FLJeff337

First off, thanks to everyone that took the time to respond. I would have replied sooner, but have been working all morning. I think I'll first reach out to the developer and mention my concerns (including offering the evidence that led me to think some of my models may have been used without my knowledge). They seem to have a pretty good reputation, and if in fact some of my models were used (as I suspect they were), I'm hoping it was unintentional and unknown to the team as whole. I think my case is fairly strong for at least two of the buildings (I don't have MSFS or the airport scenery, so I can't examine it in depth). My model has a small triangular sliver missing from part of one of the roofs (a result of a polygon normal face that wasn't flipped, making it look transparent), and this shows up exactly the same (same location, shape and size) in the developer's screenshot of the same building. Also, one of my columns didn't extend all the way to the sloped entrance walk, and you can see this same column floating slightly in the developer screenshots as well). Intricate 3D modeled elements (including railing at stairs and ramps, rooftop equipment, etc.) also looks virtually identical. As I said, I hope this was just the case of one bad actor (either someone unaffiliated with the developer who at some point took my models and posted them to a 3D model warehouse claiming them as his own, or perhaps someone on the developer's team who got lazy, used my models claiming them as his/her own and misled the rest of the team without their knowledge), and that the developer will review my claim and act accordingly. Thanks for all your thoughts. Thanks, Jeff

I have a dilemma, and I'm looking for some advice... Just recently, a developer released a payware version of an airport (for MSFS) that I had modeled several years ago as freeware (and uploaded to Avsim). While I don't yet have MSFS, I still looked at the screenshots that were posted as it is an airport I am very familiar with, and I was curious to see what it looked like when modeled by a dedicated scenery developer. However, as I was looking at the screenshots, I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that some of the models I was looking at in the screenshots may have been taken and used without my knowledge or permission. It's not that there were just mere similarities between my models and the ones I was looking at in the screenshots (which would be expected if two competent modelers modeled the same real-world object), but rather things that look exactly like my models (for instance, detailed 3D guardrails at stairs/ramps that match exactly, rooftop equipment/ antennas, etc.). Furthermore, one of the models in my scenery has several glitches in it that show up in the screenshots of the payware versions as well (matching the size, location, shape that they occur in my model). With that being said, it looks like the developer did do a commendable job with the scenery as a whole, adding many elements that I did not model. Unfortunately, it looks like part of the scenery package may include several models of mine that I did not give permission to use. So I suppose my first question would be how could I find out if the models I think are mine really are mine, and if they are, what should my next action be? Should I first reach out to the developer and ask them about it (in the possibility they were misled about the origin or usage rights of the models I believe are mine - i.e. an honest mistake)? Should I reach out to a website (like fselite) with the evidence supporting my suspicions (such as comparison screenshots, and screenshots of my process, including 2D and 3D CAD models)? Is there someone here who could analyze the models themselves to see if they match (remember that I don't have MSFS, so I've only seen the product via their screenshots)? When I uploaded my scenery to Avsim, I accepted that someone may take it and upload it to a shady website elsewhere (perhaps even for a fee), however it feels different when you see what you think is your work in a scenery by a known developer. I wouldn't be voicing this concern of mine if I thought there was a chance I could be mistaken, but when the models look identical (including modeling errors), felt that I had to bring it up instead of being reluctant to come forward in the slight chance I might be mistaken. Looking for some advice... Thanks, Jeff

Actually, I think we will get one... If you watch Episode 4 of the feature discovery series (Cockpits), you can see what looks to be a steam gauge 172 on the monitor on the left hand side of the screen (in the background, behind Martial Bossard)... The person flying switches between external and cockpit views, and it definitely looks like a 172R, -S or -SP (although I suppose it could also be a 182, but since the screen in the background is so blurry, it's impossible to tell if there's a prop control knob or not). Hope I'm right....

