First experience with ADE: curse you, Jim Robinson :)

[old_wombat]

Being morally crushed by intense and relentless nagging from Jim, I took the plunge and installed FS9 and ADE on the laptop that has Internet access. Those who have been following my months of whining about this and that not working on the aircraft carrier will no doubt be bored to tears to note that one of the "small problems" remaining is that with the AFCAD product, I have not been able to place either a PAPI4 or a TRCV meatball on the deck of the carrier where it "should" go, due to interference with the carrier's on-deck scenery, which for (ahem) "artistic reasons" I am reluctant to change.

So the first task was to try this with ADE. I opened the bgl and moved the PAPI4 into the right area. Then I tried to compile it. And then everything fell apart. There was a flood of complaints about runways being too narrow (3 metres). Uhh, runway(S), plural? There's only one, the landing deck.

No! Overlooked by me (yes, mea culpa) whilst using AFCAD, the four catapult tracks are in fact runways, very narrow of course, as they should be. But could I convince ADE of this? No way.

To add insult to injury, ADE then took it upon itself to delete the bgl file and saved only an XML. So I opened the XML file with Wordpad (shudder), widened the catapults to the extravagant minimum required by ADE, changed the type to UNKNOWN, saved the XML, and now it compiled. At last I'm back where I started.

Well, no. In fact the PAPI4 is now more appropriately located, and I can see it around the scenery on a good approach. So that's an improvement. And I can use the catapults, the runway areas are there, invisible of course (as they should be), even though I "know" that they are far too wide.

Next task is to experiment with different meatballs (obvious targets are either BALL or TRCV) to see what does and doesn't work, and what does and doesn't look "right".


Steve from Mudgee

[ronzie]

I looked through the schema file (.xsd) for the .bgl compiler and I did not see any constraint for runway width (all of them said need more work) so maybe that is an ADE constraint. You might make a suggestion on their forum. The default is meters so if editing the XML be sure to add the suffix F or M (feet or meters) if you wish.

From the Here are the allowed runway lights for the approach end typed under VASI (not the approach lighting) from the SDK documentation:

PAPI2 2 light PAPI
PAPI4 4 light PAPI
PVASI Pulsating VASI
TRICOLOR Tri Color VASI
TVASI colored VASI in a shared-‘T’ shape
VASI21 2 rows, 1 box/row
VASI22 2 rows, 2 boxes/row
VASI23 2 rows, 3 boxes/row
VASI31 3 rows, 1 box/row
VASI32 3 rows, 2 boxes/row
VASI33 3 rows, 3 boxes/row (far row has only two boxes, 8 light system)
BALL (presently remapped to PVASI)
APAP panels
PANELS (presently remapped to PAP2)

obviously a couple of typos in it.

Here they are from the schema file:
<xs:enumeration value="PAPI2"/>
<xs:enumeration value="PAPI4"/>
<xs:enumeration value="PVASI"/>
<xs:enumeration value="TRICOLOR"/>
<xs:enumeration value="TVASI"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI21"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI22"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI23"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI31"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI32"/>
<xs:enumeration value="VASI33"/>
<xs:enumeration value="BALL"/>
<xs:enumeration value="APAP"/>
<xs:enumeration value="PANELS"/>

ADE may abbreviate the labels but these are allowed types in the xml schema.

Here is the link for the second version of the FS9 bgl compiler SDK:

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...omp2_setup.exe

for your amusement.

and here is the page of links for all of the SDK components:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555857

that I suggest that text be kept somewhere now that MS is not currently supporting any FS products except for the stalled FLIGHT! product now at end of life also.

Grab it while you can. (A search on the MS download center would not locate it with its built in BING search. The support link was first on a Yahoo search.

If you have not done so register on fsdeveloper.com. Search before posting a query. You might suggest altering the ADE constraints on runway width. Could this work for a catapult path just as a runway type taxi segment? Maybe defining the runway as type WATER would allow this. Here is the ADE forum link:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=95

[StringBean]

The 3 foot minimum runway width has been a known issue for a long time.

Regardless of what the schema says, there is no way to compile an airport with BGLComp with zero width runways.

The only way I know to do it is to use Afcad2.21.

This has been a long time challenge to those who want to have AI use water runways.

peace,
the Bean

[old_wombat]

Wow, two comprehensive replies, more than I expected. Looks like my humour got taken a bit too seriously. I am fine with the wider runways - they are invisible, after all. Thanks for all the other info, I will be looking at that slowly over the next couple of weeks.


Steve from Mudgee.

[jvile]

Snip-------------

So the first task was to try this with ADE. I opened the bgl and moved the PAPI4 into the right area. Then I tried to compile it. And then everything fell apart. There was a flood of complaints about runways being too narrow (3 metres). Uhh, runway(S), plural? There's only one, the landing deck.

You misread the flood of complaints that runways were too narrow at 3 meters. The minimum runway width that ADE9 will compile is a width of 1.0 Meter or 3.3 feet.

FS2004 has a bug in runway width that does not accept 0 ft.

Snip----------

No! Overlooked by me (yes, mea culpa) whilst using AFCAD, the four catapult tracks are in fact runways, very narrow of course, as they should be. But could I convince ADE of this? No way.

To add insult to injury, ADE then took it upon itself to delete the bgl file and saved only an XML. So I opened the XML file with Wordpad (shudder), widened the catapults to the extravagant minimum required by ADE, changed the type to UNKNOWN, saved the XML, and now it compiled. At last I'm back where I started.

AFCAD uses its own compiler so there is no check against any type schema file. ADE9X uses the SDK compilers so proper limitations are placed in the XML prior to compile. As stated above FS2004 has a bug that does not allow a 0 ft. width to compile but, 3.3 ft. (1 Meter) will compile.

If you decide to design FSX airports the runway width bug was fixed. The FSX Sp1a Compiler works at 0 ft. width runway.

hope this helps

jim

[StringBean]

Not to be too pedantic, but...

FS2004 has a bug in runway width that does not accept 0 ft.

FS9 has no problems with zero width runways.

It's BGLComp from the FS9 SDK that will not accept zero width runways.


peace,
the Bean

[jvile]

Not to be too pedantic, but...



FS9 has no problems with zero width runways.

It's BGLComp from the FS9 SDK that will not accept zero width runways.


peace,
the Bean

Bean

FS9 and FSX does have a problem with zero width runways. MS did not want to fix the problem that FS9 had with runway width but did so reluctantly at our request. We ask for it so we got it in FSX like many other changes but with warnings.

Many code changes always appear to have some effects on other parts of Flight Simulator. If you set the runway to 0 ft. width for whatever reason then ATC looses the ability to lock the runway. When ATC cannot lock the runway for single plane usage you will see at certain times multiple airplanes on the runway taking off or landing.

The foot print of the main gear in the contact points must be on a runway texture that has width or ATC cannot do its job properly as per the coding. This is just one example of what happens when using a zero ft runway width but there are more. I don't call that nicpicking but very good code writing on ACES part.

hope this helps

jim

[StringBean]

Thanks for posting the additional info. Jim.

My point was simply that if you want zero width runways in FS9 you can have them. you just can't get them with BGLComp.

Whether FS9 responds to zero width runways the way ACES wants it to, or not, is irrelevant as long as it works for the end-user.

I have used them many times and, in fact, it is the only way to get AI float planes to work in FS9.

peace,
the Bean