Madrid 2008 Afcad

[_Dre_ 0]

I started this thread because I didn't want to muddle up the pinned "Release" thread.

I mentioned in the pinned thread that taxiway ZW (the taxiway which serves and runs parallel to 36L/18R) needs to be lengthened in the afcad itself so that it matches the same taxiway in the scenery (which runs the entire length of the runway). A fellow forum member SierraDelta said I should just switch from the "Norte" afcad to the "Sud" but all that does is create new problems. With the Sud afcad instead of having unecessary departure problems you now have unecessary arrival issues as the Sud afcad closes 18R/36L for takeoffs. In both afcads the taxiway is the same as it only goes about 1/3 the length of 36L.

The problem with that in the SUD afcad is that if you are number 2 for landing (36L) the aircraft in front of you won't get off the runway in time as it has no where to turn off (in the actual scenery the full length taxiway is there with plenty of turnoffs). Therefore you will have a go around basically every second aircraft landing on 36L. Am I the only one seeing this or having an issue with this ( I feel so alone ).

[_Dre_ 0]

@ MZBS,

I downloaded and checked your afcad and while I understand your point made in the Madrid release thread about runway usage it still doesn't solve the issue that I have, which is the inability to use the entire Taxiway ZW which gives me AI problems for that runway no matter which afcad I'm using as they all (including yours MZBS) have 2/3 of the taxiway (that's in the scenery) missing.

For anyone wondering what the hell I'm talking about set your winds so that 18L/R are active and just park at Gate 530 and watch what your ai does on runway 36L/18R. The runway should be directly behind your aircraft if you are at gate 530.

One other note, MZBS in your afcad for runway 36L/18R you have one end closed for landings and takeoffs, and the other end closed for landings only. Isn't that going to cause problems in itself as I thought that one of the rules of Afcads is that what you do to one end of a runway you have to do for the opposite end?

[harpsi 0]

One other note, MZBS in your afcad for runway 36L/18R you have one end closed for landings and takeoffs, and the other end closed for landings only. Isn't that going to cause problems in itself as I thought that one of the rules of Afcads is that what you do to one end of a runway you have to do for the opposite end?

That´s true. This issue has been discussed in several foruns. If you have 36 L opened for takeoffs only, you should have also 18 R opened for take offs only. The same for landings or both operations at the same time.

harpsi

[SierraDelta 4]

Andre,

The way I use the two supplied afcads goes like this:

Wind from the north - I'll use the supplied NORTE afcad, take-offs will be from 36L/R and landings on 33L/R

Wind from the south - I'll use the SUD afcad, take-offs will be from 15L/R and landings on 18L/R

I have confirmed both configurations to work as described with wind at 005/16 and 185/16 respectively, and observing 1 hours worth of traffic (at 4x). So as you see, there will normally never be any reason for the AI traffic to use the 2/3 of taxiway ZW that are not in any of the afcads, 18L/R are never used for take-offs in normal operations, the same goes for landings on 36L/R - never happens.

The main problem with this set-up is that you'll have to decide which runway configuration will be used before you start FS, no big deal if you take-off from LEMD, but if you're on a longhaul to LEMD the winds may of course have changed once you get there. My understanding is that this is the reason why Miguel Zafra has developed the alternative NORTE version.

[_Dre_ 0]

Andre,

The way I use the two supplied afcads goes like this:

Wind from the north - I'll use the supplied NORTE afcad, take-offs will be from 36L/R and landings on 33L/R

Wind from the south - I'll use the SUD afcad, take-offs will be from 15L/R and landings on 18L/R

I have confirmed both configurations to work as described with wind at 005/16 and 185/16 respectively, and observing 1 hours worth of traffic (at 4x). So as you see, there will normally never be any reason for the AI traffic to use the 2/3 of taxiway ZW that are not in any of the afcads, 18L/R are never used for take-offs in normal operations, the same goes for landings on 36L/R - never happens.

The main problem with this set-up is that you'll have to decide which runway configuration will be used before you start FS, no big deal if you take-off from LEMD, but if you're on a longhaul to LEMD the winds may of course have changed once you get there. My understanding is that this is the reason why Miguel Zafra has developed the alternative NORTE version.

I understand and appreciate the multiple afcad concept. I have FSDT's O'hare Intl and it uses that afcad system. The problem is that I fly longhaul, mostly (90% of the time) between Europe and the US. Depending on my flightplans my flights range from 6 to 10 hours (real time) and I use Real weather. To be honest I don't know what the weather is going to be at my destination after such a long flight therefore I wouldn't know which Afcad to select.

