2 hours 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!)

Asobo relied on data from Bing, which itself relies on data provided by 3rd. parties, which are subject to national regulations imposed to them on what can be shown or not. 

Of course one could add Stuttgart, Malaga or any other military facility blended from Bing Maps afterwards, just like it is being done now directly by Asobo or via the community itself.

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by GCBraun

4 minutes ago, eslader said:

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.

But Bing Maps has to convince the various governments around the world that this isn't an issue.

And I'm not completely sure it isn't an issue; for example, there was a recent data leak over in the Middle East where US soldiers' Fitbit data, including GPS tracks, could be seen, allowing for better estimates of number of soldiers, as well as potentially revealing sensitive locations.

Yeah, but MSFS is not monitoring soldier movements, so that's not really an issue. The point is that if some bad actor wants to get a photograph of a military installation, they can get it with the satellite maps freely available on the internet. Or if they're an enemy state, they can get it with their own satellites. They don't need a consumer flight simulator to do it, and are extremely unlikely to choose a flight simulator for intelligence gathering. It's kinda like back when I used to work in television, and would have an interview in a bank. 9 times out of 10 security got really antsy because they were nervous that I'd be getting pictures of their security camera placements. Well, yeah, but it's extremely unlikely that a criminal is watching Channel 7 News to plan his bank robbery. You should probably be more worried about that dude over there taking pictures of the ceiling with his cell phone.

Just seems odd that a military would get upset at the idea that someone playing a video game would know what their runway looks like, but hasn't prevented that information from being spread all over the internet.

 

8 minutes ago, eslader said:

Just seems odd that a military would get upset at the idea that someone playing a video game would know what their runway looks like, but hasn't prevented that information from being spread all over the internet.

Really.  I seem to remember congressional hearings regarding the use of FS2K in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and whether such a "video game" was too dangerous for the general populace.  

It looked as if some government bureaucrats were insisting that future versions required fictional planes or fictional continents such as "Oceana" or "Pacifica" or "Eurocom" so that terrorists couldn't use future flight sim products as training tools.  Much the way that some modern Air Combat games now include fictional locations and planes so as to not paint any existing government as the "bad guy"

Thankfully for us, saner heads prevailed and FS2K was NOT the last flight simulator published.  Nor was FS9 or FSX released with intentionally inaccurate flight models, or set in a "fictional" planet with different cities.

So while it might seem ridiculous that a government or military arm MIGHT get upset over a game that uses publically available material, remember, it's happened before.

I have seen blurred satellite imagery on sensitive areas before, but it has been inconsistent and I personally think is just a remnant of the rules they had years ago - and either there was no new satellite imagery since then or they simply forgot to lift the restriction. I don´t think there is a public outcry because they forgot to "unpixel" Stuttgart airport.

I still remember a time (Cold war) when it was strictly forbidden to take aerial pictures over Germany, for anyone!

32 minutes ago, wthomas33065 said:

So while it might seem ridiculous that a government or military arm MIGHT get upset over a game that uses publically available material, remember, it's happened before.

I agree with most of what you said, but would point out that high-res satellite imagery of... Well, pretty much anything, wasn't readily available to the public back in 2001. We didn't even have Google Maps - if you wanted just a map, no photo, of an area or the world on your computer you had to buy something like DeLorme's Street Atlas on CD-ROM. So, it was still stupid that Congress was blaming a video game for 9/11, but not quite as stupid as pretending today that a flight simulator would be the tool of choice for planning an assault on a military installation.

 

 

Just now, eslader said:

So, it was still stupid that Congress was blaming a video game for 9/11, but not quite as stupid as pretending today that a flight simulator would be the tool of choice for planning an assault on a military installation.

As a Navy Veteran of 10.5 years, I have learned never to underestimate the stupidity of some of our military and political leaders.  (That's as political as I'm going to get....(grin))

1 hour ago, eslader said:

So, it was still stupid that Congress was blaming a video game for 9/11, but not quite as stupid as pretending today that a flight simulator would be the tool of choice for planning an assault on a military installation.

Didn´t they also rename the "French fries" in the cafeteria to "Freedom fries" back then as well because the French didn´t want to join their war on terror and they had to punish them for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by Janov

On the original topic of closed airports, yes there are a number of them in the sim, as well as some other oddities.

The best one I encountered was while testing various aircraft for my around the world flight, I'd fly out over the CA desert and just do a 'Direct to' the nearest airport to land after I had all my data collected.  When landing at one location I thought something seemed...off....about the location and layout.  Looked it up on Google Maps and it's a bombing/target practice range.  It has the ICAO code for a real airport (located in the Pacific somewhere) assigned to it in sim, and the text name 'Barstow airport'.  I took some screenshots for a Zendesk ticket but haven't had time to go do it yet.

KLGB has two runways in-sim that they removed 5 years ago to reduce runway incursion incidents and improve safety of operations.  Totally out of date. 

They have clearly used some software routines to auto-detect "airports" using AI and it's not all correct.

 

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by marsman2020

6 hours 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!)

It certainly will take less time for Asobo to correct airport database then for IXEG to implement VNAV which is WIP since 2015 LOL

40 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

It certainly will take less time for Asobo to correct airport database then for IXEG to implement VNAV which is WIP since 2015 LOL

That`s unfair attack on him, you know...

They did remove one airport I reported as not being in operation anymore. Or it might have been a coincidence, I don't know.

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by Tuskin38

26 minutes ago, petrony said:

That`s unfair attack on him, you know...

It's no an attack, it's valid point from  paying customer who have gave up on waiting! 

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

It's no an attack, it's valid point from  paying customer who have gave up on waiting! 

He`s not the programmer, you should take this with Tom Kyler. 

31 minutes ago, petrony said:

He`s not the programmer, you should take this with Tom Kyler. 

Well for the guy who is talking about developing "from 1.3 to onward" he seems  pretty much in the loop! LOL

Anyway, as I mentioned above I moved on already. So don't really care 🙂 I'm also OK with XP fun boys. Although I have noticed some of them in MSFS forum exclusively  for"constructively criticism" 🙂 I'm pretty sure XP11 has a lot of demons on it's on!

By hey,  I used to be fun boy of XP11 myself, I get it! Also I wish XP development all the best . I may even come back to it one day! But notably I don't go much to XP11 forums anymore as my focus at the moment on MSFS 🙂

Also  Petrony thank you  for donating to me 2 of out of your 6 posts avsim ! 🙂Welcome! And  I hope your find more positivity and happiness  here  !