Snarl ! More ILS crapola in FS 2002.....!

[scott967 62]

Glad you guys worked this out. I have seen recommendationsNOT to leave any *.bgl around. It was rec to use .Originalinstead. (this includes air facility and traffic files as well.)I see that in the default eurnwils.bgl that IMM and INN at EGCC are both on 109.5 and BC is not available.But I guess we now know this is not the problem at all.scott s..

[JSACKS 0]

Ian:An FS kiss is in order! I just got home from work, tore off my suit, and booted up to edit many bgl files and guess what? Your fix works!Holy Madre de Dios, yes!It worketh!!!I am thrilled to bits.I am puzzled that my renaming protocol for the scenery .bgl )or whatever they are/were) files failed because I always keep old files with the protocol "*_original.* and it has NEVER failed me yet. Till now. It failed with regard to all .bgl files for scenery. No wonder all of my U.s. fix files did not work and no wonder the whole localizer for half the U.s. was a mess.Thanks so HUGELY for your post and words.Everybody: see? if you think you have a fix or an idea for an FS problem, no matter how crazy or otherwise, please post. If it worked for you, it could work for others!Buy a beer for yourself and everybody on this thread, Ian. Make that two beers apiece. And it's on me.And the kiss too!Thanks, mate.Cheers!JSP.S. Vulcan, you must be feeling thrilled too, eh?!

[Vulcan 14]

>P.S. Vulcan, you must be feeling thrilled too, eh?!

[JSACKS 0]

Vulcan:Just a P.S. to this thread from me. I forgot to mention that what Ian's post actually triggered in me was the notion to DELETE any remotely duplicate bgl file or one that MIGHT or COULD be recognized by FS. I did not actually use his protocol although I am sure it would provide an adequate "shield" from FS recognition, and so I have printed it out and will file it in my permanent FS2002 file.I corresponded with the mighty Pete Dowson (of FSUIPC fame) during this thread to seek his assistance and one item that he mentioned was the danger of renaming old versions of the same file and how they sometimes can STILL be recognized and picked up by the sim as a result, e.g. FSUIPC itself !So, I just deleted about ten original bgl files and fixes after downloading the huge navaid fix zip file about a month ago where I had all of the original bgl and related files still hanging around that were improperly back-up by me.Man, it feels good to SEE the LOC and GS scales appear as I approach KPDX in pouring rain again. And KSEA....and KDEN....and KJFK....and hopefully all over the rest of America and the world from now on.Cheers!JS

[Guest RonB49]

Dear JS,Early on I posted a reply to this thread, then thought better of it and editted everything out. My post was calling you to task for blaming this fiasco on Microsoft because even back then I didn't think that this was a MS problem. Now that the culprit is known ("We have met the enemy and it is us."), I am compelled to comment. I think that you owe MS an apology. Not that they (with their broad shoulders, as well as deep pockets) are likely to care; indeed they'll probably not even know, but it would be the right thing to do. I, herewith, remind you of your first post. R- "I know I posted a month ago about runways with the same ILS frequencies for both ends of the same runway not working for me and several folks posted replies. This has become a significant issue for me and . . .*** I wonder if MS will fix it in the next edition of FS. ***. . . After a lovely 5 hour test flight in a POSKY 777-200ER with PSS panel, I decided to land at KDEN. But just as I'd found at KPDX and then KSEA in recent weeks, to my annoyance, when I tuned the ILS for the arrival runway, it indicated the reciprocal runway heading on the ND of the PSS panel. I knew immediately that this was another major airport with ILS googlies for me. I tried 8 other ILS runway headings at KDEN and every time, the ND indicated reciprocal runway heading tuning. I finally slewed over to Dallas Ft Worth and successfully tuned an ILS and autolanded--on a runway with a single ILS frequency for both headings !It's fantastically annoying to fly for hours and have this sort of thing happen. . . .*** MS may have modelled 28,000 ILS or airports or whatever, but there is a bug in FS2002 that makes an ILS approach to an arrival-reciprocal runway with a single radio frequency a totally random affair. To have this happen at major airports is just not acceptable, I'm sorry, but MS has fallen down on this one badly in this edition. *** "There! Now I feel better. R-

[LAdamson 240]

Was thinking the exact same thing earlier this evening.......... and also dumped the reply before hitting the send button!L.Adamson

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

In a way, Larry, it is a bug, or "undocumented feature" as Microsoft would say.The graphics engine does not read the names of the bgl files it needs to load (as one would expect, since this would simply be following normal standards), but rather the internal headers.So, even if you change the name of the bgl, this will make no difference at all.To top it off, Microsoft makes no mention of this anywhere, so you are really on your own.Only Peter Dowson mentions this fact in the documentation to his utility.The moral of the story is: do not rename your file (i.e. eurnw.bgl.original), but rather take it out of its folder altogether.Best regards.Luis

[Guest RonB49]

"In a way, Larry, it is a bug, or "undocumented feature" as Microsoft would say."Uncle (sigh). R-

[JSACKS 0]

