FSX ADE Fault Finder - Open Link?

[tlv]

Upon opening an airport bgl file, the ADE Fault Finder says that, "This node and link are very close but not connected. Traffic will not cross this space..."

Now try to guess which node is placed incorrectly. OK... I know what you're thinking... the program highlights the error. However, I've taken this screenshot to demonstrate the futility of an error code to someone that has no idea how to connect a given node, when there's no indication that anything is disconnected in the first place... other than the fault finder's findings.

So, basically I'm just trying to get a basic understanding of how to properly connect these nodes in the first place... because there were multiple times within this particular bgl (not mine) that this fault was found.

By moving the erring node up or down the line, sometimes the error will go away. But, of course, I didn't knowingly *fix* anything by just moving it.

So, I'm just trying to understand it better.

 

[tlv]

Perhaps someone can make a video tutorial on how to correct the most common faults that are found by the fault finder. There seems to be a handful of faults found in every airport bgl file that I've downloaded. Even some of the default airports have faults found.

You see, I'm not really a creator of scenery, as much as, just a utility user of the ADE program... merely updating airport runways and approaches to improve my experience... so long as it remains reasonably realistic with the published charts. So, I don't really fiddle with the taxi ways or parking - outside of punching in some airline codes.

I typically download someone else's updated airport bgl... and attempt to correct the accuracy of the pertinent flying parts. However, I'm noticing more and more faults... when, I have really no idea where to begin. Until there was a fault finder, I just always presumed that other people knew what they were doing. lol

 

[Lane Street]

It is important to understand that just because the Fault Finder flags something does not mean it needs to be fixed.

In your screenshot above I see 2 nodes that look like they are on the center, vertical taxiway and not connected to it.

The lack of center lines is my clue.

The only way to fix them would be to delete them then redraw them.

The bigger question is why are they like that and will they have a negative impact on how the airport works.

Many items that show up in the Fault Finder were put there intentionally by the developer. A lot of the time you see errors about nodes and links they refer to nodes and links that are there for cosmetic purposes only and were put there to compensate for limitations built into the sim. As the Fault Finder cannot judge intent it will flag these errors.

I would not worry about those two nodes in your pic as I doubt they would have a negative impact on AI routing and may be there simply "for show".

The Fault Finder is there to bring attention to possible issues that might need attention. It is up to the developer to decide whether or not to do anything about them.

This requires the dev to have a good knowledge of how airports work in FS and many will tell you, they ain't perfect. This is a flight simulator, not an airport simulator after all.

I am not saying all errors do not need attention, I have seen some pretty bad files uploaded to the popular libraries. And blanket statements about how to fix errors are tough to make as there are too many possibilities out there.

Even though I have learned a lot about how airports work I do not spend much time fixing other people's work unless I see a specific problem and want to fix it.

cheers,
Lane

 

[tlv]

Thanks for the reply. I almost preferred the days when the Fault Finder didn't exist. lol - Now it just reminds me that I have no idea what I'm doing... even if it's not my work.

It's also easy to worry about whether the fault messages will have an impact upon the sim... because, sometimes the fault message seems quite dire.

 

[scruffyduck]

The critical stuff is the Issue Manager: https://scruffyduck.screenstepslive.com/s/help_docs/m/20268/l/199765-what-is-the-ade-issue-manager If that is Red then chances are the work won't compile, As Lane says the Fault Finder (which by the way is based on the one in AFCAD going back many years) will display things which may not cause a compile fail or the airport to stop working. However it tries to identify things that are likely to have an effect (sometimes subtle) on how the airport works.

 

[jvile]

snip-------------------

Upon opening an airport bgl file, the ADE Fault Finder says that, "This node and link are very close but not connected. Traffic will not cross this space..."


Now try to guess which node is placed incorrectly. OK... I know what you're thinking... the program highlights the error. However, I've taken this screenshot to demonstrate the futility of an error code to someone that has no idea how to connect a given node, when there's no indication that anything is disconnected in the first place... other than the fault finder's findings.

Why are you trying to guess which node is not connected.

When you run the Fault finder it will list the faults. Select the fault as I have done in the picture and ADE will center the canvas and highlight the node that is at fault. If you move that node you will see it is not attached to the taxiway link line. The AI Plane will spawn in that parking spot but will dissappear when getting ready to depart since the node is not attached to a taxiway. On arrival ATC cannot assign that parking spot to the AI Plane since it is not part of the taxiway network.

All 3 of the faults being reported are related to each other and pertain to that parking spot which is D1. Connect the link and all 3 faults will be fixed.

Thanks for the reply. I almost preferred the days when the Fault Finder didn't exist. lol - Now it just reminds me that I have no idea what I'm doing... even if it's not my work.
It's also easy to worry about whether the fault messages will have an impact upon the sim... because, sometimes the fault message seems quite dire.

There has always been a Fault Finder tool in ADE and prior to that utility both the FS2002 AFCAD and the FS2004 AFCAD had Fault Finder tools.

 

[tlv]

OK. So, could you explain to me, in layman's terms, how to properly connect the node to the link?