It's not like I'm asking for a new terminal or construction of a new taxiway. Taxiway ZW is there in its entirety already in the scenery, I intend to use a single afcad and I am only asking that someone who has afcad skills just place the appropriate taxiway nodes in the correct position so that if I or anyone else chooses to open 36L/18R for dual operations (arrivals and departures) it doesn't matter what the winds are doing there won't be any unecessary AI hiccups.

[harpsi 0]

I understand and appreciate the multiple afcad concept. I have FSDT's O'hare Intl and it uses that afcad system. The problem is that I fly longhaul, mostly (90% of the time) between Europe and the US. Depending on my flightplans my flights range from 6 to 10 hours (real time) and I use Real weather. To be honest I don't know what the weather is going to be at my destination after such a long flight therefore I wouldn't know which Afcad to select.

Hi

I was one of the guys which more or less introduced this way of thinking with EHAM from cloud 9 and KORD from FSDreamteam. I didn´t see what was made with LEMD, but I am sure that now a lot of people think that this way of thinking is really needed to bring some realism to the airport. Two afcad files is exactly what Madrid needs. I am almost 100% sure that Simwings has done a very good job with the afcads. Of course, if you have a flight with 10 hours, you won´t know how the weather will be at the destination. Well, it is difficult to balance this issue. One person chooses realism, the other one chooses "simulism". There are files for all the tastes.

harpsi

[_Dre_ 0]

Harpsi I'm wondering if I can ask you for a major favour? If you have the Madrid scenery could you modify any of the two afcads and fix the missing 2/3 of taxiway ZW please. All that's needed is proper placement of the taxiway nodes as the taxiway is already there and waiting in the scenery itself. It's the taxiway that runs parallel to runway 36L/18R. I would owe you big time if you could do this for me .

[MZBS 0]

Hi

I was one of the guys which more or less introduced this way of thinking with EHAM from cloud 9 and KORD from FSDreamteam. I didn´t see what was made with LEMD, but I am sure that now a lot of people think that this way of thinking is really needed to bring some realism to the airport. Two afcad files is exactly what Madrid needs. I am almost 100% sure that Simwings has done a very good job with the afcads. Of course, if you have a flight with 10 hours, you won´t know how the weather will be at the destination. Well, it is difficult to balance this issue. One person chooses realism, the other one chooses "simulism". There are files for all the tastes.

harpsi

Yes, exactly, the only way to bring some realism to the airport is to have 2 afcads.

Why i've done the alternative version of the NORTE afcad is because with my version "always" regardless de wind, planes will always use North Configuration (that in the most of days is the active configuration in the real LEMD). So for long flights I think this afcad is better.

And is impossible to have correct configurations and plane movements with just one afcad. So probably you could see strange things in the afcad files (like runways closed and else) but this things make airlplanes work well.

Harpsi I'm wondering if I can ask you for a major favour? If you have the Madrid scenery could you modify any of the two afcads and fix the missing 2/3 of taxiway ZW please. All that's needed is proper placement of the taxiway nodes as the taxiway is already there and waiting in the scenery itself. It's the taxiway that runs parallel to runway 36L/18R. I would owe you big time if you could do this for me .

I know that in my afcad is also missing that 2/3 of taxiway ZW and i can do it if you want in the 3 afcads but this have no sense because that taxiway is NEVER used by AI traffic... is only created for the situations like if you have a take off engine failure and you have to abort your take off and return to the terminal but AI Traffic NEVER is going to have an engine failure.

The reason why I have modifiled Madrid "NORTE" afcad is because in my afcad planes are always using 33LR to land and 36LR to take off so you dont need that ZW taxiway in your afcad because you are not going to use it never... I dont know if you understand me ;-).

So well yes i can create the 2/3 of ZW but this is not going to help you if you want realism in the airport.

Well i have created an update of my NORTE alternative afcad: http://fs-blog.com.s38662.gridserver.com/AF2_LEMD-NORTE.bgl with the ZW taxiway ;-).

[harpsi 0]

Hi

I don´t have the scenery yet _Dre_. Anyway MZBS has done it for you. I already saw the new afcad file and MZBS is right: that taxiway will be never used because the runway is only used for take off. Even if you would have a south configuration, you would just need the four exits (after landing) and not the complete ZW taxiway.

