NEW! at AVSIM!!

Victory103 · Post by **Victory103** » 06 May 2008, 21:09

Yeah guys, read the readme first and changed the radius. I started the flight at Grand Forks, and all the 135's were there and seemed to be parked correctly. Probably my system, I'll reboot and check it out.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 06 May 2008, 23:22

Please do post back your results as I am interested in what is going on. Since you changed your radius, at no point should there be NO tankers there. Matter of fact there is usually a fair amount parked there.

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 07 May 2008, 10:22

Hi guys, thanks for the great package. I have it loaded in FSX and it works fine, no issues at all. I'm currently making an AFD for it to work with the stock FSX buildings, the FS9 AFCAD doesn't align at all with FSX. As I was researching airfield charts and on GE, it seems the SW parking area (at least the taxiway leading to it) has been removed, along with the runway side extensions and some of the southern taxiways.

Apparently the base is drawing down and is due to close as a tanker base, to become a centre for UAVs.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 07 May 2008, 12:54

CelticWarrior wrote:Hi guys, thanks for the great package. I have it loaded in FSX and it works fine, no issues at all. I'm currently making an AFD for it to work with the stock FSX buildings, the FS9 AFCAD doesn't align at all with FSX. As I was researching airfield charts and on GE, it seems the SW parking area (at least the taxiway leading to it) has been removed, along with the runway side extensions and some of the southern taxiways.

Apparently the base is drawing down and is due to close as a tanker base, to become a centre for UAVs.

I haven't been to GF in years so I can't speak to its present day appearance(perhaps cowboymarine can chime in)... I know the runway was redone in the past 10 years and that there were/are some changes in the taxiways layouts but I modeled it as best as I could with the resources available to me(which admittedly are limited). The taxiway for the SW ramp is removed on GE but I felt there needed to be a place for transient parking and it seemed to me that photo was taken before they finished that part(although I could very well be wrong). The southern taxiways that are gone in GE are gone in the AFCAD. And in GE the side extentions are still present... just not as wide as they used to be.

It is currently set to become a UAV base and form an associate AD/ANG wing with the Happy Hooligans. However, I believe the 319th continues to look into the possibility of hosting a KC-45A wing in the future.

Cowboymarine1593 · Post by **Cowboymarine1593** » 07 May 2008, 18:24

ok scoope is, the taxi way from the southwest ramp is still there except for the intersection with the runway. boarder patrol and active duty airforce are getting preditor that will all be placed on grand forks, dont know what ramp yet, the north tanker ramp has hangers on the north and south end, a three bay style hanger to the north and a three full hangers on the south with three hangers that the tails hang out of, 4 hangers on the south ramp which the afcad needs redone on the south ramp for, two hangers on the south ramp are for age equimpent but i do believe will be redone for preditor, the south east hanger on the south ramp is fenced off and no longer used, and the northeast hanger there too is used by my shop and is used for the aerial port. the kc45 is coming here for the test base so we are told by the commander,

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 07 May 2008, 18:52

Thanks Cowboymarine, that helps fill in a few gaps.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 07 May 2008, 19:13

I wonder why they would leave the intersection of the SW ramp missing... I had originally made the AFCAD with that piece missing but because I needed a spot for transients, and the fact I thought for sure they would finish the intersection, I went ahead and connected it to the runway.

Cowboymarine1593 · Post by **Cowboymarine1593** » 07 May 2008, 19:35

the transient ramp needs to be redone afcad wise and i just learned how to so if you would like help i can help. ramps are alpha bravo and charlie, bravo is our transient ramp, it can support 5 135s 6 fighters and 1 heavy depending on how they are placed.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 07 May 2008, 19:45

Cowboymarine1593 wrote:the transient ramp needs to be redone afcad wise and i just learned how to so if you would like help i can help. ramps are alpha bravo and charlie, bravo is our transient ramp, it can support 5 135s 6 fighters and 1 heavy depending on how they are placed.

Well, the actual transient ramp is the SE ramp, correct? I couldn't remember how it was and the GE imagery was kind of whitewashed out so I couldn't see the correct parking.

I basically made the SW ramp the transient ramp and assumed the parking.

As of now,I have no plans for the AFCAD to be re-edited for release. I think it came out pretty well. Perhaps down the line if GF is fortunate enough to get the KC-45A.

Cowboymarine1593 · Post by **Cowboymarine1593** » 07 May 2008, 20:15

yes the se is the transient, its never full but it does keep our transients, if it one a/c on there then it is parked at the red carpet, up to the size of a 135 if the a/c is bigger they enter from the south of the ramp and park before the exit to the ramp north of the south entrance, and that is from the size of a c17 and up

djnocturnal · Post by **djnocturnal** » 07 May 2008, 20:28

eh...i like it the way it is. lots of room for visiting aircraft, although i don't believe maiw has alot of traffic there, the f-117's were all i recall seeing as far as combat ac there before i removed them, a few t-38's & a 135 from beale too. but who knows maybe if they do any other heavy bases in the future they can start sending them there

Post by **campbeme** » 18 May 2008, 13:01

Spent 2 hours checking and re checking, why the KC's would not show up in my FS9 enviroment. Then realised my Traffic slider was below 40%.

Doh

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 18 May 2008, 13:42

campbeme wrote:Spent 2 hours checking and re checking, why the KC's would not show up in my FS9 enviroment. Then realised my Traffic slider was below 40%.

Doh

Well, that probably reflects on us just as much as we must have forgotten to include that in the readme. Glad you got it worked out and thanks for posting it as I will make that change in future releases.