Microsoft's source data for Flight scenery

[RoboRay 126]

Since it appears that Flight is using the same source data as the previous sims, collected several years ago, current published information on real-world airports and navaids is not 100% accurate for Flight. I discovered this by accident when I recently noticed that the Kona VOR in Flight is at the old location, several miles south of the new location shown on current charts. Luckily, I'm using a 10-year-old sectional, so my paper chart is actually correct.

 

I'm interested in acquiring older sectional charts of Alaska, if I can find them, for use with Flight in the future. I'm assuming that they will also prove more suitable than current data. Digitizing them for the community is also a possibility, as I may be able to gain access to a very large scanner.

 

Does anyone know the actual age of the source-data MS used for Alaska in FSX/FS9?

[HiFlyer 9,359]

I have no clue, other than that the information might be in the credits. I know that the Flight credits list several company's that might hint at where data is being obtained.

[RoboRay 126]

Oh, I'm sure they're using the officially-published DOT/FAA materials, at least for the US areas. But even if they bought the data from a third party, it's going to be the same in the end. It's the time-period when the data was collected that I'm wondering about. Say, if MS is using the information published in 2005, I'd like to find charts from as close to 2005 as I can get.

[Sigma54 0]

From the end of the Flight handbook, here are the most likely sources of navigation/geography data:

Incorporates GeoBase® Canadian DEM, Minister of Natural Resources Canada.

Airport and Navigation data supplied by Jeppesen.

Vector data supplied in part by NAVTEQ.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

You're right, Ray, and this has always been a problem with the entire FS series. It leads me to think that a good suggestion for DLC would be updated Airport and Facilities Data as well as corrections to navaids. Thanks for bringing up the topic!

 

Best regards.

Luis

[RoboRay 126]

I may ask about source-data dates over in the FSX forum... somebody there is bound to have figured it out already.

[meshman 109]

I may ask about source-data dates over in the FSX forum... somebody there is bound to have figured it out already.

 

Yes, you have a response in the FSX forum.

[RoboRay 126]

Heh, after looking at how big Alaska is and seeing I'll need something like 17 sectional charts to cover it all, I'm now considering WAC charts due to the higher scale. Even with those, it'll take seven! :Shocked:

 

You don't really have to have all the detailed terrain and obstruction information in a sim, so WACs should work.

[Torg Smith 31]

Jeppesen Provided the nav data.

 

https://microsoftflight.com/en-us/partners/#1

[xplanery 250]

You're right, Ray, and this has always been a problem with the entire FS series. It leads me to think that a good suggestion for DLC would be updated Airport and Facilities Data as well as corrections to navaids. Thanks for bringing up the topic!

 

Best regards.

Luis

DLC or update? In my opinion it should be released as free update instead of making people to pay just for update that updates something that was already outdated when the game was released.

[RoboRay 126]

Jeppesen Provided the nav data.

 

https://microsoftfli...-us/partners/#1

 

Yes, but again, it's not who provided the data that's significant... it's when the data was provided that matters.

 

Facts are facts. Wherever you get your facts, if a certain navaid is located in a certain spot, broadcasting on a certain frequency, everyone who collected their data at the same time is going to agree on that.

 

It's when the data is collected years apart that you find discrepancies. Hence the question I asked, as Flight's data is clearly outdated, indicating they most likely used the same data they did for FSX.

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

I'll make the suggestion again to the devs, although I've thought about it last night and now I think that one of the problems may have been that updating for all AFD and navaids throughout the entire world was a long and complicated job. Now, when geographical coverage is so limited, there is no reason why MGS can't provide this kind of fix in the periodic updates. After all, if there is only one navaid broken in Hawai'i, it won't be that much effort to correct. And the same goes for Alaska. So, maybe now this kind of problem should be included in the update schedule for Flight.

 

By the way, and for information, this suggestion was already made to the devs by a member of this forum just a few weeks ago.

 

Best regards.

Luis

[RoboRay 126]

Honestly, I don't see MS updating their AFD and Navaids data. It's a lot of work, for little gain, and while it's not all consistent with current real-world sources, it is consistent with existing MS Flight Sim resources. There's some virtue in maintaining that backwards compatibility.

 

And anyway, as soon as they update it, a year later some of it will be wrong again.

[kcmo 2]

Isn't it best for MS that they keep a healthy amount of expired nav data in their sims and games (and publicly warn of that fact)? I mean, if they claim to be current and someone uses their sim/game to plane a flight, what happens when they go out and run into a tower? Then here come the lawyers.

[jcomm 5,939]

Today (I told you I was long in this "business" of flightsimming... I discovered an old copy (A3 format) of the 1988 DOD ENROUTE PACIFIC, AUSTRALASIA AND ANTARTICA charts!!!!

 

Whow, I'll try to check tonight if these are in sync with the data in FLIGHT....

 

In my old records I also have another one of these covering - you can guess.... - ALASKA!!!!

 

Whoooooooooooooow!!!!