Author Topic: AIG Aircraft Radius Table  (Read 20383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hornets Nest

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« on: December 09, 2009, 07:29:50 PM »
Alpha India Group â?? aided by two of our team advisors:  Jan Martin and Reggie Fields - have just completed the most comprehensive review and update of AI Model and Parking Radius since the original PAI Radius table was produced several years ago.

It is the intention that both Alpha India Group and Jan Martin will publish the new table on our respective web sites.  However, real world lives and other factors are delaying that, so we decided to provide the details for you here as attachments.

Whilst the temptation to take a new approach was strong â?? one of our team came up with a good way to do this â?? we were ultimately persuaded to stay within the framework of the existing scheme, so as not to render many existing afcads less effective.  Despite this, we have been able to achieve many improvements in the AIG Radius Table over the previous PAI table including:

1.   An entirely new radius scheme for GA aircraft, which the PAI table largely left out

2.   A new radius to be used for larger regional aircraft

3.   An increase in Cargo radius options from 3 to 5 to enable better distinction between types

4.   Radius specified for many more Russian built aircraft, including all existing AI models

5.   Inclusion of distinct radiusses for civilian helicopters

6.   Addition of a further radius for Military Heavy Aircraft, such as the C-5 Galaxy

7.   Enabling afcad developers to â??future proofâ?? their work by setting radiusses now for aircraft under development â?? including the B747-800, B787 series and A350XWB series as well as many GA jets

Simultaneously, we are also publishing an updated â??Parking Codes Quality Standardâ??, which tells repainters and simmers the standards to which AIG ground will code parking spots, so that you can ensure your atc_parking_code= entries match up.  We have removed a number of secondary codes where these could potentially cause parking conflict.

Radiussing models is, of course, very important in FS9 to see parking as you would expect to see it and as the afcad developer intended it. It is also crucial for both FS9 and FSX in ensuring realistic spacing between taxiing aircraft in a nose to tail situation.  Parking in FSX is determined by the wing_span value.

We have provided an exhaustive list of aircraft types and model radii to help you ensure the radius and (for FSX users) wing_span value of all your models matches the AIG Radius Table.

The easiest tool with which to change model radius and wing_span is AI Aircraft Editor by Martin Grossman, which comes with ADE9X. If you do not have ADE9X you can also download AI Aircraft Editor for standalone installation here http://www.scruffyduck.org.uk/filemanager/navega.php?PHPSESSID=0c4bab014e4af6400eea0988cab22fe7&dir=.%2FADE9X%20Current%20Version

My thanks to Jan and Reggie for their patience with us during this extended review process.  The next round of AIG airports has been developed using the new table in order to test these figures extensively.  We are all confident that using the new AIG Radius Table fully will enable FS9 afcad developers to bring an increased level of realism in parking to your airports.
Best regards

Matthew

Offline mackintosh

  • Turbine 2nd Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2009, 07:31:52 PM »
Thanks so much! Now all I need to do is to find the time to implement it all..
Cheers,
Mack

Core i7 950@ 4Ghz
6Gb RAM
2 x GTX 570
OCZ Vertex 2 SSD (system drive)
2 x WD Caviar Black 1Tb (RAID 0)

Offline dusteagle

  • Turbine 1st Officer
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
  • Flightplanner since 2001
    • dustEagle's Hideout
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2009, 09:05:53 PM »
Two questions

1) regarding the quality standards: does FS2004 understand more than one parking_code? If not, using BCS,DHL won't work since most AfCAD's use the DHL code
2) I have over 4.000 AfCADs installed. If I set my aircraft to the new radii, are those still going to work?
To boldly plan what no one has planned before.

Maximilian

  • Guest
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 09:10:05 PM »
Thanks so much AIG Ground!  :yeah: ::cheers::

Offline johanfrc

  • Administrator
  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 20089
    • JCAI
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 09:30:17 PM »
--->Daan: What we have found out is that every parking can have up to 5. Some might have more assigned and see airlines which is not among the 5 first parking there. But usually it's best with 5.
Regards

Johan Clausen

Offline dusteagle

  • Turbine 1st Officer
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
  • Flightplanner since 2001
    • dustEagle's Hideout
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2009, 10:16:47 PM »
I didn't phrase my question correctly I think;

I know I can assign more than one parking code to a parking spot. But I didn't know that I can assign more than one parking code to a fltsim-section in the aircraft.cfg
To boldly plan what no one has planned before.

