- Messages
- 349
- Country
I've been looking at improving runway use/occupancy at a couple of airports, Tahiti Faa'a and also Leeds (worlds apart) using fake runways for intersection departures. At Tahiti there are limited runway exits and no parallel taxiways, so AI backtracks potentially for a mile or more if 22 is in use, although Tahiti isn't busy even in real life, the Twotters and GA based there perform intersection departures all the time (I took a flight (IRL) from there to Hao and even the chartered ATR-72 didn't backtrack (Faa'a was on 04 that day).
So I created a couple of duplicate runways, one each side of the main one, that favoured Twin Turbines or below, based on runway length. Departing and arriving aircraft select the runway nearest that is suitable, so GA and Twotters etc approach and "land long", stopping close to the exits, and on departure they appear just to enter the runway and perform an intersection departure. Obviously this only works at airports with scenery textures to hide all the AFCAD-ery (sorry, ADE-ery too).
Linking these runways seems to help lock them for the departing aircraft, although sometimes you get two departures approved at the same time (fortunately one of them always backtracks as the other one departs). However landing aircraft go around even if an aircraft is occupying the other runway, because by stacking them over each other (with the shorter ones slightly to each side so as to be the runway of choice for the smaller planes) the AI is effectively sitting on two (or three) runways simultaneously.
So the system works, with caveats and things I've not yet seen in my testing!
The problem is runway naming. I can use (at Faa'a) RW04/22 as the main one for the heavies and indeed anything else, but have had to name the others 04L-22R and 04W-22W (because that one is on the side facing the sea).
Has anybody tried using other runway designators that are not announced by ATC (editing the XML if necessary)?
If I could change the fake runways to 04Q-22Q and 04P-22P for example, would FS simply turn up its toes and crash, or would it simply not enunciate the runway suffixes, meaning that aircraft are all then apparently "cleared to land runway 22" even if they're heading for 22Q. That would clear up any odd r/t.
I use other techniques to improve occupancy at busy airports, such as narrowing the AFCAD runway so that landing aircraft "clear the runway" sooner (within limits because this obviously affects hold-short nodes) opening it more quickly for arrivals and saving quite a few go-arounds (works a treat at Gatwick). This intersection departure process could, with some improvements, make some airports a little better (just ones with significant backtracking required such as Faa'a, Leeds, Malta etc.
So, after all that, the question is really whether I can use non-standard runway designators to sidestep ATC calling runways as L/R/W/C. If anyone else wants to try the intersection thing please feel free, I'm less concerned with credit for something than team input as to whether it can work.
So I created a couple of duplicate runways, one each side of the main one, that favoured Twin Turbines or below, based on runway length. Departing and arriving aircraft select the runway nearest that is suitable, so GA and Twotters etc approach and "land long", stopping close to the exits, and on departure they appear just to enter the runway and perform an intersection departure. Obviously this only works at airports with scenery textures to hide all the AFCAD-ery (sorry, ADE-ery too).
Linking these runways seems to help lock them for the departing aircraft, although sometimes you get two departures approved at the same time (fortunately one of them always backtracks as the other one departs). However landing aircraft go around even if an aircraft is occupying the other runway, because by stacking them over each other (with the shorter ones slightly to each side so as to be the runway of choice for the smaller planes) the AI is effectively sitting on two (or three) runways simultaneously.
So the system works, with caveats and things I've not yet seen in my testing!
The problem is runway naming. I can use (at Faa'a) RW04/22 as the main one for the heavies and indeed anything else, but have had to name the others 04L-22R and 04W-22W (because that one is on the side facing the sea).
Has anybody tried using other runway designators that are not announced by ATC (editing the XML if necessary)?
If I could change the fake runways to 04Q-22Q and 04P-22P for example, would FS simply turn up its toes and crash, or would it simply not enunciate the runway suffixes, meaning that aircraft are all then apparently "cleared to land runway 22" even if they're heading for 22Q. That would clear up any odd r/t.
I use other techniques to improve occupancy at busy airports, such as narrowing the AFCAD runway so that landing aircraft "clear the runway" sooner (within limits because this obviously affects hold-short nodes) opening it more quickly for arrivals and saving quite a few go-arounds (works a treat at Gatwick). This intersection departure process could, with some improvements, make some airports a little better (just ones with significant backtracking required such as Faa'a, Leeds, Malta etc.
So, after all that, the question is really whether I can use non-standard runway designators to sidestep ATC calling runways as L/R/W/C. If anyone else wants to try the intersection thing please feel free, I'm less concerned with credit for something than team input as to whether it can work.
