Is it just me or are there loads of closed airports in the sim that are shown as actual live airports in MSFS?

I'm at the start of a round the world tour in the C172 and having started in the UK and so far got to Kuwait in a round about way via Norway and Sweden I seem to be landing at numerous airports that closed some time ago.  I also just took a break from the the tour to try OnAir and I selected a flight from Southampton (EGHI) to Filton (EGTG).  Filton closed eight years ago!  So where do MSFS get their airport data from if they've included airports that haven't existed for 8 years?  Just think it's a bit odd really as it doesn't appear to just be a few but loads of them unless I've been very unlucky to just land at the few closed ones.

 

As a general rule of thumb with MFS, if it's in the Bing imagery it will be in the sim. Some of the imagery is due for renewal (it's old) and as that happens they will update the airports as part of the world updates.

Hi

I understand that it's still in the imagery, in fact I think the runway is still there in real life albeit with all the markings removed.  However for EGTG in MSFS for example, it was still available as an operational airport with it's own Tower and Ground frequencies.  I would have thought that an airport that had not existed for eight years wouldn't be included in the database of operational airports.  It's not a big issue, just something I've noticed.  Some of them (not EGTG) even have large yellow crosses along the runway which I've been directed to land at to show they're not operational.

I think that is fine. If you are that hardcore, then just do not land at those airfields. Much worse was airports like Malaga or Stuttgart totally missing from the Sim. Not Asobo's fault, but still..

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by GCBraun

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

Much worse was airports like Malaga or Stuttgart totally missing from the Sim. Not Asobo's fault, but still..

Whose fault was it, then? Just curious, maybe that person or entity is also at fault for some of the other problems?

4 minutes ago, Janov said:

Whose fault was it, then? Just curious, maybe that person or entity is also at fault for some of the other problems?

The military...

1 minute ago, airlinejets said:

The military...

So, I heard that Malaga and Stuttgart are now included. Did the military allow it now?

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

I think that is fine. If you are that hardcore, then just do not land at those airfields. Much worse was airports like Malaga or Stuttgart totally missing from the Sim. Not Asobo's fault, but still..

I also find this statement a bit weird. Whose else would it be? I mean this is really a task for the intern to compare the database in the sim and the database they have from nablue to check for missing airports and (if important enough), add them manually. Because Malage and Stuttgart are by far not the only ones.

2 minutes ago, Janov said:

So, I heard that Malaga and Stuttgart are now included. Did the military allow it now?

Malaga has one of it's runways used by the military. Not sure about Stuttgart.

Apparently, Malaga will only show the civilian runway.

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by airlinejets

1 minute ago, Janov said:

So, I heard that Malaga and Stuttgart are now included. Did the military allow it now?

Check out the airports on Bing Maps, they are blurred out. When this imagery was then used for the sim, it was still blurred out so didn't exist in the sim.

The airports were then manually added, presumably using another source of visual data.

1 minute ago, wainwj said:

The airports were then manually added, presumably using another source of visual data.

Aha, class, now we are getting somewhere! 😁

So - why is it not Asobo´s fault to do that right of the bat? I am sure one of the alpha testers must have stumbled upon this problem?

Its not a big deal to me - the funny thing that struck me is the apologetic statement by GCBraun that its not Asobos fault when it clearly is and they now rectified it.

Cheers, Jan (X-Plane fanboi!)

1 minute ago, Janov said:

Aha, class, now we are getting somewhere! 😁

So - why is it not Asobo´s fault to do that right of the bat? I am sure one of the alpha testers must have stumbled upon this problem?

Its not a big deal to me - the funny thing that struck me is the apologetic statement by GCBraun that its not Asobos fault when it clearly is and they now rectified it.

Cheers, Jan (X-Plane fanboi!)

My guess would be that they are only able to use Bing data for copyright reasons, they wouldn't be able to just switch over to Google Maps without having an agreement with Google.

Since the Alpha days they have teamed up with companies like Aerosoft to build extra airports, I imagine that this is a recent thing as was only announced with the Japan update.

My guess would be that Malaga was added thanks to the experienced airport builders over at Aerosoft.

(Most of this is a presumption based on following the dev process closely)

1 minute ago, wainwj said:

My guess would be that Malaga was added thanks to the experienced airport builders over at Aerosoft.

Yeah, I would also assume that they maybe even did that inhouse. I have no experience with the SDK, but it seems easy enough to make airports so I am sure that someone at Asobo (after the outrage over those missing airports) maybe got tasked with putting them together.

3 hours ago, GCBraun said:

I think that is fine. If you are that hardcore, then just do not land at those airfields. Much worse was airports like Malaga or Stuttgart totally missing from the Sim. Not Asobo's fault, but still..

How do you know they're closed until you get there and find bright yellow crosses along the runway.  Or nothing at all in terms of infrastructure apart from a strip of concrete.  There are lots of posts about missing airports, this one's about how airports that closed 8 years ago still appear as operational in msfs. 

2 hours ago, airlinejets said:

Malaga has one of it's runways used by the military. Not sure about Stuttgart.

Apparently, Malaga will only show the civilian runway.

I mean... Area 51 is in the sim. It even has the buildings (mostly) in (mostly) the right places. Doesn't look as good as the DCS version, but it looks pretty freaking great for a top secret installation that they won't let you get anywhere near in real life. 

If a military installation is visible on Google or Bing maps, it doesn't make sense that someone would demand it be taken out of the sim. Do they really think the terrorists are using a flight simulator to study their targets when they have satellite imagery in a much more useful format available for free online?