Offline Juan Botero

  • Turbine 1st Officer
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • Avianca
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2009, 10:23:21 PM »
Thank you very much guys. Your work is really appreciated.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Offline Jan Martin

  • AIG Modeller
  • Turbine Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 599
  • FS Addon Designer
    • Jan's Websites
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2009, 10:53:21 PM »
Hi Folks
 
Attached is a PDF file with everything on 1 single page for printing .
 
Regards Jan
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 06:12:42 PM by Jan Martin »

Offline Hornets Nest

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2009, 10:04:43 AM »
Hi Daan,

Quote
regarding the quality standards: does FS2004 understand more than one parking_code? If not, using BCS,DHL won't work since most AfCAD's use the DHL code

Apologies that I could not respond earlier.

I believe I am right in saying that FS9 can only read one code in the flightsim line of the aircraft.cfg.  I believe that FSX will read two or more.  The purpose of our Quality Standards document is to make it clear that AIG Ground will apply these rules to coding parking spots.

Thus, the community knows that, if their Brussels Airlines aircraft still have the DAT code, for example, they should still park as we intended when using our afcads.

Equally, the community knows that, if their Cathay Pacific Cargo aircraft are not coded CPAC on the atc_parking_code line, then they will probably not park as intended.

In your question, AIG Ground afcads will carry both the BCS and DHL codes - so if you have DHL in your atc_parking_code line, then the aircraft will park as we intended.  Obviously, we hope that other afcad developers will take up our standards in this respect (if they are not, in fact, already using them).

Quote
I have over 4.000 AfCADs installed. If I set my aircraft to the new radii, are those still going to work?

It was precisely for that reason that we do not opt for a revolution in how the radius system works.  There are many changes we would have liked to make but did not - we were looking at issues arising from aircraft length in addition to wingspan, which brought out strong feeling that we should distinguish between the A342/3 and the A345/6, for example.  The same for the B777 series.  However, changing those would have had a drastic impact on your existing afcads.

The majority of changes in the new AIG Radius Table bring greater flexibility or bring elements that were not included in the old PAI table.  Also, remember that code comes before radius (I lost count of how many times Jan kept reminding us of that  ;)).  So, if you have 4,000 afcads with all cargo spots set to 50m but have changed your aircraft radii to the new 5 options, your cargo aircraft will still park in the 'Ramp Cargo' spots coded for them.  They will not go to Gates because their radii have changed.

In other instances, the new radii should make your existing afcads more realistic.  For example, setting code aside for a moment, the new radii for larger regional aircraft (Embraers and CRJ's and the like) once set should mean that those aircraft will park at gate and ramp spots originally intended for the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 series in existing afcads.  We know that that would be more true to life than having them park on a ramp spot with the radius of the smaller Embraers.  Of course, in new afcads from this point forward, the developer now has the option to radius spots specifically for these aircraft, keeping the Boeings and the Airbusses out.

If anybody encounters any specific issues, please do post them here.  We have tested the new scheme extensively and we believe all points are covered but please do let us know of anything - which may turn out to be caused by other factors, of course.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 10:14:38 AM by Hornets Nest »
Best regards

Matthew

Offline Mike...

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 1682
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2009, 11:55:53 AM »
What do "1" and "2" mean, I assume they refer to some kind of footnotes?

Quote
An increase in Cargo radius options from 3 to 5 to enable better distinction between types

I wondered with PAI and still wonder with this new AIG table, why the distinction between an aircraft and its freighter version (and its business version)? Why does a 737 have a 23m radius and a 73F 29m (business 28m)? Personally, I do not have my passenger and freighter models separated, unless of course, there's a true freighter model.

So take the 733 for example, AIA v2 model. Some liveries are passenger, some freighter. Do I have to copy the model folders of say the 733 Normal and make one set of passenger models radiused at 23 and another set of freighter models radiused at 29m? So that through the "model=" line one can control the radius of a particular paint. Should we be doing that? Is anyone doing that currently? What is the benefit of doing it this way?