Dear Microsoft:I recently blamed you for screwing up my FS2002 because all the localizers and ILS approaches for the sim were messed up and operating incorrectly for most of the U.S. on my machine. I forgot that I'd added many bgl fixes to the app and this is what caused the problem. I found that out yesterday and fixed it. The sim now works better than ever. I am sorry for blaming you for my error. I am wearing a hair shirt for the next 30 days.Your faithfully, JS

[Guest DanWalloch]

I'm with all of you guys! The other day I was doing the ILS into Sacramento, CA with the FFG BBJ and I thought the ILS would take me to the runway, well it wanted me to nose dive into the ground about 100ft short of the runway, so what did I do, I turned off the A/P and put it down myself. This issue better get fixed in the next FS version.

[Geofa 108]

The definition of an ils such as Sac 02 which I believe you are talking about is the following:"Category I ILS provides guidance information down to a decision height (DH) of not less than 200 ft. "Notice it does not "take you to the runway" but to a decision height of 200 ft.At that point you should be taking control of the plane-or going missed if you can't see the runway. The middle marker is located. approximately .5 to .8 NM from the threshold on the extended runway centerline. The middle marker crosses the glide slope at approximately 200 to 250 ft above the runway elevation and is near the missed approach point for the ILS Category l approach.Therefore if you were 100 ft. from the runway you were well past the decision height .http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

[LAdamson 240]

Shoot!! Microsoft tries to make FS2002 "as real as it get's", and half the people around here........... think it's wrong! :-roll I cringe sometimes when I read these post's telling MS to get it right with 2004, when it wasn't wrong in FS2002..L.Adamson

[Guest]

RonB49, LAdamson,So, why read these posts, and why bother to reply, when you are not offering any help.Most of us who read this post ignored any supposed rantings, and helped resolve the issue instead of turning this post into yet another argumentative diatribe of FS2002 is good, FS2002 is crap, MS is evil, MS is God, etc, etc. There is enough of this useless drivel on this board and flightsim.But, Noooo, RonB49 and LAdamson had to get into this thread, not offering any help, but instead attempting to start yet another FS/MS debate.As for Dan's post, maybe he wasn't aware of the workings of ILS, the general rules, and the specifics at SAC. LAdamson's response: Absolutely of no benefit except to try to put down Dan;Geof's response: An explanation of ILS methods, and the actual ILS chart for SAC.Now, which of those responses assisted Dan and the rest of us?RonB and LAdmason are the reason I rarely visit these sites any more.Driving a nail into a piece of wood recently, I missed the nail and hit my thumb."Stupid hammer!", I screamed.Guess I have to phone Stanley Tools to apologize for blaming the hammer ...

[LAdamson 240]

>RonB and LAdmason are the reason I rarely visit these sites >any more. >And if you did read this board more, you'd find that I help people more than not. Pic's, links, or whatever is required.But I DO get tired of reading request's for Microsoft, aircraft designers, etc--------------- to make a fix, when the author has no clue what their talking about!! And it happens much too often. Why can't the poster write the post as a question, instead of just blaming Microsoft or someone else in the first sentence?For instance, Dan's reply ends with "This issue better get fixed in the next FS version." Problem was, it wasn't an issue in the first place!L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Ian-I would support fully your position only if the questions are also first put in an equally respectful and polite way-notice the word "first".Larry and I have been around a long time and have seen questions put in a derogatory manner, while often being inncorect in their assumptions themselves....Pro Pilot was deluged with many of these-unfortunately the casual reader got the impression that the product was ultimately flawed, and I believe that as much as anything, this kind of implied mis information ultimately did Pro Pilot in. This was not a good thing for flight simmers , and Larry, I and a whole slew of others did our daily best to defend this kind of mis information-however it was not enough to save the product.So I have to admit-when I see a headline of "ILS crapola", or "Microsoft better get it right" it gets my attention, and often my ire also, if in fact the premise is not correct.I put myself in the poor Microsoft's programers shoes-who have improved the product with greater realism-then get an unjust critic about it-that would personally make me as a programmer quite upset and bitter. I guess it would be easy to take the attitude that "if I put greater realism and in return get a huge number of complaints-I might as well go back to making it more game like if that is what the public wants". I at least find this an upsetting and unacceptable proposition and therefore feel a strong duty to stop misinformation, or even more importantly implied misinformation, which we see much of-the most popular of these being the wing leveler on the autopilot!I have frankly seen more complaints about increased realism in ms2002 than almost any sim-usually with the logic that fs2000/98 didn't do it this way so fs2002 must be flawed.I ,Larry and others have seen the first hand damage this type of implication can do to a product.....and yes-being old timers who have been through it time and time again sometimes our patience gets worn.Now-instead of more "ils crapola" if the post was "can someone explain why..." I think there would be no need on either end for any negativity-but I believe the negativity started with the question-not the answer. I also include as offensive the jabs at Bill Gates, Microsoft etc.Like politics, these should be left at home-imho.My 2 cents! :(http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif