I brought up this question in a different forum board and was referred to the Prepar3d Development Board.
The Issue: In the Start Location Menu in P3D, when selecting the airport in which the user desires to start their flight from, going down to the Gate Selection List, there aren't always (from what I've noticed, most cases) the full list of gates listed for an airport. For instance, if I want to start at Gate D6 or any D gate at a certain airport, because in real life, a certain airline(s) only arrives and departs from those gates; however, when scrolling through the list of gates, those D gates are not in the list. In a case of utilizing an add-on airport scenery such as FlyTampa, ORBX, Taxi2Gate, etc., you can visually see the airport is designed and modeled after the real airport which includes all of the actual gates/stands, but the gates are still not listed in the Selection List in P3D as a starting location. Also, for some airports, in P3D in the selection list, the gates are listed as say Gate A6, when in actuality, it should be listed as gate 106.
My question: Is there a file (cfg, bdl, etc.) that can be modified like the airline callsign file, that would allow someone to update with all of the gates for a specific airport(s) so that gates that are currently missing can be added and selected as a starting location? Also another part of that question, can gates listed in the selection list in P3D, be updates to reflect their actual gate assignment (ex. Gate 106 vs. Gate A6) to make it easier to know what gate I am actually selecting? I have flown in and out of London Heathrow using Aerosoft Mega Airport and in the selection list, the gates are labeled differently in the selection list than what they actually are. If I select Gate B42, it sends me to Gate 526 (not really, just an example), but I want to know if I am able to change/update any file in P3D that will list Gate 526 in the selection list for London Heathrow instead of the basic A, B, C, D gate listings.
I'm going to add this example as a reference. I recently purchased SXAD Nashville International Airport. The downloadable product came with a PDF that gives a reference guide for the airport that shows all of the gates for the airport and includes what airlines use which gates. Southwest Airlines for example, uses the C and D Gates. In the selection list in P3D, the gate selection list only gives gate A thru C, and a bunch GA Ramp options, whereas the D gates are not listed at all.
In the other forum where I posted this, the people who commented stated that I should be contacting the companies such as FlyTampa, to assist me with this issue; however, I had stated that it is not an issue specific to add-on airport sceneries, because the add-on sceneries show all of the gates/stands, they're just not available in P3D as an option. I was also directed to try using ADE, however, reworking the airport, once again, is not a necessary step as I said already, the airports contain all the proper gates/stands, P3D does not.
I apologize for the long post and reiteration. I just want to make sure someone understands what I'm trying to say, as it seems that even going into detail and breaking it down barney style isn't working for some people. I feel this is a simple question but I'm not getting my thought across.
Thank you in advance.
Gate Selection in P3D v4.5
Re: Gate Selection in P3D v4.5
You are asking several questions at once:
Third parties must correct their information themselves as they override default data.
P3Dv5 constitutes a bit of a regression in the airport parking aspect as all of the FSX data was abandoned an, in most cases, "notional" placement was used. My guess is that this accuracy is not important for the designed use case for P3D as opposed to FSX.
The good news in both cases is that this can be corrected via the use of https://fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/ai ... editor.95/
I am increasingly disappointed in the direct support Lockheed Martin provides in the aesthetics of the airports and ground/earth environment in general. However, since they enjoy a strong and long-standing SDK, the rule of the day is DIY.
I have personally corrected third party airport parking, but it is an entirely different matter to correct the 3D elements of an add-on.
As for SXAD KBNA, I would recommend contacting that developer as I've found him to be fairly responsive. KBNA does indeed have some inaccuracies, even after an update.
My overall concern is uncertainty regarding the future of P3D and whether it remains a viable long-term investment. Case in point: the developer of the linked tool hasn't touched the P3D/FSX version since MSFS came out and shows no sign of changing that - ditto so many other tools. So, one may become resigned to hand-written source files as LM does not provide a good development tool like is the case with WED and XP11 or the "dev mode" in MSFS.
Third parties must correct their information themselves as they override default data.
P3Dv5 constitutes a bit of a regression in the airport parking aspect as all of the FSX data was abandoned an, in most cases, "notional" placement was used. My guess is that this accuracy is not important for the designed use case for P3D as opposed to FSX.
The good news in both cases is that this can be corrected via the use of https://fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/ai ... editor.95/
I am increasingly disappointed in the direct support Lockheed Martin provides in the aesthetics of the airports and ground/earth environment in general. However, since they enjoy a strong and long-standing SDK, the rule of the day is DIY.
I have personally corrected third party airport parking, but it is an entirely different matter to correct the 3D elements of an add-on.
As for SXAD KBNA, I would recommend contacting that developer as I've found him to be fairly responsive. KBNA does indeed have some inaccuracies, even after an update.
My overall concern is uncertainty regarding the future of P3D and whether it remains a viable long-term investment. Case in point: the developer of the linked tool hasn't touched the P3D/FSX version since MSFS came out and shows no sign of changing that - ditto so many other tools. So, one may become resigned to hand-written source files as LM does not provide a good development tool like is the case with WED and XP11 or the "dev mode" in MSFS.