Frankly, this complicates Afcad design as well. You pick a size for your spot based not only on what you expect to park there, but also on what can fit there. Accurately sized parking spots, according to relatively precise model radius/wingspan values, aid the Afcad designer in making that decision. It also allows the designer to move parking spots as closely together as needed. And as far back or forward as needed to provide accurate placement of the nose wheel (in case of addon sceneries, which I'm exclusively interested in). I already find myself reducing say 50m cargo spots to 43 or 39m to facilitate correct placement, based on my experience with models and where they end up parking on a specifically size parking spot. (It helps if you picture two windows tiled vertically on my screen, AFX on the left, FS9 on the right, with the Afcad being previewed in FS. Perhaps people who use other Afcad editors do not depend that strongly on the visual aspect.) And after that changing them back to 50m, because the radius table says so. Isn't that a sign that it makes no sense to use different cargo values?

I think radius should only be about an aircraft's size (length/wingspan/whatever), so you can get realistic behavior out of the models when they are taxiing and parking. Let a parking spot's type and "atc_parking_types=" control the type aspect. (I'm purposely not mentioning codes.)
Mike..

Offline Hornets Nest

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2009, 01:27:03 PM »
Hi Mike,

Yes, the '1' and '2' on Jan's .pdf refer to footnotes on his draft web page - nothing sinister..

Quote
I wondered with PAI and still wonder with this new AIG table, why the distinction between an aircraft and its freighter version (and its business version)? Why does a 737 have a 23m radius and a 73F 29m (business 28m)?

Of a total of 17 pages of staff forum discussion on the radii, about 8 are taken by this same question - just want to assure you that things have been exhaustively covered.  ;)  Parking will probably work out correctly in most cases without making a radius distinction between pax and freighter versions of the same aircraft.  However, that is a little 'woolly', isn't it ?

Straightforwardly:

1.  Make a disinction between type of parking and you may well be okay

2.  Make a distinction between type of parking and parking code and you are considerably safer

3.  Make a distinction between type of parking, parking code and radius and you have covered all the bases and guarantee as closely as anybody can that aircraft will park correctly

We discussed this - including the business jet question - at length until Tom went through the initially painful process of setting up separate models for his pax, cargo and business aircraft and found that parking on his own afcads and those produced by others was much more consistently as intended.

Our concern was to ensure that the radius scheme we produced included the strongest safeguards we could to ensure correct parking.
Best regards

Matthew

Offline Mike...

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 1682
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2009, 02:30:48 PM »
Quote
Parking will probably work out correctly in most cases without making a radius distinction between pax and freighter versions of the same aircraft.

What are some of the cases that don't work out?

Quote
We discussed this - including the business jet question - at length until Tom went through the initially painful process of setting up separate models for his pax, cargo and business aircraft and found that parking on his own afcads and those produced by others was much more consistently as intended.

What's much more consistently?

I'm sorry, but I'm really looking for something a little more concrete. I do 1, 2, and 3 (and a whole lot of other stuff), without special freighter and business radii. And everything goes where it is supposed to go. What specific difference will it make if I were to adopt freighter specific radiusing? Or what problems will be avoided? I just don't see it.

::confused::

Don't suppose that discussion could be made public, I'm sure it'd be an interesting read.

;D
Mike..

Offline Hornets Nest

  • Command Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2009, 03:20:00 PM »
Quote
Don't suppose that discussion could be made public, I'm sure it'd be an interesting read

Strange the emotion which the topic of parking and model radiussing brings out..  ::evilgrin::

Unfortunately, Tom is pretty tied up with his real world life at the moment, Mike.  If he has a chance to answer you, I'm sure he will.  In the next few days, the answer as to which airport he largely (but not only) tested on will become apparent to you.  If it helps, it was an add on scenery..