I don't have Nuvecta Landscapes FL, but my impression of MSE FL v3 is generally positive, in part because it avoids the pitfalls of the last FL photoscenery I had (RealWorld FL), namely coastlines with no transition between shallow areas and the ocean/gulf, absolutely HORRIBLE winter scenery (where, for whatever reason, they tried to make it look like heavy snow had fallen on the sunshine state), an error where there were two duplicate scenery tiles near Ocala (one in the correct location, and another just north of it -- I sent them an email about the issue, but never got a response back), and no uniformity in color across the state (i.e. you might see a sharp transition from green summer textures to brown scenery more typical of winter). In contrast to RWFL, MSE's Florida scenery is fairly decent. Coastlines are extremely well done, and it seems more care has been taken with regards to color correction across the state (the state is more uniformly green). There are a couple of things I don't like, though. For starters, the cites seem overexposed and look like the morning after a snow storm (I actually changed seasons in sim since I was afraid they too added unrealistic winter textures, but it turned out that was just how the textures looked all the time). The resolution of the scenery doesn't seem as sharp as RWFL either, and it seems to be a but more shimmery (at least in FSX, using DX10 fixer). Finally, while I appreciate the effort made to harmonize colors across the whole state for a consistent look, I think the the scenery (especially the green vegetation) is a little too bright and vibrant. In this regard, RWFL seemed much better (provided you weren't flying over a part of the state that was either winter brown, or fake winter). Just my $0.02.... - Jeff

You may also want to look at the handbooks you can download (for free) from the FAA. They may not be as entertaining as some of the courses you can purchase (i.e. Sportys, King Schools, etc.), but they are a wealth of knowledge and a good reference. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ The two books I read through when getting my PPL were the "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge" and the "Airplane Flying Handbook"

Jay, A couple days after my initial flight, I flew it again (with the same flight plan and weather as before) in order to further investigate Vox's behavior/logic. This time, after receiving my initial approach instructions, instead of immediately complying with them (by turning to the assigned heading and starting my descent), I first requested the alternate approach (while maintaining my heading and altitude). After being told to report CUTON (the IF), I added FORNI into my GTN flight plan (after OVIDO), and continued to fly as filed (starting my descent at my own discretion). I reached FORNI at the published altitude, and continued to fly the RNAV(GPS) Z Rwy 18 approach without problem. My initial question had more to do with Vox's "hands-off" approach once they approved my request for a different approach. Since I was expecting amended instructions given the new approach (either assignment of different heading, or perhaps a "proceed direct to..." instruction), I wasn't sure if I was still supposed to comply with their initial heading/altitude assignment, or if I was free to navigate to the start of the approach as I saw fit (including starting my descent at the appropriate time). Having flown this flight a second time, I now see that Vox expects you to proceed to the start of the approach on your own, and won't issue amended instructions despite approval of a different approach from the one initially assigned. While I wish Vox didn't cut you completely loose once they approved your request (I'd have to think that RW ATC would issue amended instructions so you don't conflict with other traffic), I do prefer a hands-off approach over one in which ATC is overbearing with excessive, out-of-the-way vectoring and descent clearances that start way too late (ala default ATC). Regarding the two different RNAV Rwy18 approaches ("Y" and "Z"), I assumed I would be flying the RNAV Y approach (since my last waypoint before KTIX was OVIDO, which is a transition of the "Y" approach). However, when Vox told me to report CUTON, I realized they had assigned me the "Z" approach instead (even though it wasn't explicitly identified by Vox as such), and that's when I added FORNI (the IAF for the "Z" approach) into my GPS (just after OVIDO), and loaded the "Z" approach into the GTN (which is Flight1's GTN 650, with AIRAC 1803). To answer your question about FSX/P3D recognizing multiple GPS approaches for the same runway, I added both the "Y" and "Z" approaches to KTIX using ADE (including the transitions), and it does appear that default ATC recognizes both (they're listed as "RNAV Z" and "RNAV Y" under the available options when you request a different approach ). I can only assume that Vox would recognize both approaches as well (assuming it reads and utilizes the data included in the sim, including airport data), although it doesn't appear you can request one over the other using Vox. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Jeff

