Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums
Sign in to follow this  
northcape

Runway numbers discrepancy

Recommended Posts

XP Sp3 / FS9.1 / FSC 8.6 and same Db / FSUIPC 3.9.9.0 / WideFS 6.7.8.0

EGLC UK2000 demo - the map shows runways 10 and 28 and the Sid/Star dropdown shows 09 and 27.. Why is this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

How old is the FS9.1? How old is the AIRAC cycle? I think that this answers your question.

The FS9.1 data is the world as it was X years before. The current AIRAC cycle and thus, the Sid's and Star's, are the current world.

And the magnetic variation has changed in that time.

Volker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Volker but nothing you said answers any question, not really.

I dont understand why you are mentioning FS9 data. Does FSC get its data from FS or from the installed Airac? The Airac is 11.13.

The data presented on the map differs from the data presented in the Sid/Star box. That suggests to me that the map and the Sid/Star list get their data from different sources.

Is that right? Is that why you mention FS9 data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct - the two sources are different.

The map data is read from FS9 - which has a dataset well over 10 years old.

The SID/STAR data comes from Navigraph which, if you have updated it, is less than two months old.

Due to magnetic variation and the changes in the Earth's magnetic field, runway numbers do change over time. I develop WW2 airfield sceneries and over 50 years, some of the runways are as much as 20 degrees off from what they were listed as when constructed. As a runway number depends on the magnetic heading of the runway ("Runway 09" means that the magnetic heading to approach it is between 086 and 095 degrees) then if, say, the mag heading when FS9's internal data was produced had the runway at 096 degrees (i.e. "Runway 10") and due to MAGVAR changes, the heading is now 095 degrees ("Runway 09") then that would explain the discrepancy you see.

It's a major problem with the internal FS databases, which are not updated, when using them alongside up-to-date sources such as Navigraph, which are.

On 28/11/02, my AFE Flight Guide shows 10/28 at EGLC, while UK NATS current charts show 09/27 with inbound headings of 094M and 274M.

Cheers,

Ian P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as he mentioned the UK2000 EGLC demo, it doesn't seem to be up-to-date. Most developers use actual data or provide their users from time to time with fixes to solve issues like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary doesn't seem to patch UK2000 products very often if at all. It might be interesting to compare the FS9 version of EGLC with the FSX version and see if he updated it for the newer sim's scenery? The original EGLC was compiled for FS2000 and updated for FS2002 and FS9, so would definitely show 10/28 as that was correct for all three sims at the time of publishing.

Ian P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for joining in and clearing up my doubts.

Would I be correct in thinking that a possible solution for the out-of-date FS data would be to make FSC read from the same source as the AFcads - the scenery file. Even if the scenery were not regularly updated (as is suggested about UK2000) at least it would mean that the data would be in synch.

If this were so then I wonder why FSC was not made that way - but of course I may be off the mark there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell you, because then the flight planner would only be of use with default/non-updated sceneries and not those who use newer sceneries and/or add-ons that are updated to current NavData.

Although far from unknown, these sorts of discrepancies are not that common. Far more common would be issues with airways, waypoints and approaches that have changed over the years, thus making FSC unusable by people who want to fly on IVAO/VATSIM or anything else that insists on using current real-world procedures. Even if you have bought an airliner add-on within the last, say, five years then the chances are that the data included with it at time of purchase will be more up-to-date than the default (and concurrent add-ons such as UK2000's older products) scenery... So you go punch runway 10 into your airliner FMS and it responds "RUNWAY NOT PRESENT".

At least if you know there is a discrepancy then you can put in one and if it fails, try the other, which will probably then work?

Edit: What I'd probably do at this point is e-mail Gary at UK2000 and ask his advice. It's possible that he has updated the textures and AFD file, or that there may be a newer version of the scenery in which the error is not present?

Cheers

Ian P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to over-worry about this any more: as long as I can find an active RW and punch it into my FMS I will find a way to get wheels on the ground.

These discrepancies are just another little niggle that I will have to work around.

Thanks for the ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.