4 minutes ago, F737NG said:

I feel this is getting into semantics. However, I would call the two runways listed above as 'crumpled' and this one below as 'undulating'.

Semantics?  A undulating runway doesn't look like its surface is buckling multiple times over very short distances.

If there I no data available I definitely prefer too 'flat' runways over to 'undulating' runways.

12 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Either way, this is the type of non-flat runways that people are expecting to see in MSFS.

Thanks for posting these images. They make it clear what we are talking about here.

It's these kind of runways I'd like to see in the sim.

Nevertheless I also agree with those who said they prefer a flat runway over flawed undulations.

4 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Semantics?  A undulating runway doesn't look like its surface is buckling multiple times over very short distances.

 

Undulating
1. to move with a sinuous or wavelike motion; display a smooth rising-and-falling or side-to-side alternation of movement

2. to have a wavy form or surface; bend with successive curves in alternate directions.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/undulating

 

Another interesting point is; Why is it that it's the British who are apparently having the most undulating runways?

5 hours ago, F737NG said:

Either way, this is the type of non-flat runways that people are expecting to see in MSFS.

And yet that photo is a perfect example of the compression effect of a telephoto lens. That runway is two kilometers long, and that depression stretches over hundreds of meters. According to the plate, the altitude difference between the two thresholds is a mere 12 feet, while in the photo it looks like it would be an uphill struggle to even take off there. It will look a little bit different to the naked eye and also in a wide angle shot:

https://images.app.goo.gl/HjczBBf9XysZYnhMA

https://images.app.goo.gl/x1veFDRaQqdk8Pzd7

Best regards

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

And that's precisely the reason I don't believe photos, they are very misleading. Thanks for this Lorby

10 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

And yet that photo is a perfect example of the compression effect of a telephoto lens. That runway is two kilometers long, and that depression stretches over hundreds of meters. According to the plate, the :

https://images.app.goo.gl/HjczBBf9XysZYnhMA

https://images.app.goo.gl/x1veFDRaQqdk8Pzd7

Best regards

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Casualcas

1 hour ago, Casualcas said:

And that's precisely the reason I don't believe photos, they are very misleading. Thanks for this Lorby

Yes well. Personally I would prefer the runways in the sim to look like what I would see with my own eyes - not dramatically enhanced like a photographer would do it.

I don't think the elevation data is there that all tens of thousands of airport runways will have the correct vertical profile in MSFS from the start. I would expect this to come later, after release. I am hoping for several cycles of refinement of the default scenery over the years - or addons for that matter. 

Best regards

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

Aerofly, while missing lots of things, does runways very well.

The runways and taxiways are modelled flat and they are draped onto the ground mesh, with some smoothing. If a higher resolution ground mesh is used, you get a more realistic runway with all its bumps, dips and peaks.
You can have a very high resolution ground mesh just for the airport area. Some users have created 5m ground meshes and the result is impressive.

I'd guess and hope MSFS uses a similar method.

5 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Another interesting point is; Why is it that it's the British who are apparently having the most undulating runways?

We're just difficult about lots of things. 😀 Seriously though, possibly population density. We don't have the space to choose the nice flat area. Airports had to go wherever we could fit them.

When you make or correct a scenery, in many cases you have to believe photos because they are the only source of data. The key is to have as many as possible. It is not obvious for remote places. True for runways but also for buildings, vegetation etc. This is a part of the work I like quite a lot when I do my doodles.

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by domkle

11 minutes ago, nickhod said:

Some users have created 5m ground meshes and the result is impressive.

Exactly. Somebody just has to do it.

I don't really get this heated discussion. In the very first screenshots that were released, Microsoft showed Courchevel, with a sloping runway. So the sim obviously has the capability. They did not say that all airports will have this, nor would I expect them to have detailed vertical profiles for all(!) runways at release. But over time, we will get there.

Best regards 

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

1 hour ago, Lorby_SI said:

And yet that photo is a perfect example of the compression effect of a telephoto lens. That runway is two kilometers long, and that depression stretches over hundreds of meters. According to the plate, the altitude difference between the two thresholds is a mere 12 feet, while in the photo it looks like it would be an uphill struggle to even take off there. It will look a little bit different to the naked eye and also in a wide angle shot:

I agree, of course it is an example of the foreshortening effect (as were my other linked photos), however, wide angle shots make it very difficult to show any gradient.
Ever try taking a photo to show the steepness of a mountain that you are on?

Even in your first linked photo, you can just about see a decline in the runway.

With the naked eye, the real view is somewhere in the middle.

1 hour ago, Casualcas said:

And that's precisely the reason I don't believe photos, they are very misleading.

That goes for all photos, including the ones that appear to prove your point.


What some people here are discussing is the fact that the pool table flat runways that we have had in previous MS flight sims are unrealistic. There should be noticeable variation to runway gradients away from the obvious ones like Lukla or Courchevel.

There's a reason why real world pilots complain of humps, lumps and bumps anywhere near the TDZ of runways - they make a difference to the touchdown rate.
 

Just to clarify, I was talking about how the non-flat airports' runways in flight simulators are done and not how real runways are built...

Also, the screenshots I posted are taken from the raw/default scenery or XP11 back when I started working on scenery for this platform and discovered the non flat airports that FSX did not have.

Also my screenshots were taken with a sim zoom level that mimics the zoom we see in real photos taken from far away with a telephoto lens. This how the variations in the terrain become flattened in the photo and look radical. 

Also I thinK Asobo mentioned that airports won't be flat (not just Courchevel)

And with non-flat aorports in MSFS, not only we have sloped runways but we can have examples of a Runway on a lower elevation and another on a higher elevation. Like in this example, one runway is on a sea bed, that links to the rising coast and another runway is on a higher elevation... If you land on the sea bed runway, you won't see the higher one... This was absolutely not the same experience in the FSX scenery...

The runways in MSFS won't be flat, as others have stated. But for the vast majority of commercial airports, the average flightsimmer isn't going to notice whether the runway is flat or not. The FAA design manual specifies that runways have less than a 2% grade which is a 1.2 degree slope:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13.pdf

Even in FSX it was possible to make airports where the runways followed the terrain. The problem was that the AI engine wasn't designed with that feature in mind.

19 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The runways in MSFS won't be flat, as others have stated. But for the vast majority of commercial airports, the average flightsimmer isn't going to notice whether the runway is flat or not. The FAA design manual specifies that runways have less than a 2% grade which is a 1.2 degree slope:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13.pdf

Even in FSX it was possible to make airports where the runways followed the terrain. The problem was that the AI engine wasn't designed with that feature in mind.

Exactly... Most major and popular Western International Airports won't have noticeable slopes unless again, screnshtos and videos are taken with a high zoom level from far away in the sim...

But for other parts of the world, many international airports are located on special terrain that requires some terrain editing and refinement if the mesh data is not high res.

As for FSX,you are right, the AI follows the ground routes/tracks that are vectors using the X and Y axis but not the Z one.

However there wre few non flat airfields for FSX. In fact I remember having a Courchevel Scenery back in FSX with a photoreal layout that is draped over the terrain and the runways were custom photoreal runways, not the default ones. But we could see only static planes there no AI could use it.

Edited February 25, 20206 yr by Claviateur

I watched as the engineers re-built the runways at KGYY many decades ago. They used some new-fangled devices they called bull dozers and road graders. The surveyors used transits and grade rods to set markers to keep the runways as level as humanly possible. As a result the newly paved runways have managed to survive 20 years and have virtually no measurable variations in them from when they were first completed.

On the other hand, some of the taxiways have quite noticeable dips and such where the ground has settled over the years.