FSXA Traffic & Parking Analyser query

This is something which I use regularly when carrying out modifications to airports but have the following query.
I usually have the density levels set to 71 / 71. Having entered the airport ident, when I click on Analyse Parking I often get a listing of aircraft that have no available parking, etc. I dismiss this listing and look at the graphical display of parking usage.
My question is - does the aircraft listing get derived assuming 100% density setting. I ask because, for an airport I am currently working on, having seen this listing which is quite big, when looking at the graphical display, it is never showing a higher value than 80%. This can be varied by altering the density levels obviously.
If I get a listing for parking non-availability I would expect the graphical representation to show areas of 100% usage - or am I wrong? Not too important but an answer would be most welcome.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
I usually have the density levels set to 71 / 71.
Do you mean in the sim or in the Traffic & Parking Analyser? If the former, AIFP has no access to that parameter.

From a cursory look at the code, AIFP checks the Activity Level of each aircraft against the relevant Activity Level specified on the T&PA dialog. If the aircraft level is higher, the aircraft is not considered in the analysis. But this approach may not yield the same results as the AI Engine in the sim since T&PA assumes on-time arrival whereas that may not be the case in the sim. Consequently the T&PA will have a tendency to report higher occupancy.

Please also note that T&PA differentiates between no parking available at the airport and no relevant airline-coded spots available. For the latter, the aircraft would still have been accommodated, but in a differently (or not) coded spot.

That being said, if you have reason to believe that the T&PA is "misbehaving", give me a way to duplicate the erroneous situation and I'll investigate.

Don
 
Don,

what is happening in the sim is irrelevant in this query except that in the sim I have the densities set to 71 / 71 or thereabouts - this is why in T&PA I put in the same value on the assumption that I will get a result in T&PA that will approximately match what will happen in the sim.

I use TrafficX to 'generate' business traffic and, unfortunately, at some airports it creates masses of biz traffic - at most airports it is about right. There is a setting in TrafficX to 'adjust' how it generates traffic but it is set to suit 'most' airports.

I am currently working on BIKF where TrafficX has generated masses of biz flights - overloading the parking spots that I have at my version of the airport. I am processing the business BGL file to reduce the number of these flights but, when I use T&PA to see what is shows for my BIKF, as I stated, the initial listing shows a great number of a/c that will not be able to find a spot - particularly on days 2 to 6.
If I then look at the graphical representation - see attached - it never hits 100% which, as I see it, disagrees with the listing.
Perhaps my interpretation of these results is wrong?
If as you say the density setting in T&PA weeds out a/c that have a higher setting then i am not sure how the 2 elements disagree. If you are happy that it is operating in the way you intended then please don't spend time looking into this - I am just intrigued as to what is happening.
Where does T&PA get the information regarding available parking - I cannot see a data file in AIFP so I assume it goes into the sim scenery files every time it operates?

bikf-parking.jpg
 

Attachments

gadgets

Resource contributor
I'm not surprised the T&PA results don't correspond well to those in the sim. But T&PA conflicting with itself is a different matter. I will investigate, but I have to tell you I do have a couple "projects" that warrant higher priority and I am coping with some personal issues. So , please don't "hold your breath" waiting for a response. I'll get to it ASAP.
 
Don,
please don't spend time on this as I was just intrigued by what seem seems to be a conflict of information.
I am going to set up a test for this at a much smaller airfield to see if I can 'pick any bones' out of it. I will report any further findings for your interest.
Thanks
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
As things stand at the moment, you'll probably have your testing complete before I could investigate anyway. Please let me know what you find. If it is an AIFP error it will be corrected.

Don
 
Don,
you can rest easy on my T&PA query as, having done a test using a small airport and a test AI bgl, I am happy to say that T&PA is working as it should and I will have to investigate further what is going on at my much bigger and busier BIKF airport.

The test involved creating an AI bgl that filled all of the parking spots with a wide variety of aircraft with and without suitable parking codes. The analysis showed correctly which aircraft could not be accommodated at all, which were not able to be allocated correctly coded spots and which had to be overflowed into 'wrong' coded spots. The graphic displayed long lengths of 100% plus times. Then, in the AI bgl, by increasing percentage values of the flights to 100%, the analysis could be seen to change correctly. Eventually, I got to a point where no parking warning messages appeared and the graphic display was wholly under 100% which is what I would have hoped. So the software is definitely doing its job.

My tests involved using some of the built-in features of the T&PA that I have never investigated before. For example, having got the 7 day parking graphic displayed and selecting the individual parking types to see if one category of airplane is causing the parking overload, this will be useful in getting my traffic-versus-parking situation sorted out more easily.

As always, thanks for all the work you put in.
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
Thanks for reporting back, Ray. I wasn't looking forward to having to get back into code I wrote years ago.

Don
 
Top