Question regarding MakeRunways

[FlyingAxx]

Hi,

 

I'd build an additional airport (missed at FSXA) with Jon Masterson's Airport Design Editor years ago and now looked closer into the file R4.CSV produced by MakeRunways, due to PMDG's T7 making use of it obviously. It seems to compare the AIRAC Nav-Data with those within the simulator. The result can be seen in the file ARPT_RWY.dat (for those been interested)

 

For the same runway 05/23 of this airport one entry for it's width is '0' (Zero) and the second filled correctly with 43M. However, I found several cases with the same issue and not resticted to add-ons or other self-produced airports. I'm quite sure that it is a bug in MakeRunways and it even might have no influence, neither to RC4 nor to PMDG's bird. At least the latter didn't produce any trouble when I tested it with this specific airport (the other required files had been amended properly, of course).

 

This posting isn't a complain, just a head up and I'm not even sure whether it's worth doing something about it. MakeRunways is a great tool as it is!

[Pete Dowson]

I'd build an additional airport (missed at FSXA) with Jon Masterson's Airport Design Editor years ago and now looked closer into the file R4.CSV produced by MakeRunways, due to PMDG's T7 making use of it obviously. It seems to compare the AIRAC Nav-Data with those within the simulator. The result can be seen in the file ARPT_RWY.dat (for those been interested)

 

Sorry, I don't understand much of that. Are you saying PMDG use MakeRunways? That's news to me! What "compares AIRAC with the sim data? What is "ARPT_RWY.dat"?

 

 

 

For the same runway 05/23 of this airport one entry for it's width is '0' (Zero) and the second filled correctly with 43M. However, I found several cases with the same issue and not resticted to add-ons or other self-produced airports. I'm quite sure that it is a bug in MakeRunways

 

From inspection, I can see no way possible for it to provide a runway width of zero unless that is what the field shows in the BGL. Can you give me an examples to check, please, one of the default airports you say is affected?

 

Did you check the entries in the log file, Runways.txt? Why not at least paste the relevant small section out of that you show me?

 

This posting isn't a complain, just a head up and I'm not even sure whether it's worth doing something about it. MakeRunways is a great tool as it is!

 

It is serious -- there are programs which use that information! If you believe it is a bug I would need to analyse the causing BGL to find out whay it is happening. MakeRunways is now about 15 years old and this is the first such report, which is odd.

 

Please, information needed.

 

Pete

[FlyingAxx]

Sorry, I don't understand much of that. Are you saying PMDG use MakeRunways? That's news to me! What "compares AIRAC with the sim data? What is "ARPT_RWY.dat"?

No, I didn't say that PMDG uses MakeRunways. However, for their B777 they are delivering a file called R4.CSV containing obviously data of the default airports in the same format as it is produced by your program. They have a build in function producing a file comparing the build-in airport data of FSX with those AIRAC related ones coming from Navigraph, Aerosoft, or probably other sources. I think a reason could be to avoid automated landings somewhere in the wild in cases where MS implemented wrong locations. PMDG's documentation refers to probably wrong calls of the runway numbers by RAAS (an integrated Third Party tool) and asks the users to download and run MakeRunways if it happens in order to update the file runways.csv. Even if the last message is correct, RAAS asks for R4.CSV if it is shifted to a different place as I usually did after each run of MakeRunways and it doesn't care for any other missing file. I'm just wondering... :???:

 

However, the file ARP_RWY.dat will be rebuild in cases where new or changed data are detected, it uses a subset of  about 13000 airports and its structure looks like that:

AP;LOWI;INNSBRUCK               ;47.260278;11.343889;1906
RW;08;47.258944;11.332261;1906;10970;067;079;6562
RW;26;47.261619;11.357017;1894;11110;255;259;6562
FS;08;47.258797;11.330925;1900;10970;080;080;6551
FS;26;47.261620;11.357075;1900;11110;260;260;6551

From inspection, I can see no way possible for it to provide a runway width of zero unless that is what the field shows in the BGL. Can you give me an examples to check, please, one of the default airports you say is affected?

 

Did you check the entries in the log file, Runways.txt? Why not at least paste the relevant small section out of that you show me?

 

Here a a few examples, all are default airports except ZGSD, a missing one I have build with Jon Masterson's ADE. In order to make the data better comparable I added spaces to archive for each row an equal width. Furthermore I added the correct runway dimensions (regarding ZGSD it matches the charts).

                                                        VVV                                    Runway dimensions in Feet (rounded, according to ADE)
ZGHA,0180,28.198427,113.220970,217,180.000, 8553,110.30, 48,-3.000,28.186712,113.221664,0       8553 x 148
ZGHA,0360,28.174997,113.222359,217,360.000, 8553,109.90, 48,-3.000,28.186712,113.221664,0       8553 x 148
ZGKL,0010,25.204077,110.038788,571,  6.980, 9214,110.10,148,-2.000,25.216665,110.040001,0       9214 x 148 - okay
ZGKL,0190,25.229254,110.041214,571,186.980, 9214,108.50, 48,-2.000,25.216665,110.040001,0       9214 x 148
ZGNN,0050,22.606976,108.173378,420, 45.880, 8871,110.90,  0, 0.000,22.615446,108.182838,0       8871 x 148
ZGNN,0230,22.623917,108.192299,420,225.880, 8871,     0,148, 0.000,22.615446,108.182838,0       8871 x 148 - okay
ZGSD,0050,21.994093,113.362526, 23, 46.700,13123,110.10,  0,-1.900,22.006865,113.376205,0      13123 x 148
ZGSD,0230,22.019636,113.389885, 23,226.700,13123,108.30, 48,-1.900,22.006865,113.376205,0      13123 x 148

I didn't realise before that obviously something is going wrong with lots of other airports, too (I just watched out for Zeros).

 

Your question regarding Runways.txt: Yes the it first detects the correct width and concludes with wrong data. Below are two examples:

Airport ZGHA :N28:11:11.9700  E113:13:17.9998  217ft
          Country Name="China"
          State Name=""
          City Name="Changsha"
          Airport Name="Huanghua"
          in file: Scenery\0902\scenery\APX78210.bgl

          Runway 18 /36  centre: N28:11:12.1643  E113:13:17.9998  217ft
              Start 18 : N28:11:52.9488  E113:13:15.5795  217ft Hdg: 177.0T, Length 8553ft 
              Computed start 18 : Lat 28.198427 Long 113.220968
              Start 36 : N28:10:31.3799  E113:13:20.4205  217ft Hdg: 357.0T, Length 8553ft 
              Computed start 36 : Lat 28.174997 Long 113.222361
              Hdg: 177.000 true (MagVar -3.000), Concrete, 8553 x 148 ft
              Primary ILS ID = IWW
              Primary ILS: IWW  110.30 Hdg: 177.0 , Flags: GS BC "ILS 18"
              Secondary ILS ID = ISV
              Secondary ILS: ISV  109.90 Hdg: 357.0 , Flags: GS BC "ILS 36"
              *** Runway *** ZGHA0180 Lat 28.198427 Long 113.220970 Alt 217 Hdg 180 Len 8553 Wid 48 ILS 110.30, Flags: GS BC
              *** Runway *** ZGHA0360 Lat 28.174997 Long 113.222359 Alt 217 Hdg 360 Len 8553 Wid 48 ILS 109.90, Flags: GS BC

=============================================================================
Airport ZGNN :N22:36:59.9763  E108:10:59.9998  420ft
          Country Name="China"
          State Name=""
          City Name="Nanning"
          Airport Name="Wuxu"
          in file: Scenery\0902\scenery\APX76230.bgl

          Runway 5 /23  centre: N22:36:55.6030  E108:10:58.2198  420ft
              Start 5 : N22:36:26.1242  E108:10:25.3350  420ft Hdg: 45.9T, Length 8871ft 
              Computed start 5 : Lat 22.606976 Long 108.173377
              Start 23 : N22:37:25.1143  E108:11:31.1047  420ft Hdg: 225.9T, Length 8871ft 
              Computed start 23 : Lat 22.623917 Long 108.192300
              Hdg: 45.880 true (MagVar 0.000), Concrete, 8871 x 148 ft
              Primary ILS ID = IUY
              Primary ILS: IUY  110.90 Hdg: 45.9 , Flags: GS DME BC "ILS/DME 05"
              *** Runway *** ZGNN0050 Lat 22.606976 Long 108.173378 Alt 420 Hdg 46 Len 8871 Wid 0 ILS 110.90, Flags: GS DME BC
              *** Runway *** ZGNN0230 Lat 22.623917 Long 108.192299 Alt 420 Hdg 226 Len 8871 Wid 148

It is serious -- there are programs which use that information! If you believe it is a bug I would need to analyse the causing BGL to find out whay it is happening. MakeRunways is now about 15 years old and this is the first such report, which is odd.

 

Please, information needed.

Actually, I never used this specific datum and just tumbled over the inconsistency by chance because I tried to analyse what PMDG is doing there and therefore I looked closer into the file they reported to be missing. I'm running a little tool building most of the PMDG airport related files in alphabetic order just to add airports being able to carry at least their Jetstream 4100 but being missed in the data provided by Navigraph.

