Discussion about the feedback on my first airport upload

I love that there is good feedback on the airport upload when it’s rejected! I think in some cases screenshots would also be hugely valuable.

I feel this is a good learning opportunity, so I’d love to share the feedback here, and my comments and questions.

All questions are genuine requests for clarification for the future and not an attempt to argue with any decisions.

Moderator “timekiller93”''s comments are in Bold, my response is in italic.
Although this was testing the import function, this is a quick overview of the issues that were found and likely caused by importing.

Aprons - Lots of aprons missing around the airport, as well as aprons being to large compared to the paths and aprons not fully lining up.
Where are there missing aprons? Filled in one small spot between fire station and parking 22. Just want to make sure you’re seeing the same I’m seeing in the editor.

Car Parking - Car parking spots are missing
There are lots of car parking areas at the terminal area. Are they not showing for you? Added two more.

Control Tower - Control tower is slightly in the wrong spot and is to tall, over ride level is level of floors added. Generally this is 5 or lower.
*Changed to 8. Thank you. But it can not be accurately placed.

Lights - Light rows are not needed and can be removed, if an airport has light rows they should not overlap with the path.
Light rows are needed to draw the taxiway edge lights correctly here. Was the “overlap” where the scenery editor line technically crossed an exit from a cargo ramp? That has been fixed, and have added+corrected more edge lighting via light rows.

Parking spots - Parking spot lines need to be connected to any path they intersect instead of going straight through them. Too many vehicle parking spots and they should not be overlapping. More fuel spots needed
- I assume this was related to two cargo ramps that had two parking paths connected instead of one. Fixed
- Reduced number of vehicle parking spots. What is an appropriate number?

- More fuel spots needed - ENZV has one GA fuel spot. Should more be invented?

Painted line - A lot of painted lines are missing around the airport or not accurately lined up to the aerial
Some painted lines adjusted. Some painted lines removed. Not sure where they’re missing?

Polygons - Several Polygons that are unessesary and can be removed, some trees near the parking spots that need to be removed. Some trees can be seen on parts of the aprons which can be removed through polygons vegetation option.
Empty polys removed.
The trees on the east side of runway 18-36 can not be removed with vegetation poly. They are specifically added vegetation polys in fs-base and need an exclusionrectangle which is not available in sceneryhub mode. See this post for confirmation from ASBNicolas

Runway - Some runway markings are missing, Vasi lights are slightly off compared to the aerial.
28-10 was missing precision markings because the default markings would be inaccurate. I would normally draw these with aprons with paint material, but that’s not available in sceneryhub mode. Have drawn them with white asphalt now, although that doesn’t fully match the color of the other markings.
VASIs has been corrected about 20 cm because of aerial image shift.
image

Taxiway Path - Paths need to be set as path for most of the airport, with vehicle paths being used for service vehicles. Paths connecting to runways need to be smoother and match the lines on the aeriel instead of using painted lines, some paths are missing their names. Center light is not enabled on some sections of the path. Vehicle Path stops randomly instead of connecting on both ends. Center line enhanced needs to be added to the path itself and not as a painted line.
Fixed intersection centerlines
Have named a few more path segments. ATC clearances are accurate and unambigous.
Deleted loose end on vehicle path

Why is PATH preferred instead of TAXI? According to SDK docs they’re practically the same with different presets?

Center light - All paths that should have centerlights have centerlights enabled (terminal aprons, G and 18-36 intersections on west side). Some segments do not draw them, but that is a sim issue. Can correct with lightrow, but no light preset option in scenery hub mode. Please let me know if you have spotted a specific segment missing them.

Center line enhanced needs to be added to the path itself and not as a painted line. - Fixed, but why?

Hold Shorts - Red areas next to hold shorts are for “marked hold shorts” to display the runway number. When creating a hold short a point on the path needs to be changed to “hold short no draw” with the arrow facing towards runway, ILS needs to be no draw on the point and painted on as a painted line. Noticed on path A1
Norway does not use numbered marked hold short. Have attempted to add RWY AHEAD text via paintedlines.

Replaced ILS hold short with no draw and paintedline. But why when ILS hold short with draw is an option?

Windsocks - No windsocks added, should be 7 added
Thank you. This will absolutely be a point of confusion as the default windsocks are not unloaded when the scenery editor loads. I still see the default windsocks even with no windsocks placed. There is also no way for user to test if they’ll have double windsocks after placing them, because we can’t test these airports properly.

Thank you!

1 Like

IMO:

  • Vehicle spots can never be enough, they should be placed at location around the airport where on satlaite images is clearly visible that there are service vehicles are parked.
  • Never “invent” something that is not there in real life. If there is only one add one this one.

I guess this is preferred because TAXI can/will draw ground services in some cases, using paths will avoid that. But as you said in general there is no difference between these two.

1 Like

I do agree with this statement. 99% of the time I just use painted lines for taxiways as regardless of whether or not to have the line painted in the Taxi Path, or just paint the lines myself, it shouldn’t make a difference. If a taxi path is there, correct, and accurate, it should work.

I don’t know how realistic this sounds but what if after something is submitted, allow a certain number of users to test it and show what it looks like on their end? Since what it looks like on my sim can look different on my simulator.

Thanks for that long post :grinning:

1 Like