The SDK allow us to specify a maximum weight for taxiways. I tried it by entering a numeric value and, when testing it, ATC still sent the commercial jets down the taxiway.
Before I report this to zendesk, does anyone know if I did something wrong? Or is this just an unimplemented option?
Thanks.
This is of interest for me, but for a differant reason. I like to land my A320 at local “small” airports for the challenge. Then it brought to mind, can these taxi ways hold this plane? So, when I saw your post, I am wondering about your comment “SDK allow us to specify a maximum weight for taxiways”. I assume Software Dev Kit, but is this actual info that is on air port charts or something else?
To be honest unless they are gonna add a damage model for taxiways then it’s pointless anyway. If they go and make it so certain aircrafts can’t use airports due to their weight then alot of people will moan.
I get it’s sim, but sometimes people want to just have a mess about, such as landing huge planes on tiny inappropriate runways.
Putting a 747 down at Meigs was always a “thing” with FS9. It wasn’t hard, even without setting the parking brake prior to landing. Just land with nothing but fumes in the tanks and no pax/cargo. Make sure that autobrakes were at max and auto-spoilers were set, and be ready for reverse thrust as soon as you touch.
Dorrager, it’s not about the runways. My home airport can land a 747, but there is one taxiway where the max weight allowed is 12,500 lbs. Only the smaller GA and some mid-sized GA aircraft can use it.
FoldingBrush213, the airport listing in the FAA chart supplement will have this info.
But that’s the thing Runways have weight limits too.
If people want to be super realistic then just don’t land at airports you shouldn’t land at a runway may be strong enough for a huge plane, but doubt it’s allowed if you can’t get off the runway.
Anyway may just be that the weight limit for taxiways isn’t implemented in the SDK yet.
For @FoldingBrush213 yes here is a chart for taxiway strengths:
Dorrager, which part of TAXIWAY don’t you understand? Why do you keep bringing this back to runways when the subject of the post is taxiways? In my case certain aircraft can’t get to an assigned runway using taxiway D. So they have to use taxiway B.
Sorry i think i missed a bit from explanation. My point is that if an airport that has no taxi ways strong enough for an aircraft to leave the runway, then you probably wouldn’t be allowed to land there in real life.
Surely if you want that level of realism then the runways should also come into it.
You appear to want even more realism so surely that needs to be taken into account and ATC shouldn’t even let you land there and shouldn’t be able to select certain airports with certain aircraft if the airport can’t handle such aircraft.
I guess for that sort of thing they could add a super realism mode so the less serious simmer can just have fun.
I don’t mean to be rude, but is English a second language for you? I ask this because you don’t seem to grasp my argument.
1.) I’m not saying this airport has no taxiways strong enough to handle large jets. Because it does. Air Force One has landed here several times. We’ve even had B-52 bombers land here.
2.) What I’m saying is that this airport has ONE, repeat ONE, taxiway that cannot handle more than 12,500 lbs. so, in the “real” world, ATC routes the heavy aircraft to an adjacent taxiway that can handle the weight. That’s what I want the Sim to mimic.
3.) The runway doesn’t come into play. The “real” runways can handle heavy jets and every taxiway but one can handle those heavies.
4.) I don’t want any more realism than exists in the world. I just want the Sim to recognize and take into account the taxiway weight limit so that ATC doesn’t direct aircraft onto it that violate the weight limit. This isn’t “super realism”, just realistic.
Don’t mean to be rude but you proceed to be.
I understand perfectly what your saying.
Just because your specific airport has some taxi ways that are strong enough, Maybe another airport has none meaning ATC would become unusable for Taxiing at some airports with large planes. Such as an airport with grass runways and taxiway’s, this is why I said if they add something like what your asking, they should make sure it’s an option that can be disabled for the more casual user so they can.
Sorry if I got your back up before because I didn’t fully explain myself before.
Only questioned the idea of having ATC disabling the use of taxi ways due to weight limits because could be annoying to the casual gamer but could work if it’s an option.
@Dorrager, you are TOTALLY missing the point of the post. Why are you responding?
@TaupeTerror3931, if you’ve properly set the weight limit, and you see AI or other aircraft that are too heavy taxiing being told to taxi on it, then I’d try to video record it and submit it as a bug. It may be enough to just state the problem, but, if you’ve got a video and can say how the problem can be reproduced they’d appreciate that.
Then again, they may already know about the problem and just haven’t implemented that portion of the code yet.
Either way, I’d report the bug to Zendesk.
Not at all I knew what he meant, but if we are asking for changes then the whole picture should be taken into account runways are connected to taxiways so should be taken into account. You couldn’t land if you couldn’t leave via a taxi way. In his case the airport had other suitable taxiways for heavier planes so not a problem but others may not.
He wants to make it so if a plane exceeds the weight of a taxi way then atc won’t send it down there, fairly easy to understand.
If you read all the posts you would see that I know what he meant.
So, here’s the deal. He knows what he’s doing. The feature is there. It doesn’t work. He asked if he’s specifying it incorrectly. That is all. I have know idea why you went on like you did.
Weight limit is in pounds by the way, not kg, in case that’s a thing.
https://www.prepar3d.com/SDKv5/sdk/world/scenery/scenery_overview.html#TaxiwayPath
P3D, I didn’t look in the MSFS SDK as it’s missing so much information.
I’ll admit my first reply was a little lazy and didn’t fully explain what I meant, But I never once said he didn’t know what he was doing and said it’s probably not actually been implemented yet.
If devs see the post then what I said may have some use to them as it may effect other users if they make these changes.
It may not be a bug if it isn’t currently a working option there are things in the sdk that don’t actually do anything but are in there.
Could be a question for one of the dev Q&A’s
Ok you don’t agree with my thinking but lets end it here so his post doesn’t get closed.
