Hi,
I keep track in Google earth with place-markers on airports that I visited.
Now I noticed this morning that Ecuvillens has runway 10R/28L in FS 2 but
09/27 in the RW e.g. Google earth/maps.
Is this a bug?
Groet Dree
Hi,
I keep track in Google earth with place-markers on airports that I visited.
Now I noticed this morning that Ecuvillens has runway 10R/28L in FS 2 but
09/27 in the RW e.g. Google earth/maps.
Is this a bug?
Groet Dree
Runways are given the numbers based on their magnetic orientation but since the magnetic north pole moves constantly runways have to be given different numbers every now and then. That explains why it might be 10/28 and not 09/27. But since that airport doesn't seem to have a second runway the "R" and "L" don't make any sense. This might be mistake or oversight.
A bug would be caused by the programmed algorithm (e.g. not loading the airport even if content would be installed), this problem isn't caused by any algorithm ergo it's technically not a bug.
Thank you for reporting this to us,
Jan
Not really a bug, this is regularily changing due to variation's yearly drift.
True rwy heading is 095/275, thus rwy QFU oscillates over years between 09/27 and 10/28.
There must be no L/R suffix since only 1 rwy.
This is another drawback of IPACS closed approach for scenery making, with RWY markings engraved together with the whole aerodrome scenery in an external and unaffordable CAD SW for compilation, making it totally impossible to edit unless you have the original creator's source files...
Maybe this time somebody from IPACS will correct the rwy marking, but many airport rwy headings around the place are due to change sortly due to variation's drift, and change back again in a couple of years...
There's thus little chances this will follow the reality in the sim, not even sure variation gets updated either, and users won't be able to do it themselves with the current concept...
Cheers
Antoine
Yes that is one downside of the current way of creating scenery. In FSX you can take the default airport and change it's taxiways and signs and runways and approaches and so forth, too.
The plus side is nobody can steal your Aerofly airport and publish it in another sim and the scenery is smaller in size and can be loaded faster. For example you don't have to generate the vertices and triangles first, you just push them up to the graphics card, done.-
Thanks for giving me a better understanding about this matter.
I always thought runway markings/numbers in RW were fixed
although some do not correspondent with the magnetic orientation.
I see now some not so happy people with a big pot of white paint
walking around every time the earth wobbles...
Groet Dree
It takes a while - i.e. Anchorage recently became 7L and R but it had to shift from 055 to 065. Takes 80+ years to do this.
Ah, it's a very old man, the one with the bucket of paint...
The Ecuvillens mistake is taken care of, it should be fixed with the next update.
We're all just human an make mistakes if you find more problems like that just let us know
Thanks
Jan
Thanks Good!
Yes that is one downside of the current way of creating scenery. In FSX you can take the default airport and change it's taxiways and signs and runways and approaches and so forth, too.
The plus side is nobody can steal your Aerofly airport and publish it in another sim and the scenery is smaller in size and can be loaded faster. For example you don't have to generate the vertices and triangles first, you just push them up to the graphics card, done.-
Well, I cannot think right now of so many Aerofly airports to steal and publish in antother sim, but if this is the main driver for such an architecture then I'd say markings should be editable as textures without needing the source files, just like one repaints aircraft liveries.
Cheers
Antoine