On a recent flight from KTPF-KTIX, and while on V533 just slightly west-northwest of KMCO, ATC gave me instruction to turn right to 080, descend and maintain 3000' and expect vectors for the RNAV Rwy09 approach. The winds were out of the south, so after I made my turn and started my descent, I requested the RNAV Rwy18 approach instead. ATC then approved it, and told me to report CUTON (the intermediate fix); no additional vectors or altitudes were assigned. My question is, was I supposed to fly direct to FORNI (the initial fix) or to CUTON (an intermediate fix)? In either case, the direct route would have me flying at 3000' just a couple miles north of KMCO, off the approach end of runways 17L/R and 18L/R (which, IRL, wouldn't seem too smart). Furthermore, my filed routing had me taking V533 to the ORL VOR, then outbound to OVIDO (which is a transition for KTIX's RNAV Y Rwy18 approach). After receiving my initial instructions from ATC, should I have requested the alternate approach, disregarded ATC's vectors/descent instructions, and continued flying as I had filed, descending at my own discretion? Thanks, Jeff

A week or so ago, I went ahead and purchased ProATC-X (after having first tried out the trial versions of PF3 and VoxATC) and my feelings towards PATCX are mixed (although when I purchased the program, I knew going in that I might be disappointed). I only fly small GA, and while on one hand I heard that PATCX was really intended for larger aircraft (i.e. turbojets/props), I also heard from people who were happy with it when flying GA. After having a couple flights under my belt, I'm on one hand impressed by the potential I see in the program (which is probably already realized by those who fly higher performance aircraft), while on the other, disappointed in the lack of support for smaller GA flights. What I Like: - Clean interface and easy to use menu - Use of RW navdata - Voices seem better than PF3 or VoXATC, and sound as good (in their own way) as the default voices (and I am aware that the demo version of PF3 comes with a limited number of voices, and that the ones included in the demo aren't necessarily the best, thus making my comparison to PATCX admittedly a bit unfair) What I Don't Like: - At untowered airports, PATCX creates fictional Clearance, Ground and Tower controllers (which I didn't know it did until after I bought the program, encountered the issue and then googled it); apparently these are required for PATCX to work, and at airports without them, PATCX will create fictional placeholders to ensure those requirements are met. - Some frequencies don't agree with RW frequencies; for instance: 124.82 for Orlando approach (should've been 119.40 for my location/altitude), 119.77 for Ft Myers Approach (should've been 126.80 when approaching from north-northwest as I was) - Can't seem to request RNAV approach or approach transition (no options under "Request Alternate Approach Procedure" for the several flights I flew); although I was able to request direct to the IF for an RNAV approach on one flight (though not the transition waypoint, nor even the IAF) - Vectoring seems excessive at times - Inability to request taxi to GA parking - Required to choose airline name For those reasons, I'll pass on using PATCX for now, which is frustrating since I think it could be a really impressive program (for my kind of flying) if they were only able to expand it to better handle GA (including non-towered airports, GPS/RNAV approaches/transitions (where appropriate) and shorter routes). I'm sure if I flew longer routes in more capable aircraft between larger airports I'd come away more impressed with the program. I'm currently gravitating towards using either default ATC or VoxATC (I wasn't too impressed with PF3), and my reasons for all three can be found here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/544228-proatc-x-and-ga/. I'm also considering RC4 (despite it's age) given that many people have commented on how it's a fairly rock-solid program, but was curious how it compares to default or VoxATC. I'm less concerned with SIDs/STARs, VFR capability and natural-sounding voices, and more concerned with correct frequencies (which default ATC seems to have nailed), RNAV approaches/transitions (are they recognized, and if so, do you have to request them as you do with default, or are they assigned by ATC), IFR operations at untowered airports (something not realistically possible with PATCX) and sensible vectoring (where I'm not vectored far from the airport as if I were a 7X7 or Airbus when I'm only flying a Cessna). Thanks, Jeff

