FSDT Chicago O'hare V2 Released.

[Bob Scott 7,714]

If you're flying one of the approaches that requires the GCO DME (e.g. ILS 04R, ILS 22L), it's missing from the scenery.

 

[Zimmerbz 153]

 

8 hours ago, w6kd said:

If you're flying one of the approaches that requires the GCO DME (e.g. ILS 04R, ILS 22L), it's missing from the scenery.

 

It was 10R Y localizer

[srcooke 52]

GCO can be tuned on a nav radio from the sim database to obtain the DME, at the least when updated with Herve Sors navaid updates.

[srcooke 52]

47 minutes ago, Zimmerbz said:

 

It was 10R Y localizer

The 'Y' ILS is not included in the AFCAD, easily added uses Herve Sors Airport Inspector and Editor

[Bob Scott 7,714]

The missing DME is easily enough added with ADE...the point is that it's missing, needs to be fixed by the dev (I'm sure it will be), and in the meantime, if you're flying to KORD, consider it NOTAMed out for the time being.  I don't much care for planning and flying a flight and discovering the navaids are missing when I'm trying to fly the approach.

Regards

[srcooke 52]

Just now, w6kd said:

The missing DME is easily enough added with ADE...the point is that it's missing, needs to be fixed by the dev (I'm sure it will be), and in the meantime, if you're flying to KORD, consider it NOTAMed out for the time being.  I don't much care for planning and flying a flight and discovering the navaids are missing when I'm trying to fly the approach.

Regards

The DME is not co-located with the ILS and on a separate freq for VOR CGO 108.25, the ILS for 04R 110.10.

I'm not aware that the dual frequency entry can be achieved in the sim, hence the need to tune the VOR separately.

 

[Bob Scott 7,714]

22 minutes ago, srcooke said:

The DME is not co-located with the ILS and on a separate freq for VOR CGO 108.25, the ILS for 04R 110.10.

I'm not aware that the dual frequency entry can be achieved in the sim, hence the need to tune the VOR separately.

 

Using ADE, the DME station can be added and placed as a separate, independently-located DME-only navaid (as it exists IRL)...I've already done it and have it working here.

[downscc 1,327]

54 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Using ADE, the DME station can be added and placed as a separate, independently-located DME-only navaid (as it exists IRL)...I've already done it and have it working here.

I've done that in the past but I keep switching between using FSDT AF files and my own with corrected navaid data.  In this case to keep it simple I've used EasyNavs from Sors to create a single GCO.bgl and toss it in the \0302\scenery bin.  Just another way to skin that cat.

[Bob Scott 7,714]

2 hours ago, Zimmerbz said:

It was 10R Y localizer

That one's a bit of a challenge...I tried adding a second ILS to the runway (the "ILS Y" has an offset course on a separate frequency from the centerline "ILS Z" approach) and I was able to compile it in ADE, but the PMDG 737 didn't see the localizer, but instead it was seeing IOHA, a deprecated ILS for the old long-gone runway 13L in the original default scenery that was on the same frequency.  It might be possible to create a separate ADE file that has the Y as the primary approach for 10R, for use with simultaneous parallel ops, but I don't see a way to have both the centerline Z and the offset Y localizers active at the same time.  So it would likely entail having multiple ADE files for the various approach configs, and swapping the one you want in before the flight. 

Regards

[CaptKornDog 281]

53 minutes ago, downscc said:

I've done that in the past but I keep switching between using FSDT AF files and my own with corrected navaid data.  In this case to keep it simple I've used EasyNavs from Sors to create a single GCO.bgl and toss it in the \0302\scenery bin.  Just another way to skin that cat.

Mind sharing your GCO.bgl in that case, if you can?  Thanks.

[srcooke 52]

Currently PMDG does not accommodate runways with dual ILS frequencies, hopefully this will be resolved in the new database structure.

At present the first entry in the wpNavAID.txt is used which in this case is the 'Z' approach IIZJ 110.75

Tuning the nav radios for the 'Y' frequency will utilize the IBYW 110.90 approach.

Re-sequence the wpNavAID.txt file should you require the 'Y' selection via FMC

[downscc 1,327]

1 hour ago, CaptKornDog said:

Mind sharing your GCO.bgl in that case, if you can?  Thanks.

Let's try  this, I've never tried Google drive share before so hope it works:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sAtdFS_FQLAASHLrRUdDb5oV13_yAvnq/view?usp=sharing

 

[CaptKornDog 281]

Just now, downscc said:

Let's try  this, I've never tried Google drive share before so hope it works:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sAtdFS_FQLAASHLrRUdDb5oV13_yAvnq/view?usp=sharing

 

 

Got it, appreciate it!

