Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jvile

FSX Airport Headings off?

Recommended Posts

Been doing some instrument flights in FSX lately and have noticed many of the airports in the area I fly have heading/ILS issues. When I say issues, I mean they are "changed" from FS9 (and FS9 headings are accurate to my CAP3 (Canada Air Pilot Instrument Proceedures- AB/SK/MB) book, or within a degree at worst.) Thus I use it all the time in FS :)Anyways, here's the details: (+ = clockwise)International Airports (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary)CYEG (All Runways) Heading +2CYYC (All Runways) Heading +2CYVR 26R - Glidescope/Localizer Misalignment (Way right of the runway on grass)Regional Airports (Alberta, BC)CYKA 26 - Heading +4, Glidescope/Localizer Misalignment (Angle/Heading)CYYF 16 - Heading +3, Glidescope Misalignment (Taxiway Landing)CYQF (All Runways) Heading +4CYXD (All Runways) Heading +2CYLW Heading +2 (but Glidescope/Localizer Alignment fixed from FS9)CYRM Heading +5CYGE Heading +4CYRV Heading +4CYJA Heading +5CYQL Heading +5CYXH Heading +4CEG4 Heading +4Its more this area, while BC seems less effected. (Didn't check all that closely just the ones I usually goto) Anyone notice this for their common airports? The few offest ILS's are probally just oops placement issues, but whole airports rotated? Wonder if this is caused from the new round earth deal, then not adjusting the airports to compensate for deviation. (if it implements like that)Ideas why or how to fix ? Can I easily rotate an entire airport ?PS: I have ZERO FS9 or other afcads installed.Regards'Garett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

LOL - Thanks Jim I just noticed that. :-rollMan I'm an idiot some days. You know how much time I spent doing all that, only to realize that I was refering it to my CAP3 2003 not my 06. I just always got in the habit of always using the 03 with FS9 as it matched the airports within it for me.So sorry to all for the screw-up. (Well the offsets aren't right but thats a different issue) Mods please don't hestiate to delete this topic should you see it.ACES - Thank you for updating the FSX airports to keep up with the realworld magnetic variation. Your right on the money, good job.I'll crawl back under my rock now...Regards'Garett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These airports are in the library which I have fixed the misplaced LocalizerCYQBCYQQCYTRCVXSCYYJOne of the problems with Canada is when FSX moved the Airport scenery by about 2-3M for proper scaling the Localizers moved also. However the runways LAT/LON is the same in most cases as FS9.I will look at your list and correct any airport that has a misaligned ILS that is not an actual offset or LDA type approach.I was holding off on any more ILS fixes until the SP1 is released. Maybe the SP1 address this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>These airports are in the library which I have fixed the>misplaced Localizer>>CYQB>CYQQ>CYTR>CVXS>CYYJ>>One of the problems with Canada is when FSX moved the Airport>scenery by about 2-3M for proper scaling the Localizers moved>also. However the runways LAT/LON is the same in most cases as>FS9.>>I will look at your list and correct any airport that has a>misaligned ILS that is not an actual offset or LDA type>approach.>>I was holding off on any more ILS fixes until the SP1 is>released. Maybe the SP1 address this problem. I'm not aware of any ILS fixes in SP1. Please submit bugs as you find problems.-Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Regional Airports (Alberta, BC)>>CYKA 26 - Heading +4, Glidescope/Localizer Misalignment>(Angle/Heading)>CYYF 16 - Heading +3, Glidescope Misalignment (Taxiway>Landing)>CYQF (All Runways) Heading +4>CYXD (All Runways) Heading +2>CYLW Heading +2 (but Glidescope/Localizer Alignment fixed from>FS9)>CYRM Heading +5>CYGE Heading +4>CYRV Heading +4>CYJA Heading +5>CYQL Heading +5>CYXH Heading +4>CEG4 Heading +4>Looking at CYRV I see FSX (like FS9) shows the runway as 11 but info I have is that it is now 12. Can anyone confirm?scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDITWorld Aero Data has 12/30 as the runway designators. The DAFIF/ WorldAeroData shows the runway heading as 138 degrees true, while FS2004 and FSX have the runway heading as 130 degrees true.http://worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=CA76885Not a hard fix if the airport polygon is large enough - let me take a look at the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there is room for the moved runway on the base polygon, but everything will have to be adjusted moved. Going to take a couple more days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I had already moved CYRV in FS9 and in doing that noted the change to runway designators in some web sites, but not others. For FS9 I was looking at the CDED elevation data and the outline of the runway area is very obvious in the elevation data. So I also looked at google earth and the toporama data, and confirmed that the FS9 position is about 500m too far north. Fixing it though requires also fixing the columbia river. I guess the river was a notorious bug in FS9, and was included in a BC terrain fix by Holger Sandmann. I think Holger keeps CYRV in the default location. I imagine UT Canada also fixes the river, but I don't have that. I haven't yet looked at porting my scenery to FSX. I wsa kind of thinking of trying to do a merge wtih Holder's files, but that seems more work than it's worth, at least for any other users than myself. I've been kind of hesitent to release the FS9 files, because I had to edit the default flattens and generally it could be hard for users to install unless they have a good understanding of scenery. I was thinking of maybe packaging up the aiport mods at least (I fixed about 6 or 8 along the river from Spokane north to Revelstoke). Attached is the CDED data with the DAFIF runway position overlaid.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168359.jpgscott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is that real world VFR only airports are not surveyed to anywhere near the tolerances of FS and satellite photos.Given the approximate locations of an amazing number of the worlds airports, and the issues Microsoft has trying to obtain data from sources which use consistent reference points - it's amazing so many airports are so close to their correct positions.Plus in the US, owners of small private strips can and do purposely mis-locate their airports in the databases. They can even request their stir be kept off the VFR charts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Plus in the US, owners of small private strips can and do>purposely mis-locate their airports in the databases. They can>even request their stir be kept off the VFR charts.That is true, and the small strips might only be inspected every couple of years, and even then the inspector may not catch a mis-located strip.Maybe if they GPS locate them, which they could not do in past years, that might improve things.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even many 'large' public airports, some with published IAP are off a hundred yards or more.Want to see something scary?Open Google Earth to KASE - Aspen, CO. Have the yellow lines for the transportation layer. See that the FAA survey data for the runway shows it a full runway width (100 ft / 30M) to the right of the runway in the photo.At well surveyed airports the yellow lines match exactly - but an amazing number of airports are 10-100 meters off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Even many 'large' public airports, some with published IAP>are off a hundred yards or more.>>Want to see something scary?>>Open Google Earth to KASE - Aspen, CO. Have the yellow lines>for the transportation layer. See that the FAA survey data for>the runway shows it a full runway width (100 ft / 30M) to the>right of the runway in the photo.>>At well surveyed airports the yellow lines match exactly - but>an amazing number of airports are 10-100 meters off....which brings up an interesting question I have:Is GoogleEarth inaccurate by that many meters?Or is it generally considered to be pretty accurate?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are seeing is a discrepancy between the surveyed aviation databases (FAA/ Jeppsen/ DIFAF) and the satellite photo/ real world.You can look at some of the major airports - and everything is pretty much right/ matches the photo.Then others, like PHKO, even the runway heading is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, would be nice to have nav-data update regularly also for a small amount of money for all airports, variation changes, at least once a year!! :-)ANdy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites