It's certainly a good start and I'm sure it can be improved. Also, isn't this the same approach used by FSX/P3D?

 

I think Microsoft got electronic data from Jeppesen (ground charts), that they somehow imported into the database. Therefore the taxiway layout is accurate, and also the buildings are where they should be.

 

X-Plane only used officially and freely (back then) available data that consists of runways, only. Therefore a "default" airport in X-Plane will only have the accurate runway. X-Plane then adds a "default" parallel taxiway.

 

If an airport in X-Plane has a more elaborate taxiway layout, then a user has worked on that and uploaded the new version to Robin Peel - or more recently to the scenery gateway.

 

I think this new set of 25.000 airports is good (better than nothing), I am just worried that users will download and install this - but not update it in the future. So if a new "global airport" get´s added in a future X-Plane update, they will not see it, as this "generic" airport will suppress the global airport, that is most likely much more realistic and detailed.

 

Jan

I think Microsoft got electronic data from Jeppesen (ground charts), that they somehow imported into the database. Therefore the taxiway layout is accurate, and also the buildings are where they should be.

 

X-Plane only used officially and freely (back then) available data that consists of runways, only. Therefore a "default" airport in X-Plane will only have the accurate runway. X-Plane then adds a "default" parallel taxiway.

 

If an airport in X-Plane has a more elaborate taxiway layout, then a user has worked on that and uploaded the new version to Robin Peel - or more recently to the scenery gateway.

 

I think this new set of 25.000 airports is good (better than nothing), I am just worried that users will download and install this - but not update it in the future. So if a new "global airport" get´s added in a future X-Plane update, they will not see it, as this "generic" airport will suppress the global airport, that is most likely much more realistic and detailed.

 

Jan

Not if the folder for the 25,000, SITS BELOW the  Global Airports Folder, in the Scenery Packs ini file line up, as the dev points out clearly that is should. Anything parsed first from top to bottom...will override anything read after all the Global Airport files are installed into memory.  The problem solved, that never was....  Global Airports will be rendered first come, first served....

Large, generic files such as this give everyone a starting point for modifications.  If your local airport is not to your liking, invest a bit of time learning WED and fix it and share it with the community.  In the meantime, flying over hundreds of small airports with buildings is better than acres of bare ground, and unless you're landing there, it just looks better.  If you know the airport well enough to know it's not "accurate" then spend a few minutes and make it accurate.

It's certainly a good start and I'm sure it can be improved. Also, isn't this the same approach used by FSX/P3D?

I believe so, but I think the data used by MS was pretty accurate. To the point of placement of airport buildings. Especially in the US and EU. If you go to your local airport you'll probably find the taxiways positioned similar to it's real world counter parts, and airport buildings (Generic) placed generally in the approximate relative location.

 

 

I mean it's a start right?  But that doesn't work for me....

 

I totally agree - Honestly, I'm just not interested in totally made up airport "detail" - Scenery autogen is one thing, Airport autogen is a no no for me.

 

 

 

Also, isn't this the same approach used by FSX/P3D?

 

Well, I think in this case we are comparing "add-ons to add-ons".  I certainly don't know of any free/paid P3D add-ons that purposely create incorrect airport scenery just for the sake of "putting stuff there"

 

 

If your local airport is not to your liking, invest a bit of time learning WED and fix it and share it with the community.

 

I think that best summarizes the fundamental reason X-Plane continues to be where it is.

The large majority of people have no time, no interest and perhaps not the skill to do anything of this sort.

I think that best summarizes the fundamental reason X-Plane continues to be where it is.

The large majority of people have no time, no interest and perhaps not the skill to do anything of this sort.

 

****

Fortunately, there are a minority who do.  In my current 10.40b3 installation of X-Plane, I have over 4,500 custom airports with "accurate" sceney.  This is in addition to the default scenery and does not count the release of the 25,000 airports which are autogen.

