How to find my Gate at the Airport?

[Icke]

Sorry maybe a dumb question but after landing the displayed text says:

"Taxiway Navigation"

"Follow On-Screen guidance to taxi to your assigned gate" etc.

But I can not see any on screen guidance... Does anyone know where I can see it?


How do I find my gate?

Thx!

[ждун]

there is a mod on flightsim.to making the texi ribbons more sutbile small green triangles, barely visible.

https://flightsim.to/file/18448/subtle-taxi-ribbon-1-18-14-0-compatible

[Simracer]

Publicado originalmente por ждун:

there is a mod on flightsim.to making the texi ribbons more sutbile small green triangles, barely visible.

https://flightsim.to/file/18448/subtle-taxi-ribbon-1-18-14-0-compatible

Thanks for this link!

[Dank Williams]

Publicado originalmente por OperationDx:

I don't consider this a fix honestly. Gates should be labeled on the map in your aircraft. Those blue arrows are way to obtuse and ruins the atmosphere of the sim. And it's even worse if you hand it over to the AI. Not only does the AI drive like grandma. It has a death wish and drives all over the grass.

So get the airport chart and stop being a massive mig 15.

[OperationDx]

They are not accurate with default airports.

[ZombieHunter]

Publicado originalmente por Dank Williams:

Publicado originalmente por OperationDx:

I don't consider this a fix honestly. Gates should be labeled on the map in your aircraft. Those blue arrows are way to obtuse and ruins the atmosphere of the sim. And it's even worse if you hand it over to the AI. Not only does the AI drive like grandma. It has a death wish and drives all over the grass.

So get the airport chart and stop being a massive mig 15.

Airport charts cannot be used with the ATC instructions given in FS 2020. Taxiway designations are incorrect in FS 2020 for nearly all, if not all, airports.

[OperationDx]

It's funny to me that someone un necros this thread then proceeds to attack me on an issue that nearly everyone knows if they have ever tried to use a chart in the sim sense freaking launch. Nearly none of the airports are accurate from taxi ways to gates. The 3rd party contractors that did all the airports did an absolute garbage job. So if you want chart accurate airports you have to pay for each one.

[jbonesmd]

Publicado originalmente por OperationDx:

It's funny to me that someone un necros this thread then proceeds to attack me on an issue that nearly everyone knows if they have ever tried to use a chart in the sim sense freaking launch. Nearly none of the airports are accurate from taxi ways to gates. The 3rd party contractors that did all the airports did an absolute garbage job. So if you want chart accurate airports you have to pay for each one.

"So if you want chart accurate airports you have to pay for each one" Absolutely untrue statement. As far as U.S. airports go, you can go on skyvector.com and get any airport chart you want and it doesn't cost a penny. As for airports outside the U.S. you may have to dig a little bit but there out there too.

Simbrief/Navigraph offers both freeware and payware options as well. So to make a flat statement like the one I quoted here is misleading and does nothing to help others trying to figure things out. In addition, 3rd party developers have ALWAYS been around to produce both freeware/payware products to improve the MSFS base experience. That is what the flightsim community has always been about.

For about the cost of a decent add-on aircraft you can buy the Black Square Taxiway add-on which corrects most errors at all Military, General Aviation, and Commercial airports around the world.

[Manwith Noname]

You should read their comment again. They didn't say you couldn't get real world accurate charts. They said most of the game airport taxiways and gates don't match them unless you pay to replace / fix them.

This is why early on, many of us asked for the scenery gateway, so we could fix and improve them and get that integrated in to the game.

[lawnmower501]

Publicado originalmente por ждун:

there is a mod on flightsim.to making the texi ribbons more sutbile small green triangles, barely visible.

https://flightsim.to/file/18448/subtle-taxi-ribbon-1-18-14-0-compatible

As a newbie gaming pilot, after several decades lol, it kind of exposes the lack of modern major airport simplicity for new unfamiliar pilots to an area. One less thing to think about on the ground.

So why aren't all airport hardtops lit up with different colors etc using transponders?
(it's like playing with a video game, but IRL with hundreds of souls)

1). Vector to base leg designated with turn lights at a certain frequency/direction/other.
Go here first command.

2). Bright receding White + another perhaps for ALL known immediate main runway designated. Standardized.

3). Aircraft on ground are made obvious and get directional dots all the way to parking.
Ground light flash briefly if obstructions might be present.
(A Tesla has more proximal capability than a Boeing. And trains still collide these days.)

4). Aircraft on final can see it all from above.
They can see another entering runway well ahead.

[ZombieHunter]

Publicado originalmente por lawnmower501:

Publicado originalmente por ждун:

there is a mod on flightsim.to making the texi ribbons more sutbile small green triangles, barely visible.

https://flightsim.to/file/18448/subtle-taxi-ribbon-1-18-14-0-compatible

As a newbie gaming pilot, after several decades lol, it kind of exposes the lack of modern major airport simplicity for new unfamiliar pilots to an area. One less thing to think about on the ground.

So why aren't all airport hardtops lit up with different colors etc using transponders?
(it's like playing with a video game, but IRL with hundreds of souls)

1). Vector to base leg designated with turn lights at a certain frequency/direction/other.
Go here first command.

2). Bright receding White + another perhaps for ALL known immediate main runway designated. Standardized.

3). Aircraft on ground are made obvious and get directional dots all the way to parking.
Ground light flash briefly if obstructions might be present.
(A Tesla has more proximal capability than a Boeing. And trains still collide these days.)

4). Aircraft on final can see it all from above.
They can see another entering runway well ahead.

Not necessary. And legs must be extended based on traffic conditions and you don't always fly each leg at controlled airports. Taxiway usage changes based on controllers, traffic, routing, winds, airport preferences, etc. None of that would improve safety at all and would introduce nothing but confusion b/c they could never be applied in all situations.

We already know when to turn crosswind, downwind, base and final. The traffic pattern is standardized and simple. It also has standardized entries and departures.

[jbonesmd]

Publicado originalmente por Manwith Noname:

You should read their comment again. They didn't say you couldn't get real world accurate charts. They said most of the game airport taxiways and gates don't match them unless you pay to replace / fix them.

This is why early on, many of us asked for the scenery gateway, so we could fix and improve them and get that integrated in to the game.

I stand corrected sir. No more tequila shots after breakfast for me.

[lawnmower501]

Publicado originalmente por ZombieHunter:

We already know when to turn crosswind, downwind, base and final. The traffic pattern is standardized and simple. It also has standardized entries and departures.

[discussion not a personal fight here]

I'm talking above my pay grade, but yesterday I think there was almost a collision with one ATC controller allowing a taxi across a runway while was another allowing a take-off at the same time.
-There were no automatic system warnings to prevent that from happening.
-There were no visual clues to other pilots as to what the ground aircraft were instructed to be doing. A flashing light across the runway would indicate a potential collision to the pilot taking off.
-Thankfully it was a only a take-off, with both experienced pilots hearing one instruction but seeing what lay in front of them, and not a blind IFR night landing by a heavy which could not be physically aborted.

And then there was that ATC internet debate champion making a pilot who was landing on "short final" to defend it's yet-undetermined definition, according to her, as if he didn't have better things to do after a long flight.
-Add in poor English skills by foreigners, new pilots unfamiliar to an airport, rapid regional slang syntax, substandard scratchy headset clarity, etc and the radio communication part fails quickly.
-So I'd hazard a guess that the perfect system is not so perfect under a load test.

There are phone apps which connect people with proximal matchmaking. Meanwhile ships collide in the ocean. Even trains collide. Hundreds of souls and millions of dollars at stake. Sometimes economies. And yet something so stupidly simple and obvious is somehow not fixed yet.

(And yes. A computer system is no substitute to qualified people who know what they are doing and have a standardized backup plan backup . Systems can be always be hacked or fail. En mass. There is always room for improvement and double-checking)

[/rant]

[ZombieHunter]

Publicado originalmente por lawnmower501:

Publicado originalmente por ZombieHunter:

We already know when to turn crosswind, downwind, base and final. The traffic pattern is standardized and simple. It also has standardized entries and departures.

[discussion not a personal fight here]

I'm talking above my pay grade, but yesterday I think there was almost a collision with one ATC controller allowing a taxi across a runway while was another allowing a take-off at the same time.
-There were no automatic system warnings to prevent that from happening.
-There were no visual clues to other pilots as to what the ground aircraft were instructed to be doing. A flashing light across the runway would indicate a potential collision to the pilot taking off.
-Thankfully it was a only a take-off, with both experienced pilots hearing one instruction but seeing what lay in front of them, and not a blind IFR night landing by a heavy which could not be physically aborted.

And then there was that ATC internet debate champion making a pilot who was landing on "short final" to defend it's yet-undetermined definition, according to her, as if he didn't have better things to do after a long flight.
-Add in poor English skills by foreigners, new pilots unfamiliar to an airport, rapid regional slang syntax, substandard scratchy headset clarity, etc and the radio communication part fails quickly.
-So I'd hazard a guess that the perfect system is not so perfect under a load test.

There are phone apps which connect people with proximal matchmaking. Meanwhile ships collide in the ocean. Even trains collide. Hundreds of souls and millions of dollars at stake. Sometimes economies. And yet something so stupidly simple and obvious is somehow not fixed yet.

(And yes. A computer system is no substitute to qualified people who know what they are doing and have a standardized backup plan backup . Systems can be always be hacked or fail. En mass. There is always room for improvement and double-checking)[/rant]

There is a new system that is a runway incursion protection system but it is only being used at major airports and quite honestly only makes sense at high traffic airports. Any given system is going to have imperfections. What we have works if everyone follows it.

[Icke]

Whats going on I asked this 4 years ago xD

[Manwith Noname]

The internet is what's going on.