Jump to content

Ground State menu


Jonas Kuster (1158939)
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonas Kuster (1158939)

Does GRP also support the new ES ground states for inbound traffic? I thought this is the case and that I've seen a variant of the GRP Ground state menu at some point.

However, in todays session while testing the new ES FP lists, I was unable to use the GRP ground state menu to set ground status for inbound traffic. Hence I'm asking what status of support or which functionality GRP provides.

I've also noticed that the ES default ground status does display "ARR" for arriving flights, while the GRP Ground state is empty for such flights. Would the ES status "ARR" correspond to "NOSTATE" according the GRP developer guide?

Jonas Kuster Leader Operation - vACC Switzerland | www.vacc.ch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernardo Reis (1096507)

I think that GRP supports it for label filtering only. The custom states do not have the new inbound ones I belive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juha Holopainen

The "Open Ground state menu" function always opens the departure states menu. The arrival states can be set by opening the ground state menu from the callsign menu - or, assuming you were trying to access the menu from a list or a tag, by manually editing the definition file and changing the function code from 13 to 25 (this should work but no guarantees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonas Kuster (1158939)
1 hour ago, Juha Holopainen said:

The "Open Ground state menu" function always opens the departure states menu. The arrival states can be set by opening the ground state menu from the callsign menu - or, assuming you were trying to access the menu from a list or a tag, by manually editing the definition file and changing the function code from 13 to 25 (this should work but no guarantees).

Ok. So I understand there are two different functions for the lists, but one is actually hidden.

Would it be possible to add the function available in the callsign menu also as a separate tag function? This would be beneficial for lists where arriving and departing flights are mixed (ADC sector).

Jonas Kuster Leader Operation - vACC Switzerland | www.vacc.ch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonas Kuster (1158939)
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Juha Holopainen said:

by manually editing the definition file and changing the function code from 13 to 25 (this should work but no guarantees)

It does work! Definitely an improvement. Suggest to make this function available regularly. It's a very good alternative to overcome the current ES limitation.

The only drawback is that selecting the *empty* state sets TXIN again, instead of empty as initially after landing. But this is also the case when using the ground state menu from the call sign. Not sure if this is intended that way.

image.png.b058a98d09f588d953c3b887ecaa7dee.png

Edited by Jonas Kuster (1158939)

Jonas Kuster Leader Operation - vACC Switzerland | www.vacc.ch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juha Holopainen

The arrival states aren't really used for anything else than label filtering at the moment, that's why the function hasn't been advertised for use, and also why when clearing the state the default state is just reset to "TXIN". The "ARR" state is not used at all, I'll see if it really stays as such (a three-letter string like that can easily conflict with other uses) until I write any code that uses it. Gergely already changed a couple of other three-letter states because of this but left the ARR state unchanged because there was no navaid with that identifier at that time...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo Sousa (1110850)

image.png.a98e37c5947ca60672136ce2dde12bbd.png

Guess that's why every now and then there's random flights in the middle of europe popping up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juha Holopainen

Well there you go. Now that there is a navaid with that ident GRP will definitely not be using or setting the ARR state (it may already have been there two years ago, I didn't check Gergely's information back then as I didn't really think his reasoning was very future-proof).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Read more in our Privacy Policy