I'm very suprised the designator's can't be changed in FSX!!Just for your information, i'm not sure if it's been mention but EGTK is also undergoing modifications. RWY01-19 has been widened and an ILS installed equipt up to CAT 1 ILS. Also 09-27 has been closed. Regards,Jetset843D

I thought I spotted a localiser array when I drove past yesterday. "Ooh, that's new" I said to myself! (Did my night rating at Oxford several years ago :) )

>I thought I spotted a localiser array when I drove past>yesterday. "Ooh, that's new" I said to myself! (Did my night>rating at Oxford several years ago :) )Yeah, i hear work is on schedule for completion next week, so hopefully i'll be shooting a few ILS approaches rather than the NDB procedure!!RegardsJames

I have made a revised BGL for EGCC/Manchester which changes the runway numbers from 06/24 R-L to 05/23 R-L (visually) as required and the new mag.var however this has created more problems than it has solved!1) Although aircraft request clearance from ATC nothing taxis to the runway? Suspect that landing aircraft maybe affected but didn't see any during my short test (tim constraint here!).2) The ATIS is all over the place reporting the new runway numbers and the also the old as well?3) As expected all the taxi signs are now incorrect - that is a scenery file problem I reckon??One thing about using FSXPlanner to do this - although changing the numbers was easy when the new XML file was created for this airport it appears the runway sections were not. However the editor took care of this when each section was highlighted as were the taxiways and start points.(btw, don't do any global changes with your text/xml editor as this may compromise gate numbers!!)This is obviously a 'work in progress' now - but any hints at overcoming the above ould be welcomed ;)Bye bye for now,

How do you define extortionate? - More than you want to pay?

I don't know where in the world you live as you've hidden your profile but in the UK it means...Exorbitant or immoderate.How would you define it?

Runways are not separate individual elements in FS.They are part of an integrated whole which includes both visual scenery and airspace usage.Jim Vile has been doing this type of update for over 2 years and has done 14 airport for FSX already.I won't touch MagVar because changing that in FS will physically move the runway in the sim/ scenery. The MagVar in FSX 4.000. If you change the MagVar - you also need to change the entire FSX world MagVar reference files/ system. This has to stay frozen in time.To change a runway designator in FS you have to:1. Change the runway properties for the primary end of the runway.2. Delete and readd any ILS so they will be correctly associated with the 'new' runway.3. Change all taxiway sign information to the new runway designators.4. Change runway link lines (black in AFCAD) which run between nodes on the runway to the new designator.5. Change all approaches which have the runway designator in the approach code.6. You will probably want this data to be in two separate scenery files - one with approach data, one with editable data such as parking and taxiways.You have to be very careful to make sure the changed runway is not 'separated' from the taxiway system.

Peter,I think your taxiway network has become separated from the runways for you issue #1.Secondly, where are you placing the modified file in your scenery?Jim has found that approach data works best in the Generic or Global folder and editable data in a separate file in the Addon Scenery folder.If find changing the taxiway signs easier to do in a text or XML editor with search and replace rather than individually clicking on each in a graphical tool.FSXPlanner does not add the necessary Delete Airport statements yet to tell FS to ignore items in the default APX file.Sorry to take so long to get back to you - I was on a trip last week.Reggie

Reggie,Thanks for your reply but I won't be touching this in FSX as I don't have the skills.Peter will, I'm sure, be grateful for your help.

latest ver has an exclude built in so you should now be able to remove those old taxi signs. Get latest.

One other thing - you need an XML exclusion rectangle above the airport header to exclude all the old taxiway signs.There is a specific tag in FSX to exclude taxiway signs.

Another thing - be sure to change the runway in the start location properties.

Download from here - http://www.flightsim2004-fanatics.com/uplo...7_RwyChange.zipTwo files - the airport layout and the approachesXML files included.Default airport - no parking changes, no taxiway changes.Let me know if it works correctly.

Hey fantastic! It seems to work fine! I'm using Horizon Simulation's VFR Gen X photo realistic scenery and I can see 23R on the runway and ATC calls it correctly. Thank you so much! I've been using Manchester as my base in the UK and was scratching my head wondering why the CAA approach plates had different RWY number to FSX. And now it's fixed!Cheers,Noel.

Sorry to spoil the party Noel!!OK, the Runway numbers, taxi signs, ATIS and ATC works fine (and I now have aircraft actually taxing to the runway where as before when I did this they just sat at the gate) however there does seem to be a random problem here with a/c using both ends of the runway for takeoffs?And landings is even better - I get them on both runways, from both ends and, mercy me, with other aircraft on the runway!!!!Went back to default (06/24) and the muliple runway effect disappeared (I tested using the same start time and day (Friday@0830) to get the same traffic btw).Mind you, even on default, the ATC arrivals are eratic some using 24R to land (the majority use 24L though) and in each test I get disappearing aircraft even when there are plenty of gates available?Well Reggie it is a start and 'hi-fives' to you for providing the basis for a 'correct' Manchester UK!!Anyone else confirm my findings? ... LATER ...@REGGIE: Looking at your Airport xml file in FSXP the runway numbers are 00 when the raw file shows number="5". If I change the numbers to 05 in FSXP and resave then the it changes to number="05". Could this be a typo or a significant error that screws up ATC???