On 17/10/2005 at 13:50 Melchior FRANZ wrote:
>* Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 17 October 2005 11:00: >> A lot of airports have multiple frequencies e.g. for ATIS, and fgfs >> does AFAIK only listen to one of them. This may explain your experience. > Tried it out, and I was wrong: all frequencies work, The AI traffic only ever uses the first tower frequency - maybe this is what you were thinking of? >but some can't be >tuned in due to hardware limitations of the modelled comm (I suppose). Yes, some of the ATIS frequencies (eg KSFO's 113.7 and 115.8) are on nav frequencies. I've avoided implementing this so far in order to avoid irritating folk with continuous ATIS messages with the default nav frequencies! New users may not know where it was coming from, and hence how to turn it off. I'm not sure what the best solution is here, obviously the functionality would be desirable. Perhaps we could default the nav sound to off - in fact, maybe it is already, since I haven't heard the ident beeps for a while. >What you have to do, though, is to enable ATC. Otherwise you won't get >any ATIS messages at all. In the menu, activate: > > ATC/AI -> Options -> Enable ATC > This should be enabled by default now. I believe that it accidently got turned off by default once, possibly for a release? > > >> All the frequencies are, of course, on your hard disk already. In >> $FG_ROOT/Airports/apt.dat.gz and $FG_ROOT/Navaids/nav.dat.gz > >Umm ... but for ATIS the frequencies are still not used from these >two databases, but from the old $FG_ROOT/ATC/default.atis file. Strangely, >these two sources have indeed different views of the matter: default.atis >has 123.9 instead of 128.07. What's in default.atis is "true" in the fgfs >world. > I believe we've discussed this before, but can't remember what the verdict was. The default.atis file pre-dates the existance of comm freq info in apt.dat. If apt.dat is as comprehensive as default.atis then we should switch to that - I'm happy to implement the switch. Does anyone have a definitive view on the relative quality of the two data sources? I'm guessing they should be much the same, since they both use the DAFIF as a base I believe. Robin's file may well have many more user additions as well, and hence be preferable. In the case mentioned, which file was correct? Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