 

[FlyingAxx]

Delete the node and the path sections on either sides and start drawing the taxi-link again at one of the existent nodes. Just step to the the next path to be connected until it changes its colour to white while hovering the mouse pointer over it and then click in order to place a node. Continue until you reached your final node by using the same method.

 

[tlv]

Delete the node and the path sections on either sides and start drawing the taxi-link again at one of the existent nodes. Just step to the the next path to be connected until it changes its colour to white while hovering the mouse pointer over it and then click in order to place a node. Continue until you reached your final node by using the same method.

Thanks. But, if the process is this straight-forward, than how does someone make this particular mistake to begin with?

 

[FlyingAxx]

Thanks. But, if the process is this straight-forward, than how does someone make this particular mistake to begin with?

You can guess what you want. As a node is placed close by it's not done by purpose. Probably because the original designer has drawn too fast and accidentally missed to place the node correctly. I think the function of the airport traffic is not really disturbed as AI planes could find their way nonetheless.

 

[scruffyduck]

But, if the process is this straight-forward, than how does someone make this particular mistake to begin with?

Stand up the person who never made a mistake

 

[tlv]

Stand up the person who never made a mistake

I'm not trying to be cheeky. Mistakes are to be expected.

But, the Fault-Finder exists precisely for those types of things to be corrected *prior* to posting a file on the internet for other people to use, right?

I'm asking how is it done, because... this is not really the type of thing that I start from scratch... and, correcting someone else's work is challenging... as, the intent of their work may be lost.

 

[FlyingAxx]

Well Jon, why I can't see any head raising over the crowd?

 

[scruffyduck]

I think my comment is being taken more seriously than it was intended.

 

[FlyingAxx]

I'm not trying to be cheeky. Mistakes are to be expected.

But, the Fault-Finder exists precisely for those types of things to be corrected *prior* to posting a file on the internet for other people to use, right?

I'm asking how is it done, because... this is not really the type of thing that I start from scratch... and, correcting someone else's work is challenging... as, the intent of their work may be lost.

Most of the designers of freeware are not doing it on a professional base in our case (I think). Some are contributing teasers, sure, but the rest is like me. I'm using AFCAD, AFCAD2 and now ADE for quite a while, but I'm still an amateur, specifically compared to some other guys here around. However, I'm learning each time something new and this forum is definitely a rich knowledge source. You can bet that some of the few airports I shared with the community do have mistakes I (probably) would avoid today. So what? Some had cried for further improvements, but as long as nobody gives feedback - even if I added a valid email to the Readme file - I probably used upgrades just for myself.

So, if I'm not willing to start from scratch I would either try contacting the author or keep my lips sealed and work on those things that can be done without complaining. Somebody took the burden starting from scratch and often without asking for money. If it's not freeware we are discussing about then you'll find likely an EULA talking about a limited guarantee or something like this. Again, the error in your example is a minor one, just forcing a few airplanes using a different path. It can be fixed in a minute.

 

[tlv]

I think that everyone should stand behind the work they publish. Either the Fault-Finder is being to finicky, or the airport designer should check their work before publishing it. We cannot just throw our hands up in the air.

Freeware, is still based on a hobby, and naturally, money shouldn't be the sole reason why someone would be willing to stand behind their work, as it applies to the quality of their hobby. It should be because other people appreciate it too.

Perhaps, I am just overly paranoid about some of the results of the fault-finder... but, I just don't understand why anyone would publish anything without getting rid of the *known* faults first. It's not like the fault-finder is going to guarantee workmanship... but, it's a start.

I can't see myself spending countless hours designing an airport, and then leaving known faults - that may only take a few minutes to resolve... and then, knowingly installing those faults into the flight simulator... not even for personal use... let alone, leaving some errors for other people to have to deal with. That type of thing just doesn't compute in my brain.

 

[FlyingAxx]

I think that everyone should stand behind the work they publish. Either the Fault-Finder is being to finicky, or the airport designer should check their work before publishing it. We cannot just throw our hands up in the air.
<snip>

I think you didn't take into account everything said here in this thread. The fault finder is a tool just pointing to possible faults, not necessarily real ones. You've said yourself that the original designer's intention has to be considered.

Stand up the person who never made a mistake

I think Jon was absolutely right with his comment and your demanding attitude seems to me quite misplaced. I imply that everybody publishing freeware for a game (I like to stress this term in this context) has first of all the motivation to please others, following a similar passion. Some are definitely doing it to advertise commercial products and those might be measured against their quality but in most cases you will not find those bits of work on AVSIM or FLIGHTSIM.COM (not to forget other serious platforms). You have to follow certain steps in order to publish your work and this hurdle is high enough to imply the will to do the best, even with respect to quality criteria.

 

[GHD]

Either the Fault-Finder is being to finicky, or the airport designer should check their work before publishing it.

Perhaps, I am just overly paranoid about some of the results of the fault-finder.

Perhaps you are being paranoid.

Have you read the manual re the Fault-finder?

Have you considered the use of the Fault-finder Fault Types and Options?

Have you tried the fault finder on a "plumbed" airport?