MAIW Airport Faults

[greenfield3]

MAIW Airport Faults

I have noticed that when I bring some of the airports included in the MAIW packages into ADE and run the fault finder it encounters many faults. The faults are constituent among many of the airports so I know that they were done intentionally.
Is there any documentation that explains the things that were done in these airport files that is causing the fault finder to choke?

[kungfuman]

Hi,

The fault finder can be useful, but personally I find that its premise is rather odd! How should one define a fault?

While there are some clear-cut cases, there are also many things that a fault-finder checks for which do not cause any negative effects "in sim", and which throw up many elements of the airport structure that have actually been purposefully placed. Why should such (visual or function) enhancing items be considered faults, given that their use in this context has no ill effect on the function of the airport?

So, I would take what the fault-finder finds with a pinch of salt. Why should it get to say what's right and what's wrong?

Regarding these so-called faults, what exactly did you wish to know about them?

[Firebird]

I am afraid that there can be quite a few reasons why the deliberate errors are there. So I can't cover all possible reasons. Most are due to markings on the ground or graphic only enhancements using different texturing, but also drive through parking is another common one.

What I would say is go in close on the error and see if you can work it out. I would say that as our afcads get more cunning and detailed you will get more errors, if you check for all possible error types.

[f4nutter]

the best thing to do is NOT run the fault finder and just fly from and enjoy how the airfield works

[ricktk]

As stated in the last couple of posts, there are many reasons for faults, many of them due to using design elements in the older AFCAD, AFX or ADE that ring up as faults.

First let me say, I work with FSX not FS9, but have been through all the variations of fltsim since FS4.

I find many faults caused by taxiways that are not connected. These are usually placed for visual reasons
and can be disregarded. Using ADE, I usually replaced these with closed taxiways, then the program does
not see them as faults, but they still show visually.

Another fault, can be the "STAR" method of making cross-wind runways. This put these runways outside
the 'normal' area that ADE considers the airport. It can be disregarded.

You may also find disconnected nodes. Usually these can be removed.

I see lots of parking space faults. Can these be ignored? I do not know without watching a particular airport through all its movements.
I usually replace them with parking spaces of the "exact" parameters of the original, except for numbering (which the program does). This usually gets rid of the fault.

In ADE and in FSX, I found, for instance, the 'hold short nodes" at Kadena AB, Okinawa on runway 5R were
causing aircraft not to depart. Looking at the Hold Short Node Circles, they looked fine. However, for whatever reason
they were not working. It took a bunch of trial and error in moving around nodes to get the approach taxiways and the runway and the Hold Short Nodes to get it to work in FSX. Did it work in FS9? I do not know, but I expect so. It does not look the way the original ADE had it and the real airport looks, but it is reasonably close. "My goal was to get it to work, so the AI would depart" not necessarily be 100% acccurate to the real airfield.

I can go on for quite a bit. The faults listed in ADEX and other programs are for "Your" advisement. The key is to get a good understanding on how your design program works, whether AFCAD2, AFX, or ADE, and then working with that program, take a designed, or one of your own airfields, and make it work on Your system! Remember each of these airfield design programs are not completely compatable, and despite the Herculean efforts by the part time staff of MAIW to test them, everything does not work across the board on eveyones system. It takes work and research by the flightsimmer! After all, the product you get from MAIW is really good, and the price is right!

Happy Flight Simming!

[KevinJarvis]

I agree with all the above...

But look at it like this.

All those 'errors' are consistent so there is a reason for them.

[Firebird]

I find many faults caused by taxiways that are not connected. These are usually placed for visual reasons
and can be disregarded. Using ADE, I usually replaced these with closed taxiways, then the program does
not see them as faults, but they still show visually.

I find this very interesting. So afcads done in ADE will repect the closed taxiway. Is this for both FS9 and FSX?

[kungfuman]

Let us not forget that classifying a twy as "closed" in FS9 is really only for the designers benefit, to help him organise or keep better track of what is going on within his creation. Perhaps FSX is different?

Closed taxiway links rarely have any effect on traffic behaviour, at least in my FS9-only experience. I see them more as an additional way of labeling a taxiway link, perhaps as an aide memoir for the designer.

[ricktk]

As in my original, I stated I was working in FSX. If you draw a taxiway link ( 2 nodes) not attached further to another taxiway or runway, ADE will give it an error with fault finder. If you draw the same and use the closed taxiway link tool, it will not. Does this work in FS9? I do not know. When I was using FS9, we only had AFCAD2 to work with, and ADE was only for FSX. ADE works now with FS9, so testing by somebody with FS9 and ADE on their system would have to see if the above works. But I think it will work, as this is a function of the program fault finder.

As to the working of the closed taxiway, I believe it is the same in both sims, just for visual use. AI will still use the closed taxiway, if it is the closest route to its destination (parking or runway). The trick is not to make them connected, just for visual and tracking purposes in the program.

Kevin you are correct in that many of the faults you find probably were done for a reason, and usually that will be for visual purposes to make the airfield look more like the actual. ADE has a fine manual that comes with the program, that explains most of the basic techniques. MAIW produces some of the best AFCADS for the military airfields it designs. IMO, I just doubt that one of the authors is going to draw up an explaination/tutorial of advanced drawing techniques? But who knows? However, the place for that is probably in one of the other fltsim sites scenery forums or on the ADE forum itself.

[kungfuman]

While I'm no expert, I feel you can learn the most (initially) by identifying add-on airfield files you like (while in FS), and then just opening those files in AFCAD (and nowadays ADE) and seeing what they contain that gives the extra touches of quality. Soon (and with a bit of experimentation), you start to see what all the apparent errors are actually doing for the file, and you can then go on to embellish your own creations using the techniques you learn.

And then of course there's various fora on which you can discuss the finer points with others, some of whom you soon realise are legends in their own right - on account of their FS-related knowledge! And the learning continues...

[scott967]

There's a couple good tutorials on fsdeveloper.com, one on using unconnected taxiways as decorative elements and one on plumbing method of parking.

scott s.
.