John, I managed to find a couple more videos of people flying relatively short legs in small GA using PATCX (links included below), and that, along with a thread on A2A's forum about using PATCX for GA, has convinced me to take the plunge and give it a try. A2A Bonanza, Blackpool to Carlyle (EGNH-EGNC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db3iA2iGob0 RA Legacy, Danbury to Bridgeport (KDXR-CDBR): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K1sowQltYA Carenado Mooney, Gustavus to Juneau Intl (PAGS-PAJN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3-EBPGPqEs I appreciate your thoughts, and I'll probably post my thoughts once I get a couple flights under my belt. Thanks, Jeff

All: For the past week or so, I've been comparing FSX's default ATC against the demo versions of PF3 and VoxATC (specifically with an eye to light GA IFR flights). I've found things I like and dislike with all three options (see below), and wanted to know how ProATC-X stacks up in comparison. Unfortunately no demo version is offered, and nearly all Youtube videos where PATC is used are of turbojet / turboprop flights). First a rundown of my likes/dislikes from the programs I've already tried (based on three IFR flights: untowered-towered, towered-towered and towered-untowered). Default ATC Like: - Frequencies appear correct (even for different approach / departure sectors based on bearing from airport and altitude) - Ability to request specific approach and transition (i.e. RNAV 22, via DADES transition) - GUI: menu w/ options, comm history Don't Like: - For shorter flights, departure controller likes to issue approach instructions for the destination airport (wouldn't approach instructions be assigned by the approach controller covering the destination airport?) VoxATC Like: - Handoff sequence seems correct (from departure to center to approach to tower) - Recognizes specific approach requests (i.e. RNAV Rwy 03) which can be requested; also recognizes approach waypoints (i.e. "report GUNNR," "report ARSHW," "report FLYEN") - Crossing runways while taxiing requires clearance to proceed - Menu with options and comm history (although not as clean-looking as default) Don't Like: - Fictional clearance name (i.e. "Utopia Radio") - Directed to request airport conditions info from unicom (and not AWOS) at untowered airports PF3 Like: - Handoff sequence seems correct (from departure to center to approach to tower) Don't Like: - Fictional approach/departure frequencies - No acknowledgement of RNAV approaches (seems to be vectors to runway only) - IFR cancelled abruptly when on IFR flight plan to untowered airport; told to squawk 1200 and contact advisory on fictional fequency (2 trials of same flight - KLEE-KTPF) - No menu (have to memorize hotkeys or refer to cheatsheet) or comm history ("say again" not always effective, as new trasmissions make it impossible to hear transmission before that) Now for a couple questions about PATCX: 1. RNAV Approaches - Will PATC assign RNAV approaches with transitions as appropriate (or can they be requested)? If so, where would the approaches be read from (in-sim airport data, 3rd party nav data, etc.)? 2. RNAV Approaches - If RNAV approaches are recognized and assigned, is there a way to exclude them as options in case I were to fly a plane without a GPS, or instead request an alternate approach using ground-based navaids (i.e. ILS, VOR, NBD)? 3. SID/STARs - will procedures not applicable to aircraft type be excluded? For example, if I'm flying a piston aircraft will PATCX know not to assigned a SID/STAR that's reserved for TURBOJETS/ TURBOPROPS ONLY"? 4. What AIRAC cycle does PATC currently ship with? The current manual (dating from Nov 2014) says it comes with Navigraph data, but that it is six months out of date. For that matter, does either Navigraph or NavDataPro offer older AIRAC cycles (since my F1GTN is current only as of cycle 1803) 5. What's the minimum flight distance for PATC to work? I read several places that PATC doesn't support short trip distances. What's considered a short trip? Believe me when I say I've read just about every ATC thread out there (both on Avsim and elsewhere), and the last think I want want to do is create another, but since I fly mostly light GA, I thought it'd be worthwhile (especially since some of the threads I've read are several years old by now). Thanks, Jeff

Tony, For what it's worth, if you go with the F1 GTN, you can update the database to 1803 as well (although this isn't an official update/fix from Flight1). You'd have to download v6.5 of the Garmin trainer, backup the old navdata files (AIRAC 1611) and then copy/overwrite the old files with the newer files from the v6.5 trainer (remembering to backup your old files first).