About the afcad of MZBS there are just 2 little issues:

- the hold short node before runway 18R is too far from the runway; well, it would be better to remove taxiway ZW like MZBS said, which means less issues to fix;

- there are no start locations before runways 15s and 18s; indeed even if we don´t use them, they need to be there, otherwise there is a fault;

I also leave some taxiways out. At EHAM for example, when I see that one runway is used just for takeoff for example, I will take all the taxiways needed for landing out if they are not really needed. The same for landing. So, if a plane is not using that taxiway, I think it will be never a problem to leave it out.

Now, about the multiple afcad files, I am glad to see that I am not alone on this discussion. If you go to the FS Dreamteam forum, the afcad topic is the longest one. It has more than 150 posts. There was a very big discussion between the ones who want realism and the ones who want just simulism. Indeed, there are some airports which need more than 1 afcad file. I have done EHAM and KORD with several afcad files. I hope to do the next one as well which will be KJFK, "oficially" or "not oficially" which means just after the release. I am sure than MZBS has done a very good work because we are thinking in the same way, and I hope to see the crosswind system as well.

I am looking forward to try this piece of work and to see LPPT scenery which is my home town. Thanks aerosoft and simwings.

harpsi

[_Dre_ 0]

Mr MZBS I sincerely thank you for going through the trouble of putting in the rest of the taxiway. It is very much appreciated.

I completely understand that with the setup that you have for the unmodified Madrid afcads (1/3 of ZW) it should work as you intended. But you have to remember that there are those of us out there (myself included) that will make slight changes to the afcad to suit ones tastes or needs.

I for example will now proceed to open 36L/18R for dual operations (takeoffs and landings) as that will likely be my runway of choice whether I'm arriving or departing as most of my Madrid related flghts (using Iberia) will begin or end at gate 530 or 538. I hope you can now understand how it would be difficult to use that runway for dual ops with only a third of the taxiway in use.

Again MZBS I thank you for helping out one whining customer as I can now fully enjoy this magnificent scenery *the way I like it* .

[harpsi 0]

I for example will now proceed to open 36L/18R for dual operations (takeoffs and landings) as that will likely be my runway of choice whether I'm arriving or departing as most of my Madrid related flghts (using Iberia) will begin or end at gate 530 or 538. I hope you can now understand how it would be difficult to use that runway for dual ops with only a third of the taxiway in use.

But the runway is indeed used for dual operations and you still don´t need that taxiway as well. You can use 36 L for TO and 18 R for landing. And why do you need to choose always that runway? If you want to depart to the south, just choose 15 R. You have 4 runways to use and not just one...

And by the way it is pretty boring to land or takeoff all the time on the same runway. I always like to make different flights and to land/TO on all the runways available. Then it is never the same, which means, never boring.

harpsi

[_Dre_ 0]

But the runway is indeed used for dual operations and you still don´t need that taxiway as well. You can use 36 L for TO and 18 R for landing. And why do you need to choose always that runway? If you want to depart to the south, just choose 15 R. You have 4 runways to use and not just one...

And by the way it is pretty boring to land or takeoff all the time on the same runway. I always like to make different flights and to land/TO on all the runways available. Then it is never the same, which means, never boring.

harpsi

It can be used for dual ops yes upon installation but that would require the switching of afcads (which I have no intention of doing). I just want the one afcad that can be used no matter what the winds are doing. In response to using one runway all the time, I won't. I will be using 36L/18R and taxiway ZW for when I'm operating as Iberia or AA. When I'm flying as Iberworld, Spanair, Lufthansa, Alitalia, Delta, etc., or as Cargo I will surely be using the other runways.

Why do I need all of taxiway ZW you ask; well for example if I am on approach to 36L and I'm second for landing if the whole taxiway isn't there then the aircraft that landed in front of me will have to make a 180 degree turn on the runway itself and taxi backwards on the active to the turnoff located 1/3 the length of 36L. If you are using a program like Radar Contact for ATC (which I do) then whoever is 2nd in line for landing is almost guaranteed a go around as Radar Contact generally uses minimum separation distance between landing aircraft for efficiency *It's the high speed turnoff towards the 18R end that's critical for traffic flow*.

It's also not just whoever is second for landing that will have a problem; #3 should be fine as #1 should be clear of the active by the time he reaches minimums, but #4 will have to go around just like #2 because this time #3 can't clear the runway quick enough. Also remember it is dual ops and with such inefficiency there would be a whole lot fewer departures than there could be (and this is just the problems for 36L with a shortened ZW).

