Imagine Sim ZSPD...

[catchman 13]

Also, could we get appropriate parking codes for the various cargo areas? Like CSNC CCAC GTI FDX CKK where applicable.

Great question. I'm actually responsible for afcad development so I can help you with that. I left the cargo parking unassigned so it could be used with all free and pay ai packages or be easily tweaked.

 

Would you be interested in an ai overload version? It would require that your pax and cargo are marked correctly, true wingspan, and have the right parking assignment, e.g., xxxC (pax airline with cargo) or xxx (pure cargo carrier) [said for benefit of others]. Lastly, you would need to set your airport vehicle density to 0 on your traffic setting.

 

This provides parking for all cargo airlines listed on Wikipedia and better airline gate overflow. The steps above must be completed by the user for it to work.

 

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part a)

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part b )

 

Put in the *ZSPD*/scenery folder, overwrite the older files.

[N77022 2]

Thanks Anthony! New files work really well, getting good cargo assignments. Few issues still persist, getting some terrain tearing just north of the airport, and added a photo to show the displacement relative to FTX Global + Vector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

Great Wall Airlines went bankrupt a few years ago fyi

 

Thanks for the new afacd, helps me know where to park in the cargo ramps.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Great question. I'm actually responsible for afcad development so I can help you with that. I left the cargo parking unassigned so it could be used with all free and pay ai packages or be easily tweaked.

 

Would you be interested in an ai overload version? It would require that your pax and cargo are marked correctly, true wingspan, and have the right parking assignment, e.g., xxxC (pax airline with cargo) or xxx (pure cargo carrier) [said for benefit of others]. Lastly, you would need to set your airport vehicle density to 0 on your traffic setting.

 

This provides parking for all cargo airlines listed on Wikipedia and better airline gate overflow. The steps above must be completed by the user for it to work.

 

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part a)

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part b )

 

Put in the *ZSPD*/scenery folder, overwrite the older files.

 

At airliners.net there is a picture of China Southern Cargo 777 parked at what I think is the Cargo Apron 6. Is that where they go for maintenance, or do they sometimes park there now that Shanghai Airlines has no dedicated long range cargo aircraft?

[Matsu787 104]

With those update files, still showing a Cargo park at the normal gate...

 

 

 

Kin M.

(Klax)

[Boeing or not going 578]

During low vis time during the day, such as rain, the taxi lights do not shine. I can see them in the distance but not right in front of my aircraft.

[catchman 13]

With those update files, still showing a Cargo park at the normal gate...

 

 

 

 

Kin M.

(Klax)

 

Check the atc_parking_codes= and atc_parking_types= of the MD-11 in the aircraft.cfg. It may be labeled wrong. 

 

At airliners.net there is a picture of China Southern Cargo 777 parked at what I think is the Cargo Apron 6. Is that where they go for maintenance, or do they sometimes park there now that Shanghai Airlines has no dedicated long range cargo aircraft?

Probably for maintenance or overflow. 

 

During low vis time during the day, such as rain, the taxi lights do not shine. I can see them in the distance but not right in front of my aircraft.

 

Noted. I'll keep this handy for the future. We may be tweaking the ground further for P3D compatibility.

 

Great Wall Airlines went bankrupt a few years ago fyi

 

Thanks for the new afacd, helps me know where to park in the cargo ramps.

 

You're welcome. Hmm, the Great Wall Airlines page on wikipedia says that its fleet was rolled into China Cargo Airlines alongside China Eastern Cargo and Shanghai Cargo (with EVA also having a minority stake). In my mind, I treated their labels as one collective cargo airline.

 

Thanks Anthony! New files work really well, getting good cargo assignments. Few issues still persist, getting some terrain tearing just north of the airport, and added a photo to show the displacement relative to FTX Global + Vector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted as well for the future.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Check the atc_parking_codes= and atc_parking_types= of the MD-11 in the aircraft.cfg. It may be labeled wrong. 

 

Probably for maintenance or overflow. 

 

 

Noted. I'll keep this handy for the future. We may be tweaking the ground further for P3D compatibility.

 

 

You're welcome. Hmm, the Great Wall Airlines page on wikipedia says that its fleet was rolled into China Cargo Airlines alongside China Eastern Cargo and Shanghai Cargo (with EVA also having a minority stake). In my mind, I treated their labels as one collective cargo airline.

