A minor afcad design point - closed taxiway graphics

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 12:16

Just a minor point for those who are (considering) designing FS9 afcads especially about where closed taxiways are used to simulate roads.

As most people know, having 3 successive closed sections of taxiway is functionally no more "impressive" or functional than just closing both ends. creating a closed taxiway section causes an "X" to be displayed. What some designers have done is to go even further and not link the ends of the closed sections to "active" sections, effectively "orphaning" the closed taxiway functionally.

What is visually inconsistent and mentally incongruent to me is having successive "X's" on a line of taxiway links when that representation doesn't match up with satellite pics.

See what I meant about a minor point.

Something to consider is closing JUST the end sections of what could be a long taxiway - that is, add 2 normal nodes just "inside" of the ends of the closed taxiway and then close ONLY those 2 "new" and small sections/links. By judicious placement of such closed sections, one can fairly closely approximate the satellite visual.

I don't know why exactly this burr got up my butt about this, but I've run into it numerous times in various afcads over the last couple weeks and I needed to vent a bit, I guess. That and going sleepless over the last 60 hours probably makes me even more strange than usual.

'kay. rant over. (for now at least)

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 31 Mar 2009, 12:23

CLosing Taxiways does not necessarily mean that aircraft will not use them, as was evidenced when I was making Makhado Airbases drive through HAS complex for the South African Gripens and Hawks. Aircraft will follow the most direct route to the runway whether this is a "closed" taxiway or not. The only way to close a Taxiway so that nothing will go down it, or for use as a road etc. is to make it completely unconnected to the rest of the route.

FF I'm not sure exactly what your rant is about, if you are saying AFCAD designers are making various areas of closed taxiway on their AFCADs connected by numerous nodes, it doesnt really matter does it, as the X's only show up in AFCAD they dont show up in the sim. We all develop things differently, maybe the designers you are pointing out found using closed taxiways the best way to keep track of any roads they were placing. Who knows??

Nick

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 12:37

Shrug. Rants are rants. Logical or not.
Your points are probably accurate but I've found myself "correcting" FS9 numerous afcads recently.

IF as you say, the "closed" function designator DOESN'T work ai traffic management wise, then leaving the link unconnected should be sufficient to accomplish the functional goal. Adding unnecessary sections which display unnecessary "X's" is what the rant is/was about - funcitonality is a separate issue, especially when speaking of drive-thru parking, multiple afcads for parallel takeoffs, etc.

X's DO show up in the sim's visuals... that is not arguable in my FSX sim. Maybe someone else's works differently. I've used that fact numerous times myself.

Like I said, I'm currently sleep-deprived and my post may only make sense to me.

Post by **campbeme** » 31 Mar 2009, 12:53

maddog65 · Post by **maddog65** » 31 Mar 2009, 13:02

Ford,
Get some sleep. 60+ hours is not good. Unless you are active duty and your equipment is broke and the powers that be are breathing down your neck to get it back up. (Sorry about that flashback there.) 16 months till retirement and then I have to grow up and get a real job.

Les

kungfuman · Post by **kungfuman** » 31 Mar 2009, 13:20

Well,
Today I learnt that "closed" taxiway links display differently in fsx compared to fs9. Is there anyway of importing that extra fsx element of displaying "X"s into fs9, or am I going to have to continue drawing them manually as small crossed coral links (being exclusively an fs9 user)?

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 13:21

maddog65 wrote:Ford,
Get some sleep. 60+ hours is not good.

Uh, one can only lie awake in bed for so long before figuring that getting up and doing anything is better than just lying awake staring at the ceiling. This has happened to me a couple times in the last 18 months or so since a motorcycle accident scrambled my brains (well, if you grant that I, at least, have gray matter upstairs regardless of the quality of the remaining gray matter (no, not HAIR! LOL!))

KevinJarvis · Post by **KevinJarvis** » 31 Mar 2009, 13:22

If some designers are using the taxi-way mode to simulate a road and the X's are appearing at each end, then why not use the apron mode?
In AFCAd, we are not able to simulate a nice sweeping curve without laying down a number of nodes, but then an aircraft will appear to be jerking ever so slightly as it passes each node. At least in my experience.

By using the apron mode, you can lay down the same straight lines with or without multiple nodes to simulate a curve in the road.

The only thing negative about using the apron is that you won't have any lines on the road surface.

Would this not be eaiser than laying down a multiple layer taxi-way system to simulate roadways?

Just thinking out loud here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 14:21

And THAT, my friends, is actually something seriously positive to come out of this thread.

Discussion! Whoopee.

Please continue.

OTOH, remember that txiway links show surface widths while apronways do not.

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 31 Mar 2009, 14:32

I see what you're saying Kevin, but I've always found it much easier to use a taxyway than a polygon'ed ramp shape to make roads or defunct taxiways. If you look at the road in the sim and decided it is too thin or too thick or have to move some parts of it, it is much easier to move the nodes of a taxiway than all the points of an apron polygon, and you get the same result anyway.

Nick

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 31 Mar 2009, 15:05

So Ford, what you are getting at is that any FS9 afcads that you are trying to use in FSX, that have closed taxiway sections, in FSX will show a yellow "X" symbol on them? Is that correct? Got any screenies?

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 15:50

What I used to do for FS9 afcads, especially those designed from scratch, is to draw the road using taxiways having the proper widths, then outline that with a polygon and THEN delete the taxiway links if the only purpose was to "provide atmosphere" (not functionality). "Orphaned" apronways could provide the centerline or edgelines if desired - but I tended to avoid this in order to minimize fault-finder errors.

This is where my preference for FSX kicks in now. But that preference has only developed over time. I used to just use FS9 afcads and leave it at that. With respect to FSX, I tend to make FSX-specific afcads and I use SBuilderX roadways instead of AFX/afcad taxiways-simulating-roadways-for-visual-purposes. It keeps the afcad "clean" and there's no possibility of mistaking functionality for visual-effect. If I want to add airport vehicle paths, then I use AFX vehicle pathways. OTOH, I can add actual ai roadway traffic around the airport itself with a "freeway traffic line". So, there're more possibilities.......

But I digress. Or is that "ramble"?

ricktk · Post by **ricktk** » 31 Mar 2009, 17:42

Mike,

I am only using FSX, and closed taxiways using either AFX or ADE do not show up in the sim with 'X' on the surface in my sim. Only way I have done it is placing an IS library object X on the surface. If Ford knows how to get an X to show up with the CAD programs, I'm all ears, would love to know the technique.

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:06

From page 18 of the AFX manual:

Closed Taxiway Link
Defines a closed taxiway with a visible surface. Note that the AI traffic will still use a closed taxiway. To prevent it, leave one end of the taxiway not connected to any other links, thus creating a small gap.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:40

So what is the point of your post again?? I'm lost, you just don't like the way the afcads look, in AFCAD itself?? Is that it?

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 31 Mar 2009, 19:49

Okay. Forget it. I identified this as a rant in the first post.