Now if you analyze using 18R with a shortened ZW for dual operations then you will see the absolute breakdown in ground operations as the departing aircraft will be on the high speed turnoff waiting for the "position and hold" instructions to come from the tower. Where the breakdown occurs is that whoever lands 18R will use that same turnoff that all the awaiting departures are on and you would end up with the dreaded nose to nose situation, essentially freezing all ops for the runway until the arrival aircraft in the nose-to-nose is deleted by FS after a certain amount of time.

For me personally, after installing LEMD and checking out the new terminal I knew that I would want to use 36L/18R for dual ops and it wasn't achievable or efficient without the entire ZW in use. Harpsi even with KORD I now only use your X afcad as I tweaked runway usage so that it was efficient no matter what the winds while remaining partially realistic. Incase you are wondering why I mess with the afcads (runway usage) it's because I have some limited exposure and experience (college) with real life ATC and at large airports in Flightsim I like to dictate traffic flow to my liking and satisfaction so I tend to tweak the AF2 files (not all but some).

[Barnesy2006 0]

I've tried both Afcads now and i appreciate the hard work gone into them but i don't like either!!!

Is it just not possible to have 1 file just like Simwings Heathrow to use depending which ever way the wind is??

This seems the more logical step to me as like someone said earlier you can't be changing afcad files mid-flight on long hauls!!

Thanks

Steve

[harpsi 0]

I've tried both Afcads now and i appreciate the hard work gone into them but i don't like either!!!

Is it just not possible to have 1 file just like Simwings Heathrow to use depending which ever way the wind is??

This seems the more logical step to me as like someone said earlier you can't be changing afcad files mid-flight on long hauls!!

Thanks

Steve

Just choose one of them. FS is not perfect so you have to choose between real life operations or something not perfect but without changing files. I think that, like it happened on FS Dreamteam´s forum and Cloud 9´s forum, people who work on the afcad files are a little bit tired of this discussions involving multiple afcad files per scenery...

We provide several afcads for real life operations and we provide another one which has nothing to do with real life operations, where just one file is needed. You just choose what you want and that´s it.

harpsi

[virtualstuff 76]

Just choose one of them. FS is not perfect so you have to choose between real life operations or something not perfect but without changing files. I think that, like it happened on FS Dreamteam´s forum and Cloud 9´s forum, people who work on the afcad files are a little bit tired of this discussions involving multiple afcad files per scenery...

We provide several afcads for real life operations and we provide another one which has nothing to do with real life operations, where just one file is needed. You just choose what you want and that´s it.

harpsi

Actually I agree here with Steve have rather a not real life AFCAD with operations on all runways as

to change every time the AFCAD and for 100% predict which runway FS is going to use...

Try to use a flight planner and save the arrival runway lol FS9 will 99% always use that particular runway lol

In the perspective of FS9 the ATC is unrealistic + real life operations to so it's a waist of time to try to achieve that because it's not possible at all...

Try it with my hometown airport EHAM

More important is that the traffic flow will not be in large queue for takeoff (which happens with the provide afcads ..)

... and us have to use a separate tool to have a more realistic separation between arrival traffic... (since most of us have 100% AI traffic)

So as with some AFCAD U have to make your own and in this case will do that to ands it will be one

Actually to make an AFCAD is real easy only time consuming...

[Barnesy2006 0]

well when you have made it, if you don't mind posting it i'd like to try it?

[_Dre_ 0]

I've tried both Afcads now and i appreciate the hard work gone into them but i don't like either!!!

Is it just not possible to have 1 file just like Simwings Heathrow to use depending which ever way the wind is??

This seems the more logical step to me as like someone said earlier you can't be changing afcad files mid-flight on long hauls!!

Thanks

Steve

Barnesy here is my single afcad setup for LEMD.

Download MZBS' modified afcad (full length taxiway ZW):

http://fs-blog.com.s38662.gridserver.com/AF2_LEMD-NORTE.bgl

Use the afcad program to make the following adjustments:

Runway 18R/36L = Takeoffs only

Runway 18L/36R= Landings only

Runway 15L/33R= Landings only

Runway 15R/33L= Dual Operations (landings and takeoffs)

Also there is a missing hold short node at the last taxiway serving 15R, put it in or else you will have ai taxing into each other on the runway.

You can use that as a base setting, observe traffic flow in the sim, then re-adjust the runway usage to your own satisfaction. Hope it helped.