 

 

Noted as well for the future.

 

 

Multiple pictures show China Southern Cargo parking at Cargo Apron 6.

 

Like this

 

http://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Southern-Airlines/Boeing-777-F1B/1672454/L/

 

Are you really sure that is not where they park? My guess is they took over the Shanghai Cargo area.

[catchman 13]

Imaginesim Pudong AI Overflow Build 042914

This provides parking for all cargo airlines listed on Wikipedia and better airline gate overflow. The steps above must be completed by the user for it to work.

 

Require that your pax and cargo are marked correctly, true wingspan, and have the right parking assignment, e.g., xxxC (pax airline with cargo) or xxx (pure cargo carrier). Lastly, you would need to set your airport vehicle density to 0 on your traffic setting.

 

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part a)

ZSPD AI OVERFLOW AFCAD DOWNLOAD LINK (part b )

Put in the *ZSPD*/scenery folder, overwrite the older files.

 

Updated

- China Southern Cargo relocated to ramp 6 ( :hi: AAL125)

 

Awaiting

- Opening of the fourth runway [date and nav info wanted]

 

Noted

- Taxi light issues at certain times/angles/wx

- scenery transition from photoscenery

[Boeing or not going 578]

Thanks. Is the relocation to the proper airport positioning also on the list for a future update?

[catchman 13]

I've reported it up the chain. It's not my decision to make. I know that it is being looked into as far as what would be required, etc. It sucks on our end because we didn't catch it until after it had passed beta, and now it may require moving thousands of independent objects. If we can find a way to batch process the moving, it may be possible to accomplish. 

 

//See below for detailed rant

<rant>

 

This rant is not aimed at anyone. Please don't create your own inference. 

 

The benefit of creating airports in western/democratic nations is the wealth of government data freely available. I've worked on several projects with different companies and this has never come up because we always had access to whatever data, images, planning, etc. that we needed. Fyi Charlotte, the previous airport: We could pull whatever we needed from local planning authorities to the FAA. For example, we had the proper projection (see above post re. projection datum) for our photoscenery bacgkround; the right gps coordinates for the airport, and access to future master planning materials. 

 

There are several reasons why you don't see certain payware developers working on certain parts of the world. One reason is the added risk of piracy, and not just in places you may think. One publisher has even suggested that Italy is a haven for pirated software and is generally reluctant to produce airports there. China is another of these places, for reasons I won't get into here. However, China, and a few other nations, throw an added curve: unpublished information. We just cannot access information that would be readily available if we had done a western airport.

 

Take the new fourth runway - we have absolutely no idea when it will open. The Chinese media outlets made it sound as if it would be open by the end of the year. However, it turns out that 'open' really meant open for more testing, not operational use. That's why it isn't active in any of the afcads. Until it opens in the real world, we would be at best guessing what to program the ILS as, name connecting taxiways, etc. If this had been a runway expansion in, say, Omaha, I'd be looking at a 30+ page pdf that outlines everything from the type of light buld used in the ALS to the contractor installing it. That's the power of information. In the meantime, I've setup a google news alert for the opening of the fourth runway so that we can keep the airport as accurate as possible. 

 

So, then, how does this impact the placement of the airport? To answer that, you need to look at how photoscenery is generally placed. Developers buy aerial imagery or acquire it from a free (open) source and it is produced in certain particular datum. The datum interprets how to project a round object onto a flat image. Imagine you have peeled an orange; you can try to arrange the peel on a flat surface, but it is not designed to be flattened. What do you do? You push down on the parts protruding upward to flatten the peel, but this causes other parts to expand or move. However, you can't see flatten (linear) unless you push down on the peel. A datum is a standard way of pushing down on that peel so that someone else can see exactly what you are viewing. Unfortunately, there are thousands of datums and minor changes within datums. China further complicates things, as was mentioned above, by using a non-Western standard datum, which we did not discover until the problem became apparent. Finally, the recent terraforming to the shore after the release of FSX and payware mesh packages meant that the anomaly was unseen until the RTM version. To my knowledge, none of our beta testers saw this. In fact, I only caught it the day of release when I happened to run FSX2KML while checking some of the gate parkings. Bear in mind, this was after hours of simulated ILS and RNAV approaches. 

 

To sum up...

* My name is on the project and yes, it does bother me that the alignment is off by 300m

* No, I cannot guarantee that it will be fixed. We're looking into it but don't hold your breath.