 

Hope it was useful.

[Pete Dowson]

No, I didn't say that PMDG uses MakeRunways. However, for their B777 they are delivering a file called R4.CSV containing obviously data of the default airports in the same format as it is produced by your program..

 

Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like they DO use it then. Who keeps it up to date for new scenery add-ons?

 

 

Here a a few examples, all are default airports except ZGSD, a missing one I have build with Jon Masterson's ADE. In order to make the data better comparable I added spaces to archive for each row an equal width. Furthermore I added the correct runway dimensions (regarding ZGSD it matches the charts).

 

Can you please point out what you think is wrong? Do you just mean this entry:

 

*** Runway *** ZGNN0050 Lat 22.606976 Long 108.173378 Alt 420 Hdg 46 Len 8871 Wid 0 ILS 110.90, Flags: GS DME BC

 

I'll look at the BGL data for that one, which I suspect is wrong or at least non-standard.You said "two examples". Where is the other?

 

Note that the runway width field is the same data field for all relevant enties in the log.

 

BTW I just ran the latest MakeRunways and these are the entries I get for those two default airports:

 

              *** Runway *** ZGHA0180 Lat 28.198427 Long 113.220970 Alt 217 Hdg 180 Len 8553 Wid 148 ILS 110.30, Flags: GS BC

              *** Runway *** ZGHA0360 Lat 28.174997 Long 113.222359 Alt 217 Hdg 360 Len 8553 Wid 148 ILS 109.90, Flags: GS BC

 

and

 

              *** Runway *** ZGNN0050 Lat 22.606976 Long 108.173378 Alt 420 Hdg 46 Len 8871 Wid 148 ILS 110.90, Flags: GS DME BC

              *** Runway *** ZGNN0230 Lat 22.623917 Long 108.192299 Alt 420 Hdg 226 Len 8871 Wid 148

 

So, it isn't reproducible here, sadly. I can only conclude that either you are using an old version of MakeRunways (though I don't recall any error which could do this), or there's something corrupting data someplace. Maybe hardware memory or disk file problems or similar?

 

Pete

[herve_sors]

>>So, it isn't reproducible here, sadly<<

 

Neither here on my system..and it can hardly by a problem reading the BGL entry since runway width is a single entry (offset 0x24 of the fixed part) that applies to both opposite runway (that's make sense) and cannot be x for one and y for the other

[FlyingAxx]

Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like they DO use it then. Who keeps it up to date for new scenery add-ons?

Pete, the scenery update is a matter for each single user. If you don't do it it might happen that the installed default airport is even miles away from the real one and sometimes it doesn't even exist in FSX/P3D.

 

Summarising the answers (I didn't get) from their Forum and when asking for support, the interest of the users to do anything in order to improve the datasets is limited and PMDG doesn't really care about the correctness of the content being delivered from Third Parties like Navigraph or Aerosoft. I started to analyse and to extend the data just for my own purpose. I'm not really keen to have all the time and each couple of weeks the latest AIRAC conform data. I rather want to have the stuff more or less conform with the installed virtual sim-reality. When finding remarkable discrepancies I tend to fire up ADE in order to correct such airports (a couple of hundred times up to now). In some cases there is the need to add data for missing runways and/or airports to my PMDG navigation data and I'm doing it since FS9 and their old B737 and B747.

 

Regarding your suspicion I can't judge. The topic is pretty new and PMDG is using the same data and file structure now for several years (probably from the beginning?), at least since FS9 and only for their latest FSX/P3D product, the B777, they took care for the automated runway announcements to be in line with the FS installation when approaching a runway and that's why they are using RAAS Professional in order to get those. In fact there are now two new files appearing. One seems to be the R4.CSV and the other one is dynamically build when booting the airplane.

 

Coming back to my original question: I think that I used the latest version of MakeRunways, but I will check it before repeating the run again. Of course I know that one and the same runway has the same width from both ends and even my log-version (runway.txt) sings that song even if some of the following entries are obviously wrong. However, I don't have any trouble with my hardware, no wired crashes, data losses or so, but I will run a memory test which will take some time for 16GByte. Obviously it has something to do with my own installation and I will go after it.

 

I'll report when knowing more.

[FlyingAxx]

Okay, I was wrong. I didn't run the latest version (but 4.697). However, a performed memory test - it took some hours -  didn't report any error and after downloading the latest version of MakeRunways I cannot reproduce the problem again (and I'm somewhat happy about it). I didn't change the setup, no scenery was added nor removed, and the previous runs showed such results more than once.

 

Sorry Pete for bothering you with an obviously individual glitch.