18 m wide runways only have two threshold markings ("piano keys") on them instead of four

Version: SU/AAU/WU XX - 1.XX.XX.X

Frequency: Once/Rarely/Frequently/Consistently Consistently

Severity: Low/High/Blocker Medium

Context: What package? When editing or mounted from Community? In main menu or in flight? etc… When editing (and you see the results in flight, as well)

Bug description:
These are a runway’s threshold markings (sometimes called “piano keys” in pilot slang):

They are supposed to give the pilot information about the width of the runway before they land.

This is from the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) regarding the number of stripes on a runway based on its width:

Runway Width Number of Stripes
60 feet (18 m) 4
75 feet (23 m) 6
100 feet (30 m) 8
150 feet (45 m) 12
200 feet (60 m) 16

I don’t have the ICAO standard, but I believe it to be identical to the FAA standard, as I have seen numerous websites that give the same information solely in metric.

The bug is this: The Scenery Editor adheres to this standard except for runways with a width between 18 m and 19.9 m. When a runway is 18 m in width, the runway should have four stripes (two on each side). Instead, it only has two. The Scenery Editor doesn’t create four stripes until the runway gets to 20 m in width.

Repro steps:

  1. Open or create an airport in the Scenery Editor.
  2. Edit or create a runway.
  3. Click the runway, click the Properties window, and in the Markings section, ensure that the checkbox “Threshold markings” is checked. (The “Alternate threshold markings” box should be un-checked.)
  4. In the Properties window, in the Configuration section, set the runway’s width to 18 m.

Expected result:
The runway has four threshold stripes (two on each side).

Observed result:
The runway has two threshold stripes (one on each side). See first attachment, below.

Note: If you then set the runway width to 19.9 m, it still has two stripes, and if you set it to 20 m, if finally correctly has four stripes.


18 m wide runway (should have four stripes but has two):

20 m wide runway (finally gets set correctly when you get up to 20 m wide):

Private attachments: Send a PM to @PrivateContent with the link to this topic and the link to download your content


Thanks for writing this here. You speak bug report language better than I do. I think the 75’ runways show only four bars instead of six, too.

So that the loop is closed, I’ve had a wishlist going on this (and several other markingerrors) for several years on the main forum:

These seem like they’d be so easy to fix. Truly low-hanging fruit.

Using data from https://ourairports.com/data/ I found only a few (3?) runways of 18m width that were paved, and none had any markings as per Google Earth, all in the USA. What you write is probably true, but for 3 runways, hardly worth the effort to fix.

Huh? There are over 1300 paved runways in the US alone that are 60’ (18.288m) wide. The 75’ (1800+ examples) runways are also affected. And that’s not counting all the ones that are 61, 62’, still less than a rounding error.

I’m actually kind of laughing here, where did you get that data? It’s complete nonsense.

You’re right. I was looking at the data in feet! Stupid mistake.
As I wrote, the OP is likely right, and it’s a valid point. But with all Asobo has on it’s plate, I’m not sure they are able to change the code. Millions of lines of code, much of it transposed from FSX, and some of the early coders have moved on to other employment. Who’s going to pay for the hunt?

I think there is about 2100 paved runways between 18 and 20 meters.

Heh, I just figured that’s what happened, too. Either way, how hard can it be to recode? I imagine it can’t be any more than moving the end number (20) of a range to another (18). Isn’t everything after that point procedurally drawn upon loading in the client (rather than permanently baked into the scenery)?



Measured in Google Earth = 18.75m
Data list it as 18.25m
In Google Earth (real life, more or less) there are 4 piano keys, and in MSFS there are 2, which supports what the OP states.

Hello and thank you all for the feedback !

I added this to our backlog.



Ha, thank you. This kind of stuff is my day job.

Just a heads up: The SDK team doesn’t monitor those forums. When I was a moderator over there, we had marching orders to close any new SDK requests. And nowadays, I see the existing mods closing old ones, too. This one doesn’t look like an SDK request, which is probably why it hasn’t been closed, but I think that your best bet is to re-log them over here in Ideas or Airports & Sceneries (not the World Hub category). I would log one request per topic because it makes it easier to manage them. You could tie them all together by linking to each one.

1 Like