[Wolkenschreck 269]

On 8/24/2019 at 1:09 PM, virtuali said:

We think we already explained that quite clearly. The real airport won't be completed well into 2021, and it will go through several major steps, for example RWY 27C that will open in November 2020, and the new Terminal that might come or not. During this period, the ground layout will keep changing, it changed so many times while we were working on it, almost every week or so, and is still changing right now. 

Using satellite/aerial photograph, which would require licensing them AND wait to be available, means we wouldn't be able to keep up with the progress of the airport and we won't be able to release an update in a timely fashion when the new runway will open next year. And before that happens, taxiways will change too so, if we used a real satellite image as it is, assuming it was available each time something changed, we would have to license it again. Would users be prepared to pay a subscription for this service, kind Navigraph, just for a single airport that is in the act of changing ? And, if we tried to hand edit the current images to adapt to all future changes, it will look...synthetic which, incidentally, is exactly how it looks like now.

We already did what I now understand was probably a mistake when we made KLAX: we tried to be smart and modeled the TBIT according to a plan which wasn't completed as it was initially announced. We though this could have prevented us from having to work again on it. Unfortunately, real events happened, and the current TBIT is not as large as the one which was planned, so our KLAX is representing a "what-if" situation. So no, this time we won't do the same mistake again, and we'll only add new stuff *after* it will appear on the real world, also because we want to be sure users can use the scenery with updated charts.

I'd say that, when the new runway will finally open and we'll get confirmation about the final status of the proposed new Terminal 7, we might consider finally licensing a real satellite or aerial image of the "completed" airport, sometime around 2021, which we hope would last for a while.

Also, I think you posted that screenshot to tell about the "unnatural " look from that position, because those very bright side lines are a strong contributors of that perception. Another user posted the same thing on our forum, and I'm inclined to agree with him so, we'll surely tone them down to have them stick out less, and this will likely improve a lot your perception.

First and foremost I would like to thank you for your participation and clarifications in this thread, Umberto. We (as a community and developer) might not always agree on certain things but at least we talk about it. There are many developers who simply take the money and then go silent. So I find it always refreshing and encouraging that you are actively engage with us.

Yes, I know the reasons behind your choice for the ground. And it does totally make sense to me from a business standpoint. The possibility to consider a satellite ground in the future is very welcomed and encouraging. 

A procedural generated / drawn ground is per se not bad. I just find the resolution of the grass a bit to low and the colors a tad to vivid. KCLT has a comparable look and I never really accustomed to the grass texture there. 

But what I find too much of a simplification are the service roads, which are also drawn. There is probably a very good reason why you have done them in that way (performance?) but I think they should be done in the same way as the ground poly (i.e., taxiways and aprons with a poly, sharp textures and markings). The real road surfaces have a lot of markings and lines that are totally absent in the scenery. At least the roads that are visible from the cockpit should be done in a more detailed/sharp way. The same is true for the green-painted concrete areas between the taxiways, which should also be a part of the groundpoly.

Right now, the grass, roads, and green concrete are all covered by the detail1.bmp and this results in a very washed-out look. 

Sharp taxiway shoulders, service roads and green concrete as ground poly, and less vivid grass would help a lot to make this otherwise astonishing scenery even better. 



Taste is always a very personal thing and every designer has it own style of art. But this (KMSP) is how I would the ground structures  (edges, roads) wish to be. One could argue that the edges are very sharp but that is not so far away from reality. Looking at KORD in GoogleEarth or YouTube you can also see a very sharp transition between concrete/surfaces and grass.



Best,
Christoph

Edited August 25, 2019 by Wolkenschreck
added KMSP example

[Quasimodo 505]

I wasn't going to post in this topic but all this screen shot stuff about jagged grass taxiway transitions is kinda bugging me. Look, who cares about screen shots? It's what the addon look like in game play that matters. I've had my fair share of problems with FSDT addons but IMHO this is the best looking addon airport I've seen to date. Including the grass and the taxiways and the transition between them and the runways. Granted I do see a lot of shimmering which I figure is from AA not working on PBR textures in P3D. It wouldn't be my favourite airport. I'd prefer if they redid CYVR or KLAX first.

And I wouldn't say the addon is problem free. You'll see those black triangles flash from the centre of the screen occasionally. The last time I say that was in FlyTampa's CYYZ and it was a lot worse in that and it was a bug with the scenery which was fixed. I don't know if its a bug in this one but I haven't seen it at any other addon airport. And the repeating, glaring gap in the clouds reflection that looks like a bloody christmas tree. Please get ride of that.

So how do all these controversy's over ground textures jive in game play. Not at all if you ask me. Excuse my steering. I was looking at the grass taxi way transition and not where I was going! 😁