True, but since the current publications are already available for no charge, there should be no reason that out-of-date publications shouldn't be made available on a as-requested basis; after all, it's not as if I was asking for old charts in order to avoid paying for current data (as there is is no charge for current data when obtained from the FAA), and I even explained the reason for my request in my email to them (stressing that it was not for real-world usage, but rather simulation/historical purposes). With that being said, even I figured that filing a FOIA request would be taking things a wee bit too far... lol

After looking at Jeppesen's website, it looks like the same restriction applies... On Jeppesen's PilotPak for the GTN page, they link to Garmin's "how to find System ID on your unit," which says: "The unit ID (or system ID) is an internal number which is required for database updates and downloads. (These updates can be done on our flyGarmin website.) Each aviation database update is downloaded specific to the system ID of each GPS, therefore if the system ID is incorrect on our website, your aviation databases will not update correctly." With that being said, I haven't contacted them to inquire about it, but that's due more to frustration over having wasted so much time and energy already dealing with the FAA and Garmin trying to either get older charts or newer navdata, and not wanting to waste any more time on the matter. I do appreciate the suggestion, and maybe someone will be willing to contact them and see if it's possible...

David, I looked at Jeppesen's website, and it looks like the same restriction applies... From their website: "The unit ID (or system ID) is an internal number which is required for database updates and downloads. (These updates can be done on our flyGarmin website.) Each aviation database update is downloaded specific to the system ID of each GPS, therefore if the system ID is incorrect on our website, your aviation databases will not update correctly." I appreciate the suggestion, though....

What's even more frustrating is, before trying to get updated navdata from Garmin, I first tried to get out-of-date charts (low altiture en-route and terminal procedures) from the FAA, and found that impossible to to. As the FAA offers current digital products for free on their website (including VFR sectionals, terminal area charts, IFR charts, airport facilty directory, IFR terminal procedures, etc.), I naively assumed that out-of-date products would be archived when they expired, and that it'd be a realtively easy matter for the FAA to retrieve them (even if a small fee was involved). I was hoping to at least get charts/procedures that were in effect at the time of AIRAC 1611 (which is the databse used in the latest GTN trainer), so they would agree with each other. I couldn't have been more wrong! The FAA was unable to perform the relatively (seemingly) simple task of retrieving files from less than 2 years prior, and they even directed me to to contact either the National Archives or Library of Congress (and no, they weren't able to help me either)! With that said, I'm sure if I (or any pilot) was accused of an infraction that occurred when an older cycle was in effect, that the FAA would have absolutely no problem procuring older charts/info if it could be used to prove their case against me or any other pilot. Anyways.... Just wanted to rant....

I'm assuming you're using the RXP GTN, and while I can't speak for that product (only Flight1's GTN product), I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue affects both products (RXP and F1). What I found out in trying to upgrade the F1 GTN database is that Garmin requires you own a real GTN unit before you can even download an updated database. Both the unit serial number and N-number of the aircraft it's installed in are required information. In other words, even if you're ready and willing to spend the money on RW navdata, there's no way to obtain it without first owning a real GTN unit. I found this out myself when I purchased current Garmin navdata for the US, thinking I could download the database, and then update the database that's included with the GTN trainer software that's used with the F1 GTN. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to even download the database I purchased without a real serial number and N-number (although fortunately, Garmin was gracious and refunded me, which I give them credit for). I think the database used by the real GTN units is the same data used by Garmin's trainer, since I've read of real-world GTN owners using the navdata from their RW subscription in their simulated GTN. It's also been recommended that, if you know someone with a real-world GTN, that you might be able to use their second-hand navdata in your sim GTN. Unfortunately, I don't own a plane with a GTN unit, and the closest thing I have to a friend matching that criteria is the FBO I've rented from (and as I haven't flown for real for about 6 months, I'd feel uncomfortable asking them about it). While I can't speak for RXP, I do wish Flight1 had included a disclaimer that the database with their product was not updateable. If someone knows how to upgrade the navdata in the RXP unit, I'd like to hear about it, since I might switch to the RXP product if upgradable navdata was a feature. Hope I was able to help.... Jeff

