albar965

Will certainly do. Either here or in the changelog of one of the next versions.

Seems their flight plan format has changed. They use a very unusual format, to say the least, instead of readable (and partly self-documenting) text like everybody else. I have no idea when and if I can update this. Alex

This is unique so far for a Microsoft airport. The add-on ("microsoft-airport-katl-atlanta/scenery/Microsoft/Atlanta/KATL-Airport.bgl") has no instruction for deleting the old runways (from "fs-base-genericairports/scenery/0302/APX25200.bgl") or I do not see it. Therefore LNM simply adds the add-on runways without removing the previous ones. The problem is that there is nil official documentation about the BGL format. So, maybe I'm missing some parameters there. No idea.🤷‍♂️ Anyway, I did some spot checks and all other MS airport add-ons are fine. Alex

Then it's DMM "41 24.2028, 2 10.4418" as a new output format in options. I mentioned the input because somebody requested this too.🙃 Alex

Hi Jos, seems Google is not very flexible when inputting coordinates if it wants a space, comma or nothing as a separator. The third one ("41 24.2028, 2 10.4418" - comma and space required?) is new to me but can be added. BTW: Both above seem to work with the in progress 2.8.11 when inputting into LNM and take me to Barcelona. I simply copy and pasted the coordinates including the comma. For output there is no comma added in the display or when using copy coordinates to clipboard. Alex

Hi Andrew, I'll have a look at the VATSIM and JoinFS connections. I'd expect VATISM to be reliable. At least it was here when testing it. No idea about JoinFS. Some had success when using an older version. Alex

If LNM does not activate it automatically you can use the flight plan table context menu. Right click on a leg and select "Activate flight plan leg to ...". Normally LNM is very tolerant and activates the line as soon as you're close to it and have the right heading. Still, sometimes this does not work needing above function. So, no, not a silly question.🙃 Alex

This is a complex calculation considering aircraft descent, wind aloft situation and procedure restrictions like altitude or vertical angle. Exactly this! 🙂 Save it as something like "aircraft - steep descent" for such situations. After flying it, adapt the fuel flow and speed as well to make the profile perfect. Alex

Sorry, this is about the same as setting arbitrary altitude to waypoints. Both (arbitrary angle and altitude) would be an nightmarish effort to implement. 🤷‍♂️ Alex

Sorry, I'm afraid I cannot help with this. Too many variables (i.e. unstable and unreliable software like MSFS or others) at play. I guess the traffic injector does not set the on-ground flag reliably which cause the sometimes visible ground traffic. Alex

I'd rather modify the flight plan to descent through the valleys or simply ignore the descent angle in this case. This is only for VFR situations anyway. If flying IFR you have to descent through the clouds using an approach procedure (maybe of a nearby airport as far as I understand) and then continue VFR below. Maybe some RW pilot can correct me if I'm wrong. Alex

I guess MSFS filters the double runways out when selecting them. Maybe a freeware scenery can help. But I took note and will check this in LNM anyway. Maybe some old airport file is not overridden correctly. Have to see. Alex

Hi Luc, sorry, mixed display of navdata (Navblue and Navigraph) is not allowed. Alex

Is this MSFS and the Microsoft KATL an add-on? Looking at the MSFS data I see this too. KATL has two 10/28 runways. Most likely a bug in the scenery. Other simulators do not show this issue. Displaced thresholds do not cause double indications and are a part of the runway length. Overrun areas are not. Alex

Thank you for the files. I see nothing unusual but MSFS has problems with user defined waypoints anyway (moving all to North, for example). So no wonder there are more issues. Alex