Problems on gates

[SidarDeha]

deleted message

[TheEagle]

Adding [aircraft] to scenery as "scenery objects" only makes problem.

No, it doesn't - the real problem is that whoever placed the static aircraft didn't pay any attention to the parking spots, or the one who did the groundnet didn't care about the static models …

[FlugHund]

A flight simulator aims for reproducing real life scenarios and situations. Inside a flight simulator it should be possible to simulate departures and arrivals from and to any in real life available parking positions. There's absolutely no reason – flight simulator wise speaking – to place any static object on any runway, taxiway or parking position. Placing objects there is what e.g. architects do to make their models look more alive. Even for game designers this is ok. Where 'pilots' have missions like to depart from a certain parking position and the other ones are never used and just have to look pretty or busy and just serve as eye-candy.
This rises the question, I think, whether the FG-project still aims to be a simulator or slowly drifting into the gaming sector?

[MariuszXC]

Wait a sec...

A flight simulator aims for reproducing real life scenarios and situations. Inside a flight simulator it should be possible to simulate departures and arrivals from and to any in real life available parking positions. There's absolutely no reason – flight simulator wise speaking – to place any static object on any runway, taxiway or parking position....

There are static objects, and then there are static objects.
If someone decided to e.g place a flower pot on a centerline I would probably have similar thoughts as you, but if a scenery designer decides to place stationary AC models at some gates it simulates real life scenario of some gates being unavailable. This further requires more care while taxiing to the available ones (watch out for that wingtip strike..), which to me looks just enough real-lifeish for a simulator

[FlugHund]

[...] but if a scenery designer decides to place stationary AC models at some gates it simulates real life scenario of some gates being unavailable. This further requires more care while taxiing to the available ones (watch out for that wingtip strike..), which to me looks just enough real-lifeish for a simulator

We have AI options and if we want to see traffic we can turn it on.

EDIT: There could be scenarios made available per airport to simulate obstacles for taxiing and parking. But to place objects there by default is not simulator like.

[SidarDeha]

deleted message

[Isaak]

Wait a sec...


... but if a scenery designer decides to place stationary AC models at some gates it simulates real life scenario of some gates being unavailable. This further requires more care while taxiing to the available ones (watch out for that wingtip strike..), ...

I do agree ... when flying offline and without AI traffic. When flying with e.g. VATSIM, these static planes at a gate are a PITA, especially at airports with only a few free stands, as this practically makes these airports unsuitable for online flying. E.g. Boston (KBOS) is a place I never fly to for this reason: nearly every gate is occupied with static aircraft there. EDDF is also not fun for this reason. There has been talk to add a certain flag to static planes, so users are able to hide/disable them. But this requires a core code change that hasn't been made yet.

[MariuszXC]

I do agree ... when flying offline and without AI traffic. When flying with e.g. VATSIM, these static planes at a gate are a PITA [...] There has been talk to add a certain flag to static planes, so users are able to hide/disable them. But this requires a core code change that hasn't been made yet.

I agree, different setup would be the preferred one in different use cases.
Since this has already been discussed (and presumably made its way to the devel list) I think that it would be a good candidate for submission to any upcoming Hackaton event.