Has anyone successfully purchased a navdata update from Garmin without owning a real Garmin unit? I wanted to purchase the "GTN United States Garmin Navigation Database," but it appears you first have to provide the serial number of a real unit, as well as aircraft information before you can purchase and install the database. I've heard that the GTN trainer can be updated with current nav files (mostly from RW pilots using their own Garmin data), but the problem I have is being able to purchase and download the navdata update to begin with. Compounding the problem I'm having is that I've been unable to obtain (even from the FAA itself) the dTPP for Florida from October 2016 (so that my FSX GTN data and available published procedures match), and now I find myself in the position of not having the old (from 2016) dTPP to agree with the sim GTN navdata, nor can I update my navdata to match the current charts (which I do have). So back to my original question, have any simmers been able to purchase a GTN navdata update from Garmin, without actually owning a real Garmin unit? Thanks in advance, Jeff

All: As a user of Flight 1's GTN650 (whose AIRAC is currently locked in at AIRAC 1611, at least until Garmin updates the database in their GTN trainer, which could be a while, if ever), I was wondering if anyone had a PDF copy of the FAA's Digital Terminal Procedures Publication (d-TPP), volume SE-3 (covering Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) that was in effect at the time AIRAC 1611 went into effect (on October 13, 2016)? I contacted the FAA directly thinking it'd be an easy matter for them to retrieve a out-of-date,digital publication (under the assumption that they would simply move old publications into an different folder for archival purposes), but it turns out they weren't able to help me (other than suggesting I contact the National Archives or Library of Congress, which I did, although they weren't able to help either). I even contacted AirNav to see if maybe they had a copy of this, but they didn't. So are there any GTN users who also have a copy of d-TPP vol.SE-3 from October 2016 (so that they have published procedures that agree with the ones loaded into the F1 GTN)? (For anyone who is unaware, the dTTP is a free PDF that's made available on the FAA's website. The problem is, only the current publication is available, and I'm trying to get one from several years ago. Current publications can be found here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dtpp/). Thanks, Jeff

Looks like Aerosoft's Robin DR400.... https://www.aerosoft.com/en/fsxp3d/prepar3d/aircraft/1765/robin-dr400-x

When I was studying for my PPL exam (written, oral and flight) I kept things simple and instead of going with a formal test prep course (i.e. King or Sportys), I just used the following books to study for them (these are in addition to the FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and Airplane Flying Handbook that I read throughout my instruction): - Gleim Private Pilot FAA Knowledge Test (book that included all known FAA questions at the time) - Private Oral Exam Guide (by Michael D Hayes) - Private Pilot For Airplane Single-Engine Land and Sea Practical Test Standards In addition, I got myself a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook, which covered the same material as the FAA's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, but was less dry, and seemed to delve a little deeper into the subject matter than the official FAA handbook. If you're a good book-learner, this should be about all you need (assuming you're talking about a private pilot license), although I have heard both the King and Sportys courses are good as well. Hope this helps, Jeff

Is it possible you're using addon aiports/sceneries that have, as part of the scenery itself, their own VORs (with an incorrect magvar value) that take precedence over the corrected default VORs? I had this problem myself not too long ago, and finally realized an addon airport I was using (Marathon, FL - KMLB) had it's own VOR with the old value; by disabling the airport scenery, I found the default MLB VOR (updated with Hervé's utility) to be correct. I later edited the airport using Airport Design Editor to update the VOR with the correct magvar. See this thread describing my problem (and solution).... https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/491924-vor-radial-not-aligned-to-real-world/ Hope this helps, Jeff

