SCASM lights KILL my fps

#21
thebeloved said:
My findings (but i hope someone can do other tests):

Runway heading must be declared in the range 0 to 179

AND

No integer values allowed!!!
Your a genius!!!!

Awesome!!!

this thread was pointed out to me by Kumara, I was searching for this and didnt find it on initial search, and didnt think to go to this section of the forum.

Thanks for finding that!!!
 
#23
Gianni, you've found a Golden Rule here!
I've fixed already about ten airports using your technique, and indeed it works faultlessly!

The only trouble is to have to disassemble many BGLs to find the one that contains the runway heading information: this is not always the case as in some instances you will find the file named with the ICAO code (not the AFCAD), or the airport name, or a hint to Runways (usually RW), but I've found that sometime there is no logic in the file names.

Is there any other way to detect this crucial file?
 
#24
Gianni, you've found a Golden Rule here!
I've fixed already about ten airports using your technique, and indeed it works faultlessly!

The only trouble is to have to disassemble many BGLs to find the one that contains the runway heading information: this is not always the case as in some instances you will find the file named with the ICAO code (not the AFCAD), or the airport name, or a hint to Runways (usually RW), but I've found that sometime there is no logic in the file names.

Is there any other way to detect this crucial file?
Unfortunately not....the only way is that sometimes the files are really small (less than 1kb) as they contains only the FS8 header and the 0xAA opcode with its sub-opcodes.

You have to try disassembling it with bglanalyze, that is the technique that i've used till now...
 
#26
Great!
In between I also made clear to myself about the disappearance of the AI aircraft in some places... or their resurrection! We should really BAN SCASM from the FS world...

BTW maybe you should add an actual script example in the FSXA/P3D section, since it may lead to confusion when you declare
Heading 58.01 (we have +2° degrees of magnetic declination)
As for now I fixed quite a few airport using your discovery, but I only added a +0.1° or +0.2° whenever there was an integer value declared below the 179° and it seems to work without the trouble it may create on the terminal way points to have the rw shifted with one or two degrees...

As you yourself have already made clear, it's plain and simple:

# Heading values should be declared between 0 and 179


# No integer Heading values are allowed: a +0.1° or +0.2° should be added

Am I correct?
 
#27
Great!
In between I also made clear to myself about the disappearance of the AI aircraft in some places... or their resurrection! We should really BAN SCASM from the FS world...

BTW maybe you should add an actual script example in the FSXA/P3D section, since it may lead to confusion when you declare


As for now I fixed quite a few airport using your discovery, but I only added a +0.1° or +0.2° whenever there was an integer value declared below the 179° and it seems to work without the trouble it may create on the terminal way points to have the rw shifted with one or two degrees...

As you yourself have already made clear, it's plain and simple:

# Heading values should be declared between 0 and 179


# No integer Heading values are allowed: a +0.1° or +0.2° should be added

Am I correct?
Yes is correct,

if we want to be academic we can tell:

# Heading values should be declared between 0.00 and 179.99


# No integer Heading values are allowed: a +0.1° or +0.2° should be added
 
Top