KJFK-John F. Kennedy International Airport-NEW YORK-USA about airports

[NickArt1342]

As my issue has been closed and refurbished, I'm writing this message here to if you have any issue with this airport or questions, you should contact me.

[IFAEpat]

White lines around buildings and @NickArt1342 's signature should be removed

[NickArt1342]

The stated issues have already been addressed @IFAEpat Please contact me directly regarding my airports next time.

[dushyants19]

Full of hashed regions, Transparent twys, over lapping twys, too many roads, White lines around buildings.

[dushyants19]

And a rumored/possible Nick Art Signature

[samuelandersson]

@NickArt1342 How's this going?

[TristinWoolf]

I can confirm that the hashed regions are still there, as seen on a user screenshot on IFFG. Any word @NickArt1342?

[Hamza1108]

Is this available

[kilt46]

As you will see it is assigned to Nickart

[kilt46]

[NickArt1342]

Please let's have a moment of silence for all the hatched line areas and white building outlines that had to be removed today. They were the last of their kind. A relict of an older era. We shall never forget them. :(

[moritzbabl]

The airport needs more love, there are no holes cut for terminals and patches making them invisible in IF, also the size of the file could be reduced by adding a new version using less separate taxiways

[NickArt1342]

I'm not exactly sure how messed up this file became since I last checked it. Also I still need to know how the new rendering of IF works...

[dushyants19]

Nothing great Nick. Just don't overlap taxiways and cut holes. That should do just fine.

Your version of JFK was a mess. It did more bad than good, it lags so much.. Sorry Nick.

[NickArt1342]

Excuse me?!? Have you even seen the old version of KJFK? Also my version of it is not a mess. It looked perfect and was at its time the most detailed airport of IF. This airport even featured perfect hashed line areas, that were perfectly identical with the real airport, every line is as it should be in reality and so is every asphalt and concrete, I don't know where there is an area where I should cut holes, because every concrete taxiway already has a hole cut for the asphalt.

[carmichaelalonso]

Seeing as I got the notification email, I'll chip in: no hashed lines please. It would be good to simplify this a bit - whilst realism is key, so is performance, and unnecessary features are best left out until a time where airport rendering supports more features. Please keep these issues civil else I'll close and do the airport myself (and I can assure you nobody wants that).

[NickArt1342]

@cameron The hashed lines as well as the white building outlines got removed long ago (What a waste in my opinion) Also if you (Dush) can't run IF properly that's not my problem. It works perfectly fine for me. That comment really angered me.

[kilt46]

Needs to be as per chart below

[kilt46]

This section needs to be updated

[kilt46]

This airport has taxiway over taxiway over taxiway. No holes cut. Transparent taxiways for lines! Really needs done from scratch!!

[NickArt1342]

I dare you, most of it is perfect already. Just look at how beautiful all the side lines are. As for the taxiways I think I now know what you mean but I'm not entirely sure. It would really help if I'd get a more detailed description other than "They need holes cut". Concrete always goes over asphalt so this has never been an issue. Please show me what taxiways need to be corrected. I checked the airport in IF and I just don't see ANY issue with it. Keep in mind that airport was started and done a long time ago.

[dushyants19]

"Concrete always goes over asphalt so this has never been an issue. " No there's an issue. We started enforcing it in our emails from last June, and almost every editor is following this.. this is why we keep our airports future-proof.

Since global, the way of rendering has changed. Concrete is no longer above asphalt.. this isn't the old days nick.

[NickArt1342]

well duh, you could have... you know... told me that? How is it rendered newly then?

[dushyants19]

That's what @moritzbabl said, you just didn't care to listen. It's rendered "As in WED" according to @ValXp but that isn't the case

[NickArt1342]

... I don't see any comment of his on this issue. Also you still failed to tell me how it's rendered now, which is basically all i'm asking for.

[moritzbabl]

NOT. CONCRETE. OVER. ASPHALT.