I figured out where the discrepancy came from.... While the default VORs had been updated to their current magvar values (thanks to Hervé's navaid update), a number of my add-on airports had their own MLB VORs as part of the scenery, and the magvar values for these are the older 2W value (which was discovered when I opened the airports in Airport Design Editor, went to the Navaids list, and examined the MLB VOR included with the scenery). By either disabling the add-on airport, or by editing the magvar value for the VOR in ADE to the correct, current value, I was able to resolve the problem I was having. Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I thought this discovery may be helpful for others who may be having the same problem I was, but not able to figure out why. - Jeff

All: I'm having a problem with a VOR whereby the radials depicted on the chart don't match the current sectional. Before describing my problem, I want to list the current navaid updates in use, as well as the sectional being referenced - Hervé Sors - World Navaids Package v. 7.43 (AIRAC Cycle 1607 - effective June 23, 2016) - Hervé Sors - Updated Magvar data (current as of 2016) - Current Jacksonville sectional (97th ed., valid from Feb 4, 2016 thru Aug 18,2016) The VOR in question (and the only one I've specifically looked into) is the Melbourne, FL VOR (MLB) at Melbourne Intl (KMLB); the variation for this VOR (in real life) is current as of 2015 (7oW), and matches the variation of this area (also 7oW). I realized something was wrong when, after selecting and flying the 270 radial outbound (as to stay clear of Orlando's class B airspace), my course didn't match what was shown on the sectional. In fact, my actual course was what would be expected if I flew the 275o radial (taking me over Cypress Lake, and just into KMCO's Class B airspace, which I wanted to avoid); FSX's flight analysis confirms a heading of 275o when flying the FSX MLB 270o radial. I double checked this by figuring out my expected no-wind heading from MLB to my desired waypoint (which would have me overflying the lake just to the southwest of Cypress Lake), and found that, with a course of 263o, plus 7 degrees to account for the magnetic variation, my no-wind heading should be 270o, which agrees with the 270o radial of the MLB VOR (which remember, is current as far as variation goes). I even used Hervé's BGL Navaids Direct Editor to inspect the MLB VOR, and saw all information (including Lat/Long and variation) was correct and current. So my question is, what's causing this discrepancy (even with up to date navaid/mag var info), and is there any way to adjust it. I'm including two screenshots that illustrate this problem. The first one (excerpted from Skyvector) shows the route from MLB to my desired location, and confirms that the 270o radial is the correct radial to fly.The second one shows FSX's flight analysis with two routes shown: one flying a heading of 270o (which is correct), and another showing the route when following the FSX MLB 270o radial (which is incorrect, and would be closer to the 275o radial in real life). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Jeff

Jason, I don't have P3D so I don't know if it's compatible or not. However, since it's a relatively simple airport that was developed using fairly ubiquitous scenery design tools (GMax, ModelConverterX, SBuilderX, ADE, etc.), I don't see why there should be any problems using it in P3D. Hornit: I don't have FS9 on my system (and haven't for a long time), so it's unlikely that a dedicated FS9 version will ever be made. However, if loading an FSX scenery into FS9 doesn't work (I've only loaded FS9 sceneries into FSX, and not vice versa), you may want to take a look at using ModelConverterX and Airport Design Editor (both freeware utilities - links below) to help make it compatible. ModelConverterX should allow you to convert FSX .bgl files into FS9 .bgl files (and all the buildings in this scenery are individual .bgl files). If that's not enough, you may need ADE to compilie the airport it with the converted .bgl files. As far as the photoscenery is concerned, I have no idea how it will show (if at all) in FS9. ModelConverterX: http://www.scenerydesign.org/modelconverterx/ ADE: http://www.scruffyduck.org/ Hope this helps, - Jeff

Thanks! This project was a real labor of love for me... I started it back in December 2012 (right when I began flying lessons), put it aside for couple of years, and finally got around to finishing it up in these last couple of months. I'm actually surprised there haven't been any renditions of this airport to date (not even by Art Poole, who has done numerous airports around FL) , but I suppose that's a good thing, since otherwise I may have never attempted this project to begin with. As as aside, here's a circuit of TPF I did a couple of years ago (and uploaded by my instructor to youtube). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNRBJpU9S9g - Jeff