However, you know very well as a respected afcad designer that the specific behaviour would vary from one airport to another and, potentially, from part of an airport to another.  If general principles don't help you, then can I invite you to pick a couple of appropriate airports and test it out yourself ?
Best regards

Matthew

Offline Jan Martin

  • AIG Modeller
  • Turbine Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 599
  • FS Addon Designer
    • Jan's Websites
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009, 06:28:43 PM »
Hi Folks
 
1) regarding the quality standards: does FS2004 understand more than one parking_code? If not, using BCS,DHL won't work since most AfCAD's use the DHL code
PAI set code and radius standards, AIG did so too, but most non-organized AFCAD designer's didn't and don't care. Most user's also didn't and won't care in the future. If you care - and then you'd be some sort of a 'premium AI user' -, your AI aircraft should park where they should park, .. it's up to you and thus just that simple ..
 
2) I have over 4.000 AfCADs installed. If I set my aircraft to the new radii, are those still going to work?
This is related to your first question. Obviously you decided to have quantity, also obviously you're paying attention to quality now. I have 54 AFCAD's installed, all done by myself, and every single one meet's my quality demand's for the timetable period they've done for, but I won't be able to update my AFCADs to the new radius scheme in the next month's, maybe I'll never do it at all.
 
What do "1" and "2" mean, I assume they refer to some kind of footnotes?
It's related to coding:
  • 1 = add X to ICAO code in [fltsim] entries of regional aircraft
  • 2 = add C to ICAO code in [fltsim] entries of cargo aircraft (but this is 'disputed')
I wondered with PAI and still wonder with this new AIG table, why the distinction between an aircraft and its freighter version (and its business version)? .. What is the benefit of doing it this way?
First of all, it's MS's default way to do it. Only with distinct pax cargo biz radius values you get the maximum of design opportunities you'll definately need to design quality AFCADs. The main purpose of a cargo spot for example is to host cargo aircraft, but there is a secondary one: to work as overflow for pax aircraft, like in real world. On the other hand, you will hardly see any cargo aircraft using a jetway position. Therefore - and because of the different coding procedures - distinct radius values. 
 
Frankly, this complicates Afcad design as well.
I wouldn't be able to make quality AFCADs with any simple scheme, I would only struggle to death. What you feel complicating simplifies everything to me.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm really looking for something a little more concrete .. What specific difference will it make if I were to adopt freighter specific radiusing? Or what problems will be avoided? I just don't see it.
I remember Tom rising the same question repeatedly in our backstage discussion, but only until he finally did it, .. and came back enthusiastically with good results he did not expected to get. Imagine what happens to hub's of DHL FDX TNT UPS if you don't have the radius opportunities we've worked out, only with a single 50m cargo spot option for cargo aircraft of different sizes.
 
Unfortunately the good old PAI radius and code standard's did never establish widely in the community. One of the reason's is that they and the advantages they offer rarely have been understood.
 
The PAI rules gave us 3 different safety mechanisms to keep cargo's out of pax positions:
 
  • atc_parking_types=CARGO
  • atc_parking_codes=CPAC
  • separate cargo radius

Everyone of them in the list is completely unsafe as a stand-alone! Example: you have 3 positions in an AFCAD all with radius 43m, 1st position is uncoded / 2nd position has code CPA / 3rd position has Parking Type Ramp Cargo and no ICAO code, the positions are numbered accordingly; a CPA Cargo Jumbo Jet (type CARGO / code CPA / radius 43m) will go the the CPA position, or in other word's: the CPA Cargo Jumbo Jet can occupy a jetway position!
 
It's not only an issue of having distinct radius values for cargo and biz, it's also an issue of how the AFCAD is designed, in which order gates are, already occupied by what, and how they are numbered.
 
Since this solid PAI rule-triplicity is widely ignored, there is mostly only any single safety mechanism left; and type CARGO is actually not really a safety mechanism.
 
I'm following this rule-triplicity consistently; every cargo aircraft has a cargo radius, type CARGO, the 'C', and every cargo spot in AFCAD has 'CPA,CPAC', in this example, for user's who don't care.
 
Regards Jan

Offline MAIW MIKE

  • Turbine 2nd Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: AIG Aircraft Radius Table
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009, 08:57:24 PM »
I have a headache after reading all that...
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 08:59:27 PM by MAIW MIKE »
-Mike G.

Military AI traffic packages and scenery for the Microsoft Flight Simulator series.