[NickArt1342]

@moritzbabl Your aggressivity is unnecessary and counterproductive.

[kilt46]

Transparent taxiways SHOULD NOT BE THERE. Use lines!!!!

[kilt46]

HOLES for Most terminals have not been cut!

[kilt46]

IF you DARE me I WILL redo from scratch!!! This is your opportunity to fix :)

[NickArt1342]

@kilt46 I have an offer. I could persuade myself to agree to let you play around with my KJFK. But only on certain conditions. Are you interested?

[kilt46]

Please be aware that KJFK or any airport, once published on this site is the property of Infinite Flight. The intention of the editing community is to continually improve the quality and portfolio of the airports. If you can rectify this airport by reducing the number of layers (fitting taxiways/aprons) so that there is only one layer (hence reducing memory and geometry clashes in a timely manner, everyone would be happy. If you would prefer that someone else takes on this workload due to your overbearing time commitments, we will make it so. The intent here is to leave as much of the live artwork intact as is!

[NickArt1342]

That's not 100% right what you're saying. Here you have the relevant passage in the license agreement: "You grant to "The Company" (Flying Development Studio LLC) a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, relicenseable, transferable license under all of Your relevant intellectual property rights, to use, copy, prepare derivative works of, distribute and publicly perform and display "The Contributions" on any licensing terms, including without limitation: (a) open source licenses like the GNU General Public (v2.0) license; and (b) binary, proprietary, or commercial licenses. Except for the licenses granted herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to "The Contributions"."
But that's not the point of this comment nor relevant to our current discussion. I do not know why you brought that up.
I would still like to know if you're interested on following conditions:
A: The airport does not suffer in terms of details and quality. I.E. all the lines are correct like they currently are (mostly correct) in the document, but more importantly in RL (gate lines taxiway side lines etc.)
Really the only thing that would need editing are taxiways. (As for the center part of the taxiways being transparent this was due to the fact of rumors of all the middle sections of taxiways being renovated with concrete like in the south west corner near 13R. I do not know if this is still planned however.)
B: You will work off my current version of JFK.
C: I still get to manage and update KJFK in the future.

I think those are reasonable demands.

[kilt46]

The reason I brought this up is quite simple
a) What is in the Repo is not your airport, neither is it my airport. It can quite easily be written over by a future version technically by any editor. Many of the airports I have done in the past have been changed/improved. It does not matter it is a community process
b) One cannot place any 'demands' here

Anyway - the intent was to reduce the sandwich offering of build up of taxiways. This should reduce the size of the file and potential conflict in features. Where lines/gates etc are correctly placed they would just be carried over. Taxiways C/FB/.EE/DB need updating.

Whether you or I or someone else updates KJFK in the future is not our decision.

Hope this makes sense - Respectfully

[NickArt1342]

You're missing my point about me being assigned to this issue currently and asking you to take over this issue and add those little corrections. With exactly those "demands" I made I would be willing to let you do that for the sake of the airport being finished significantly sooner than when I do it. My airport needing to be updated and being assigned to the issue has nothing to do with me giving FDS an unlimited irreversible permission of usage of said intellectual property as per agreement cited above. I'm asking you to take over, if you agree to the points I stated. If not I'll do it myself. I think you are misunderstanding me.

[dushyants19]

What's up with the sudden unassignment @NickArt1342? Should we fix/redo it?

[CptNathanHope]

@Blently updates? Are you still willing to do this? Please let me know, thanks. – N

[CptNathanHope]

JFK overhaul, please. Would recommend only veteran editors to tackle this one. May grab it at some point if no one else does.
– N

[kilt46]

[kilt46]

Wrong version loaded to repo?

[RyanEpps]

GitHub issue appears to have been resolved. Do follow up with further. - Epps

[dushyants19]

Why the heck are you signing your comments now? 😐

[kilt46]

[kilt46]

11L/31R now concrete