Wrong. I never said KSEA ever had a slope. I said it had a burm built to extend the runway at some time in its history.

Just a point about sloped runways that I thought was interesting. When I was using the demo while waiting for my disks I downloaded some scenery that contained airports. I think they were from the french projects. Both addons required me to disable sloped runways so that the buildings would appear properly. I also have a couple of fsx addons that also add sloped runways in to fsx. Is it common for xplane scenery to require the sloped runways to be turned off?

It depends on how the scenery is made. It's easier to make airport scenery with slopes turned off.

Wrong. I never said KSEA ever had a slope. I said it had a burm built to extend the runway at some time in its history.

Ok, Kevin. Whatever you say.

Wrong. I never said KSEA ever had a slope. I said it had a burm built to extend the runway at some time in its history.

You're splitting hairs. A berm is essentially a sloped surface.So, the berm at KSEA may not be accurate, but by your admission it is at the very least plausible.

Why is a berm a sloped surface?

No. The slope is about 5x longer then the burn at the end of the runway. The burn never even reaches the active runway, just the runoff.

It depends on how the scenery is made. It's easier to make airport scenery with slopes turned off.

Which is part of the reason, that MS went with flattened runways. Since they populate all the airports with Jeppeson chart layouts for hangars, taxiways, fueling stations, & other buildings, it didn't work to leave a bunch of them hanging in the air, or half underground.It is a compromise, any way you look at it. Either sloped runways, that may get a bit too much slope, Or buildings with flat airports. I can see this issue from both sides. Populated airports along with sloped runways would be great. And even better with additional elevation data points. We just "ain't" going to get them, until enough 3rd party additions are done by hand, I suppose. No use to argue farther.

Which is part of the reason, that MS went with flattened runways. Since they populate all the airports with Jeppeson chart layouts for hangars, taxiways, fueling stations, & other buildings, it didn't work to leave a bunch of them hanging in the air, or half underground.It is a compromise, any way you look at it. Either sloped runways, that may get a bit too much slope, Or buildings with flat airports. I can see this issue from both sides. Populated airports along with sloped runways would be great. And even better with additional elevation data points. We just "ain't" going to get them, until enough 3rd party additions are done by hand, I suppose. No use to argue farther.

Good post.

Which is part of the reason, that MS went with flattened runways. Since they populate all the airports with Jeppeson chart layouts for hangars, taxiways, fueling stations, & other buildings, it didn't work to leave a bunch of them hanging in the air, or half underground.It is a compromise, any way you look at it. Either sloped runways, that may get a bit too much slope, Or buildings with flat airports. I can see this issue from both sides. Populated airports along with sloped runways would be great. And even better with additional elevation data points. We just "ain't" going to get them, until enough 3rd party additions are done by hand, I suppose. No use to argue farther.

I think another big reason MS didn't pursue sloped runways was that the AI traffic didn't play well with them.

Like I said, and like TKyler said, other things have taken priority over scenery. The scenery WILL be addressed, but later. I'm not sure where you get your info, m_av. Or maybe you're just some vindictive developer who hates Austin for what he has done to WED and OE and you're just trying to reach for negative things to say about x plane. "I really want X Plane to succeed!". Ya, right. Pull the middle one.In the meantime, just uncheck "Runway follows terrain contour" and Seattle is all flat and you're good to go.Couldn't be simpler. But for the fact you hate the UI, I'm sure you can navigate to just THAT part of the menu.

personal attack .. you should take these type to PM's

Hey, Tierborn...where's the personal attack? I said "maybe you're just some vindictive developer..."...and it's only my opinion. He sure seems like it with his ridiculous demands of timelines from Laminar. You're not going to criticize me for having an opinion, are you?Perhaps you should read and digest a little more slowly before quickly misinterpreting posts I make. Again, it's getting kinda creepy when you misquote me like that. Almost like you have some kind of agenda.

Which is part of the reason, that MS went with flattened runways. Since they populate all the airports with Jeppeson chart layouts for hangars, taxiways, fueling stations, & other buildings, it didn't work to leave a bunch of them hanging in the air, or half underground.

Though curiously FSX did introduce a curved earth which made a lot of earlier MSFS scenery incompatible.

...where's the personal attack?

Despite my repeated cautions and my utmost and sincere desire to refrain from any kind of personal or character attacks from you or anyone else, YOU CONTINUE TO DO THAT. You take almost EVERYTHING as almost an affront to you. Unless you are "associated with" or "working with" or a spokesperson for Laminar, like the guys who were here a couple of weeks or so ago, speak your mind about the issues, and AVOID CHARACTER ABUSE OR ATTACKS.At first, in this instance as in prior others, I had chosen to IGNORE YOU AND YOUR POST, but it keeps going on.You have almost CONSISTANTLY tried to ask about me and tried to look up my profile/background as if by attacking my personal character, you could DISCREDIT what I have to say. I have thought and often asked myself why what I may or may not be, is more important to you than what I have to say. I understand your passion to defend and promote X-plane. Believe me, Been there, Done that. (Again, you may choose to believe me or not.) So to that extent, I can sympathise with you - but in that blind spot, you keep loosing sight of what's important - so, let me repeat :"Concentrate on the MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER !"PEACE.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by m_av

Of course I'm associated with Laminar. I make add ons for their product.Am I biased towards Laminar?You betcha! If I wasn't, I wouldn't be making add ons for x plane.Am I going to defend the platform I develop for?You betcha!Will I lie about anything in X Plane or (hate to say it) FSX?Of course not.Get over yourself, mav. You're not THAT important to worry about.BTW, you're not important enough to ask about, either. I've only asked you why you're hiding and I've only done it once or twice. I never "checked" your profile. I wanted to know how long you have been registered for.

Note:"You have almost CONSISTANTLY tried to ask about me and tried to look up my profile/background"Something I don't like about the forums these days. Just running the mouse down the main page, will open up a profile if it gets to close. It makes look as if you're checking the personal profile, when not intending to do so.