 

Learning to use WED or OE is actually pretty simple, and a weekend afternoon is enough to place some appropriate buildings to make an airport look like "home."   If there is "no interest" in updating your local airports, then there must not be much interest in demanding that someone else do so, either?

 

 

If there is "no interest" in updating your local airports, then there must not be much interest in demanding that someone else do so, either?

 

I'm just busy with real life and simply want my PC gaming and simming add-ons left to the experts and I'm happy (and prefer) to pay for completed, accurate products.

 

I'm glad you enjoy building the airports.  4500 accurate airports is pretty incredible - Are they all on the Org?  Would love to see the list

It isn't the same approach as FSX. In FSX the buildings are a) mostly in the right locations and B) are connected to the tarmacs.

 

While I appreciate the effort that went into this, and I have installed this and don't plan on uninstalling this, I view this the same as some others. I view X-Plane as being incomplete until some basic airport scenery is included. I bought the latest version on Steam and just figured that in the 10+ years that I bought my last version of X-Plane that there would at least be some airports. But no...still runways. This isn't laziness on the customer's part...it's laziness on Laminar's.

 

EDIT: And yes...I should have done the research before buying X-Plane 10. But they won't get any more dough from me until they start adding some basic realism to the sim. It's a shame because outside of that I truly do enjoy the sim.

This isn't laziness on the customer's part...it's laziness on Laminar's.

 

Thank YOU!

 

Nice to hear someone else say this.  

The customer isn't the problem here, Laminar is.

 

 

Great add-on idea for Laminar (since they're whoring out to mobile for cash) would be to use the data available from FAA airport diagrams to create accurate taxiways/tarmacs and basic buildings at least for the USA airports where there is data - maybe in XP11....

 

 

Here's KRNT (Renton in Seattle area):  http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1506/05396ad.pdf

This topic has pretty much gone off the deep end......

 

Yeah Laminar are a bunch of snake oil salesmen......

 

*facepalm*

 

 

Yeah Laminar are a bunch of snake oil salesmen......

 

Where was that stated in here?  (I missed it)

Realistically, I wonder what is the actual cost of the worldwide airports data that Microsoft has bought from Jeppesen, and if it was feasible for Laminar Research to license it.

 

It's not a rethorical question, I really wonder if they had the financial capability to license it, but choose not to; or if, conversely, the cost was not affordable for them.

 

I would also like to note that, at the present, _ONLY_ Microsoft (and of course, Lockheed Martin now for P3D) has been able to get worldwide airport buildings data (licensing it from Jeppesen) in a home-pc simulator.

 

I'm sure all the people criticizing Laminar approach, know the actual cost of that Jeppesen licensing and that Laminar could afford it, otherwise criticizing it wouldn't make sense, right? :smile:

 

 

I'm glad you enjoy building the airports. 4500 accurate airports is pretty incredible - Are they all on the Org? Would love to see the list

 

Almost all are on the .org  I have them on an Excel spreadsheet and would be happy to share with anyone wanting a copy.  It is, of course, a work in progress and I add airports daily.

would be happy to share with anyone

 

Please do!  

 

Could you upload it to any of the free services and just link it here so we can all check it out?

I think it's a fine approach, and at least it's an optional thing; if you don't like, it don't use it.  But for some, it'll spruce up their flying, and that's great.

 

Myself, I've been an XP user for all of a week (maybe?) and I've now been inside WED longer than I've been in the sim.  Currently doing CYYD, as it's smack dab in a region I love, and a nice flight from CYPR, which happens to have very passable 3D scenery.  I miss some things about ADE, but there's certain features in WED that are sooooo nice, and I wish they existed to build scenery with in FSX.  I love being able to draw bezier curves....

 

I forsee a major issue with my adoption of XP as my other sim platform.... I love to tweak and build.  In FSX, while I can (and have) spent many many hours building things, sometimes it gets tiring because you're really only building a replacement of what already exists in the sim.  XPlane actually needs people building.... I can see this being a massive time-sink for someone like myself!