PS- Harpsi when you are doing the JFK afcads it would be very much appreciated if you don't leave out any of the taxiways just incase people might want to make their own adjustments like what's going on here.

[harpsi 0]

More important is that the traffic flow will not be in large queue for takeoff (which happens with the provide afcads ..)

... and us have to use a separate tool to have a more realistic separation between arrival traffic... (since most of us have 100% AI traffic)

Now, actually I already have Madrid and I was making some adjustments to the north afcad.

Well, what I found is that traffic is not really well balanced. I did one thing: 36 L and 33 L were shortened and now, I have traffic on all runways. There were indeed some weird things. For example, aircrafs want to go to 36 R coming from the old terminals, via runway 33L. Well, I decided to leave some problematic taxiways out, and now it is more or less working. I leave my file here which is actually being tested so that you can also test and make suggestions. Remember: it is ONLY for north configuration, which means 36s only for TO and 33 only for landings.

I added some more taxiway curved lines, but without names. It is just for testing and let´s say, for myself, but in the case that someone wants it, here it is.

harpsi

AF2_LEMD_NORTE.zip

[_Dre_ 0]

I just wanted to say that I think MZBS' original two afcads that come with the scenery are fantastic if you are looking for the real life LEMD operations. The thing is that the combination of this airport's terminal locations and it's runway layout produces a pretty unique situation where it almost has a sandbox personality to it. It's a lot of fun for me personally trying out different ops and watching the results in the sim as there are so many combos to try and there is always some hitch that you wouldn't have even thought about or seen coming.

I now consider this my second favourite airport scenery as, in my opinion, it has scored perfect marks in every aspect in what I look for in a commercial scenery; looks, framerates, versatility , tech support, and cost. I didn't think Sim-wings could top Heathrow, but they just raised the bar another notch.

[harpsi 0]

I've tried both Afcads now and i appreciate the hard work gone into them but i don't like either!!!

Is it just not possible to have 1 file just like Simwings Heathrow to use depending which ever way the wind is??

This seems the more logical step to me as like someone said earlier you can't be changing afcad files mid-flight on long hauls!!

EGLL is completely different from LEMD. In this case you have only one runway for takeoff and one only for landing. And, when you change winds the opposite side is used for the same type of operation. This doesn´t happen with LEMD, with EHAM or even with LFPO for example.

harpsi

[MZBS 0]

Now, actually I already have Madrid and I was making some adjustments to the north afcad.

Well, what I found is that traffic is not really well balanced. I did one thing: 36 L and 33 L were shortened and now, I have traffic on all runways. There were indeed some weird things. For example, aircrafs want to go to 36 R coming from the old terminals, via runway 33L. Well, I decided to leave some problematic taxiways out, and now it is more or less working. I leave my file here which is actually being tested so that you can also test and make suggestions. Remember: it is ONLY for north configuration, which means 36s only for TO and 33 only for landings.

I added some more taxiway curved lines, but without names. It is just for testing and let´s say, for myself, but in the case that someone wants it, here it is.

harpsi

I will try it...

Do you have edited the original North conf afcad (included in the scenery) or the file that i've upload?

Thanks

[harpsi 0]

I will try it...

Do you have edited the original North conf afcad (included in the scenery) or the file that i've upload?

Thanks

I have retouched the original file, since like you said that aditional taxiway for north config is useless.

harpsi

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Folks,

I believe Alejandro from Aerosoft has written to Manfred from Sim-Wings regarding a few issues the AFCAD being one of them.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next.

[Barnesy2006 0]

Harpsi,

I have just tried your modified afcad and with the wind blowing from 270 the whole thing was a mess! I had aircraft back tracking down all runways for takeoff and landings? Is that because from 270 i should be using the southern afcad??

Thanks

Steve

[harpsi 0]

Harpsi,

I have just tried your modified afcad and with the wind blowing from 270 the whole thing was a mess! I had aircraft back tracking down all runways for takeoff and landings? Is that because from 270 i should be using the southern afcad??

Thanks

Steve

Yes, probably... Indeed 270º should be possible with the north config. Maybe because the order of the runways in the afcad is 15/33 to 18/36 and not 33/15 to 36/18, this will occur. Try winds 290º and 250º for example, to see what happens. The first should be possible with north afcad. The second one, only with the south file. When you see all those backtrackings, it means that the wind is not suitable for that file and it seems that FS assumes that you have 18s in use for landing and 15s for takeoff.

harpsi