When will the ILS approaches get fixed ?

  • As reported in August already (Miami ILS not working):

    Miami ILS approach not working


    There are many other ones which do not work..

    (i.e. KLAS RWY 26R and probably other RWYs - displaying LOC and GS in the A320, but not capturing...)


    There seems to be a general issue with this (database?) because there are so many that simply do not work as expected.


    When will they get fixed already ?


    Regards

    Robert

  • KLAS doesn't have a 26R only a 25R and that captures just fine on my computer.


    But we know there are airports that show they have an ILS when they don't have one in the real world (and they won't work in Aerofly either) and we know there are airports that should have an ILS but don't have one in Aerofly and we know of airports that only have a localizer, are shown as ILS and show a needle deflection but actually should not show a glide slope needle.


    All this will be addressed once we change the navigation again, as we stated in the past.


    Regards,

    Jan

  • Runway numbers at KLAS are outdated:

    https://www.airnav.com/airport/KLAS


    26R (former 25R) actually has an ILS which when I tried yesterday with the A 320 did not capture.


    Regards

    Robert


    I thought I should add an explanation to my question:


    I find it a bit frustrating to do a flight from airport A to (a not yet visited) airport B just to find out that the approach doesn't work as I arrive at my destination.


    I like the way you developers work your way up by developing this software bit by bit to get it right from the get go. (which most developers don't) and I know that it it takes an awful lot of time to do it right. (as I am a developer myself)


    What I find dissapointing though is when I read that you are working on a helicopter while there are still issues with the fundamentals.

    I hope that the team does not loose their attitude in arranging the priorities just to please the casual gamers with eyecandy and shiny features and let the really important things (which make a simulation a simulation) slide.

  • I agree, I love the way IPACS sees the simularor, however, I don't think that a helicopter is a priority when we still don't have working lights on already existing aircraft.

    And regarding the ILS problem, Amsterdal Shipol has the exact same problem, no ILS working

  • What's with all the helicopterist talk? First Ipacs are criticised for not giving enough updates on what they are working on, and when they do give us a bit of information they're told they are working on the wrong things. Personally, I can't wait for a helicopter release but I'm not going to tell them to hold off on the ATC.

  • however, I don't think that a helicopter is a priority when we still don't have working lights on already existing aircraft.

    LOL Well, everyone has his or hers own priorities, I guess. Some people are dying for a helo (the lucky bastards because they will get one soon), others want working lights (apparently... 8o), a two year old poll showed ATC was at the top of most people's wishlist (wonder what would be on top now!) and I myself can't take a flightsim without a weather engine serious... ;) It clearly impossible for IPACS to please everyone.


    I do agree that IPACS should be working more on the fundamentals but... what ARE the fundamentals? They will be different for everyone.

  • Jet-Pack

    Closed the thread.