* This isn't my day job. It may be payware, but it's hardly 'easy money'. Indeed, I would make less than minimum wage if paid hourly. This is a labor of love that happens to pay a small token of appreciation.

* We did the best we could with what we have. It's hard to do a good payware airport in China. If you don't believe me, head over to Simmarket to survey what's available. There are eight mainland Chinese airports for FSX. Of those, one is from Imaginesim (VHHH), leaving seven others. FlyTampa's Hong Kong is a standout of the remaining seven in part because it represents a very westernized part of China where information is easier to attain. Consider that a country with a population over 1 billion has only a handful of payware airports. Must be for a reason? If you're that bent out of shape over 300m, please purchase our competitor's product, --> here.

* I am monitoring this thread to help with any issues and to provide more support (i.e. more detailed afcads) to users who may want one. I do that of my own free will because I really want people to enjoy the product.

* If you bought it, thank you. If you bought it and you're upset about 300m, I'm sorry. I hope we can find a way to make it even better.

 

</rant>

 

If someone is withholding purchase based on that, I would suggest trying the demo to see if it bothers you.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I believe the big problem with the location of the airport is for multiplayer flyers. Anyone using your airport online will show up in the wrong area compared to everyone else. I did not mean to bring it up and persuade users not to purchase. I think it is a great addon and am very happy with it.

[Chainsawz 0]

//See below for detailed rant

<rant>

.

.

.

 

If you're that bent out of shape over 300m, please purchase our competitor's product, --> here.

.

.

.

</rant>

Funny how it all becomes the customer's fault?

 

I know those Projection/Datum thingies can be rough, even though Google Earth will tell you exactly where the airport needs to be placed.

 

 

But could you please ask the moderators to show you as a Commercial Member? This way when you go to bash people who spend their hard earned money on products of questionable nature and then post about it, others will have some idea from which angle your views are slanted.

[blueridgeflyer 1]

Funny how it all becomes the customer's fault?

 

I know those Projection/Datum thingies can be rough, even though Google Earth will tell you exactly where the airport needs to be placed.

 

 

But could you please ask the moderators to show you as a Commercial Member? This way when you go to bash people who spend their hard earned money on products of questionable nature and then post about it, others will have some idea from which angle your views are slanted.

It seemed passive aggressive at best. Look it appears that there is a genuine effort from IS to produce a product that can be considered in the same league as FSDT, FT, T2G, LatinVFR. But coming on here whining about consumers that take issue with 300 meters of misplaced scenery is not furthering their cause. As I've alluded, it causes significant navigational errors with RNAV capable aircraft. We are talking about nearly 1/5 of a NM ... hardly insignificant. I wish them all the success in addressing the problem.

[catchman 13]

It seemed passive aggressive at best. Look it appears that there is a genuine effort from IS to produce a product that can be considered in the same league as FSDT, FT, T2G, LatinVFR. But coming on here whining about consumers that take issue with 300 meters of misplaced scenery is not furthering their cause. As I've alluded, it causes significant navigational errors with RNAV capable aircraft. We are talking about nearly 1/5 of a NM ... hardly insignificant. I wish them all the success in addressing the problem.

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to complain about consumers. If we created an error or inaccuracy and cannot fix it, I think we have a duty to inform customers why that is and what can be expected.

 

As far as navigation performance, I want to comment on the accuracy required for certain procedures. I can understand your need for an accurate product when trying to simulate airline operations.

 

RNAV 1, the most rigorous rnav departure and arrival standard, requires 0.5 nm (straight) and 1nm (turns) accuracy (FAA, ICAO). The offset at ZSPD is 0.17nm, well within RNAV 1 standards.

 

What about RNP? According to CAAC CCAR-129, HQ Rev. 1, ZSPD only uses RNP/RNAV 1.0 as its most accurate non-ILS approach standard. If in the future, they implement RNP 0.10 or 0.15, then yes, the accuracy would be a problem. However, most airports and aircrews are not even capable of operating at this standard, yet. And if they are, it's because they have special training for use into certain airports that require 0.15 and 0.10 approaches. More likely, ZSPD may receive an RNP approach someday that uses 0.30 as its standard. In that situation, the RNP margin would still be satisfied. 

 

Again, we're seeing what can be done to make it more accurate.