No more flat Runways

[Piper_Pilot]

I think Microsoft need to borrow the idea from X-Plane and offer Runways that actually have hills and stuff. I mean almost little to no runways are perfectly flat, most runways have little hills in them etc. The same goes for the taxiways and parking area.

[jcmissionary]

Mike Gilbert talked about this in his blog a while back.

http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/articles/490739.aspx

Essentially, it boils down to getting the AFD and mesh files to play nicely together. Also, accurate data for runway slope and things like that aren't always available.

To be honest, I don't think that this is that big of a deal. I'd much rather see development time go into refinfing the weather engine and ATC engine personally...

[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/Forum_Banners/DF_BANNER_FORUM_HOWELL.jpg]
PPL-ASEL
Instrument Rated
http://172pilot.blogspot.com

[Piper_Pilot]

Eh, flight dynamics are on the top of the list for me, but I dunno, I guess I notice the small things lol.

[loki]

It would be nice to have airports accurately represented. There are a few around here (Calgary, Canada) where you can't see aircraft at the opposite end of the runway as they are curved. To me, accurate flight simming should also include what happens on the ground.

loki

[UK_RON]

I agree, my local airfield, Cranfield (EGTC) has the sort of runway that would make a roller-coaster developer proud.

In fact it is well known amongst the flight fraternity here that you don't land on the runway so much as you wait until it joins you. I am visiting the field over the next few days and will obtain a good shot of the runway to show you.

For those who cannot wait try downloading the now fully updated for FS9 Altiports amongst them of which is Courchavel and Meribel and both are A) in the middle of the mountains and B) feature heavily sloped runways. Getting off is relatively simple, just try getting back down again :-)

[FITZY]

Like this?

[UK_RON]

NO more like this:

CRANFIELD (EGTC)

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/Attachments/up1/101692.jpg

[n4gix]

>I think Microsoft need to borrow the idea from X-Plane and
>offer Runways that actually have hills and stuff. I mean
>almost little to no runways are perfectly flat, most runways
>have little hills in them etc. The same goes for the taxiways
>and parking area.

Mike Gilbert, Lead Program Manager for the FS team has already read & replied to this topic with a very well written explanation of why it isn't done, why it won't be done, and... how 3d party developers can "do it."

http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/articles/490739.aspx

[AirbusAces]

If it can be done I really think it ought to be seriously considered. Would add a large does of realism especially at places like Zurich!

[pixelpoke_MSFT]

>If it can be done I really think it ought to be seriously
>considered. Would add a large does of realism especially at
>places like Zurich!

We *have* seriously considered it...

:)

But that doesn't mean you'll see it in FSX

:(

Cheers,

Jason

[mgh]

Where would Microsoft get the data from for aerodromes world wide - over 20,000 I think?

Also, the AIP for Cranfield shows threshold elevations of 358 ft at both ends of rwy 03/21. The result of a level survey would be needed to get more detail of levels. Does such a survey exist and, if so, what form is it in?

[n4gix]

>If it can be done I really think it ought to be seriously
>considered. Would add a large does of realism especially at
>places like Zurich!

Where does it end? Since the process cannot reasonably be automated, who's going to spend upwards of 100 hours just to do ONE complete airport, much less the whole bloody world?

[glsimpilot]

>Like this?
>


That looks like my home runways slope coming in on 25 at LZU.

[glsimpilot]

I dont think its that big deal. Now if you could customize an airport on your own, or via 3rd party add-on, now that might be worth talking about.

[n4gix]

>I dont think its that big deal. Now if you could customize an
>airport on your own, or via 3rd party add-on, now that might
>be worth talking about.

You already CAN do that! That's the whole point. It is possible, but it requires a great deal of manual labor... LOTS of trial and error, with major emphasis on the "error" part... ;)