Oliver Gruetzmann Posted October 8, 2007 at 05:26 AM Posted October 8, 2007 at 05:26 AM Hi, as I just found out, it is possible to define several sectors with the same name. This can be really helpful to setup a sector with different vertical borders in different areas. For example: In Berlin, the departure controller controls from 0 to FL165 at the departure end of the runway, while on the arrival end he only controls FL105 - FL165 or FL135 - FL165 (depending on the runway configuration) with the arrival controller below. It would be helpful if in the sector ownership setup sectors with the same name are merged into one entry. Combined with the ACTIVE command, it would be possible to even create such complex structures easy manageable to the user. Greetings Oliver. EDIT: Without to make the sector ownership too big I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Abou-Zeid Posted October 8, 2007 at 07:17 AM Posted October 8, 2007 at 07:17 AM Oliver, I don't know the code of ES, but from a programming point of view, I guess it's not possible. Same reason you need to define sectors for higher priority areas before others (i.e. TWR before CTR), because as the first available owner of the sector is there, then he owns the sector. So, I guess, as it reads the .ese file, the moment it finds the sector (1) you defined for DEP, then it'll just use this one and ignore the other. If that's the case, I suggest using the same prefix, but different postfix of your choice, maybe informative about the RWY config. My .02 Ali Abou-Zeid What Centreline?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Gruetzmann Posted October 8, 2007 at 04:03 PM Author Posted October 8, 2007 at 04:03 PM Hi Ali, I think you are wrong, but not sure. Guess, Gergely can say more about that. In the sector ownership setup, it shows me 3 (or howmuchever I define ) Sectors with the same name (of course, only if I use the same name), so ES seems to read out all of them. So I asked for a merge in the sector ownership setup. Would be a nice feature to have several sectors that appear as one but change with different configurations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Gruetzmann Posted October 9, 2007 at 02:51 AM Author Posted October 9, 2007 at 02:51 AM To give a short feedback: It works I created four sectors called BAB (Berlin Departure). Two of them are always departure sectors, the other two change, depending on the runway configuration. In the ownership setup, there is always one un[Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned (which one changes with the config), and planes in the other sector are displayed as Non Concerned. Greetings Oliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Abou-Zeid Posted October 9, 2007 at 09:15 AM Posted October 9, 2007 at 09:15 AM Oh!! Great then, helps a lot, I guess! Ali Abou-Zeid What Centreline?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergely Csernak Posted October 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM Posted October 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM Oliver, Currently ES does not check if the sector names are unique or not. This is why you were able define more with the same name. And it does not effect most of the processing. They will work in this way. Only one example is the sectorline display. Here you reference to sector names and ES searches for the name just in a vector so it always finds the first one. The display flag in this way will be decided on the first occurence of the sector name. Actually if you define the same ownership rule for all sectors the I can say it will work once again (even it is not planned to be used in this way). I am not sure how it works when you manually define sector ownership. Internally it took me a little bit programming to use the same rule for the same name of sectors. I simply guess that it is more than the effort you have to do when copy and paste the same ownership rule to all sector definition line. So I suggest not to duplicate the sector names use postfixex as Ali suggested. In this way it is much clearer how ES operates. The rest is a side effect only (even I do not plan to change it). Gergely. EuroScope developer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Gruetzmann Posted October 9, 2007 at 02:32 PM Author Posted October 9, 2007 at 02:32 PM Well, I like that "side effect" alot And for the display flag you only need to put one of the sectors that are always under control first. But so use that side effect properly, it would be nice to merge all entries in the sector ownership setup with same name into one entry. And why use postfixes, if a bit more planning makes it possible to use one name for one sector made of several pieces? Makes it a bit harder to program the .ese file, but I'll take that. And with a "merge" it would make the ownership setup much more compact, even if there are 100 pieces for just one sector VERY nice side effect for useability Greetings Oliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergely Csernak Posted October 9, 2007 at 03:32 PM Posted October 9, 2007 at 03:32 PM Oliver, OK. I will think about it. Gergely. EuroScope developer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts