![]() ![]() Hmmm, interesting points people have touched. That way a player can simply elect to start at “Terminal 5” and not have to pick from the 20 position gates there. So you could have Terminal groups that each have a gate position, a General Aviation group that has a bunch of tie down positions, a Transient Parking group, an Acme FBO group, a Ajax FBO group, etc. So basically, could this be coupled with a way to group ramp starts into logical groups and then have X-Plane randomly pick a specify position from within that group. However this causes an enormous start position list that’s a UX nightmare. But if this also controls the static aircraft, I’d likely put one per gate position. Usually I only put one ramp start per “interesting position” in the airport, so one ramp start per terminal, not one ramp start for every gate position. * This would naturally lead to a ballooning of the number of ramp start positions. It would also make the airport appear more dynamic as you wouldn’t see the same aircraft in the same position all the time. This would be an easy way to control how “busy” an airport looks without the scenery designer manually controlling aircraft placement. if the spawn factor is 0.75 (on average) only 75% of the ramp positions will have aircraft placed in them. * The ability to specify a spawn factor at the airport level that’s simply the probability that the spawner will put an aircraft at a ramp position. We have had exclusion zones and overridden apt.dats for _ten years_…not using them is an authoring error. The rest of the X-Plane world, including other freeware authors, payware authors, gateway authors, and LR can’t hold still because one pack is not properly excluded. This has never been true, and there have always been tools (include your own apt.dat, include exclusion zones) to cope with this. If a change would break freeware, I think I must be aware of that and consider that in designing the scenery system and I think you will find that scenery “just works” for years after it is released.īut if scenery assumes that the stuff below it (the apt.dat, the DSF) will not change, this is a wrong assumption. If the author already has apt.dat in their custom airport, then adding more ramp starts on the gateway to “fuel” this proposal will have no effect.Īnd if the freeware is a lego brick airport -on- the gateway, someone else can make the edit. defining the airport but leaving the apt.dat to x-plane or not using exclusion zones). If, in the meantime, somewhere, there is a third party free-ware KBOS that has loads of freeware planes and _doesn’t_ replace the apt.dat, then there will -already- be a conflict! None of what I have described depends on the new plan only on authors making scenery packs that are not “defensive” (e.g. I would expect this would be approved and recommended if I have not screwed it up. If I want to fly at KBOS and I go to the airport and I find only 5 ramp starts defined, I can go in, define ALL of them in WED, and upload to the gateway. Re: freeware, I think this is -already- a problem. LOL – it was a rhetorical question – of course your answer is correct, but this is -why- we need dynamic AI placement. 1040 is the next ‘big’ release where crazy stuff can go and this feature is just barely complex enough that it needs a big release. Also, 1035 is already in beta so it missed that boat. * We have two release sizes: big and small. The longer we place static aircraft as OBJs, the more cleanup we will have to do. 10.40) so we can all be working on gateway airports that place static aircraft the new “right way” for future expansion. We can vary the static aircraft over time and take advantage of ramp types in the apt.dat file.The level of static aircraft can be turned up and down based on hardware capabilities.An airport can be “emptied out” for online flight.AI planes and static planes do not conflict.Here’s my idea for a fix: X-Plane places static aircraft at real apt.dat ramp starts dynamically based on library paths and apt.dat information. This is a clearly inflexible and non-ideal solution. If you use the AI, X-Plane will park AI planes at the ramp starts, so you must not put ramp starts where the static planes are.If you do place static aircraft, they can conflict with real pilots on Pilot’s Edge, VATSIM, or any other online network.If you don’t place static aircraft, airports with AI planes disabled look empty.If you use third party scenery packs for custom scenery, you can get even more aircraft types. Right now, you can place static aircraft in an X-Plane scenery pack using the library if the aircraft come from our library, they can go into the gateway. This idea has been on my todo list for a while I’m hoping to be able to squeeze it into X-Plane 10.40.* ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |