRJ gate. I think gate 82 for a short while also. This is how both United Express and American Eagle operated at SFO in the 80s and 90s as well until a main commuter area was added for West Air and later SkyWest for the UAX operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 16, 2022 0:01:38 GMT -5
I figure that the Eagle gate I have already assigned may have more than one space for the aircraft, as its a setup very similar to what you have described.
|
|
|
|
Post by chasensfo on Jul 16, 2022 0:17:53 GMT -5
Check out this late 80s IND pic, you can see a gate here being used to fit 4 19-seaters.  Often, these setups had no ground markings beyond maybe stop bar "T"s on the ground and were just marshaled in and out. Creating them with the yellow line in the sim becomes a mess, so I recommend not using lines when you have the option. |
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Jul 16, 2022 0:41:23 GMT -5
Very similar to the USAir Express gates in MCO. It's very hard to tell from satellite imagery the exact arrangement, but it's possible they had spots for small turboprops (1900D/C) like what is pictured there while also having spots for larger aircraft, like the Dash 8. It makes sense that there would be some uniform style of parking spaces for those small airplanes within airline operations.
Thank you for the image!
|
|
|
|
Post by bensplanes on Aug 14, 2022 15:12:45 GMT -5
Going to derail this thread a bit with some different scenery things I have been dabbling with. Can't ever keep my hands to myself when it comes to the possibility of simulator shenanigans. (un)Officially repurposing this thread to "Ben's Worldbuilding". Alongside my recent visit to the country and related painting of airplanes, I decided to give Finland in my sim a second look. Helsinki Vantaa airport has gone some significant changes these past few years, with the addition of a massive new international concourse and some other new facilities drastically changing the airfield. MK Studios has released a relatively recent scenery depicting this new look, and for what it is worth, is an excellent scenery. (More on MK later.) Before this product, however, was it's predecessor by A Flight, published by Aerosoft. It represents Helsinki airport between late 2009 and prior to the terminal expansion. This is the subject of my rambling today, and if you're by chance browsing this forum and reading this very post, is the most relevant scenery of both to you.  For anything between 2009 and 2017, it's a solid scenery. I run a few different time periods in my sim, with 2010-2011 being one of them. Because of this, it works for me. It also works for pre-2009 if you subtract a few of the international gates and (if you want to fly real old) ignore one of the runways. Helsinki airport, among many in the Nordic countries, uses an older style T-jetway, which I like because they're different and funky. A Flight has modelled these in their scenery.  I like this stuff. One small problem, though. They're only operable with AES- a travesty, really. So, do I accept the status quo and suck up this terribly depressing reality? No. Why would I? Remember MK Studios? They created a version of T-jetways utilizing the revolutionary simulator program called SODE, and these jetways work pretty well. Thinking what I'm thinking? You know it!   In light of my unrelenting stubbornness I removed the jetways in AS' Helsinki and placed the MK ones in their spot. Genius! It's not a flawless solution. If you hold a magnifying glass to this patch, you will see dirt, cracks, mold, clipping, all sorts of stuff related to things that happen when you mix chemicals. But they can accommodate aircraft as tall as the MD-11! Which is all I need it to do. I will probably share the SODE xml here when I find the time, because I'm sure there are more of you that hate it when your airports aren't completely immersive and don't make you feel like you've actually spent thousands in pilot training fees. Can't promise I'll get an AFCAD going for 2011 or 1998. Orlando is still in the works. But this is a good stopgap. And if any of you still use FSX and plan on modifying the AFCADs, Aerosoft sceneries have an issue where exporting their AFCADs through ADE will completely screw up the excludes. Speaking from experience of a couple years back. |
|
