X-Plane poorly handles runways like KCAK 5-23 which is 1180 ft at the 5 Number and is 1226 ft at the 23 Number. The Airport Boundry very well surrounds the airport runways, but flattening only will occur if XP settings have "RW follows land contours" UNchecked. After this action Quit and ReEnter XP. When you do this you will return to flat land areas a bit inside the Scenery's airport boundries. Note that this is now a global XP condition. In this case the true lay of the land is a rise of about 0.5 ft per 100 feet of runway. XP's Earth countour data apparently does not match this graded condition. Either land long on the approach to RW5 or uncheck the "follow contours box" to give you a flat RW at 1200 ft elevation. If the contour data for the area used by XP was accurate, follow countours would work OK.
Right now ATC Taxi to RW 5 will be a real test of the AI flights of AC with follow countours on!!! I think that I will shorten the RW 5 Taxipath back to the second runway entry for takeoff which will avoid having to climb the cliff.
EBOB_MARSH
commented
in reference to scenery pack
39985on November 2, 2015 3:23 PM
Have crosschecked Google Earth data for RW 5-23 and find they fully support the lat/lon and elevation of the ends of the 5-23 runway. This means that the countours of the land used by XP for this airport are faulty and the gradual transition from elevation 1180 at the 5 end and the elevation 1222 at the RW 23 end is still existing in the real world.. Not sure just what to do about that, but it directly points to faulty data for the ground contours in this area in the XP.
EBOB_MARSH
commented
in reference to scenery pack
39985on November 2, 2015 11:19 PM
An additional interesting fact is that there is a set of landing "end of runway (ILS) markers" which are positioned on the runway 500 or so feet past the threshold of RW 5 and ON TOP of the rise that supports the rest of the runway. If I shorten the runway so that it is just beyond this marker, there will be no problem with any aircraft using RW5. The entire runway will be at about 1220 ft elevation. But the runway will not reflect actual length and elevation. The elevation is wrong now anyway.
Do you want the airfield changed in this way??
You must be logged in to participate in the discussion
X-Plane poorly handles runways like KCAK 5-23 which is 1180 ft at the 5 Number and is 1226 ft at the 23 Number. The Airport Boundry very well surrounds the airport runways, but flattening only will occur if XP settings have "RW follows land contours" UNchecked. After this action Quit and ReEnter XP. When you do this you will return to flat land areas a bit inside the Scenery's airport boundries. Note that this is now a global XP condition. In this case the true lay of the land is a rise of about 0.5 ft per 100 feet of runway. XP's Earth countour data apparently does not match this graded condition. Either land long on the approach to RW5 or uncheck the "follow contours box" to give you a flat RW at 1200 ft elevation. If the contour data for the area used by XP was accurate, follow countours would work OK. Right now ATC Taxi to RW 5 will be a real test of the AI flights of AC with follow countours on!!! I think that I will shorten the RW 5 Taxipath back to the second runway entry for takeoff which will avoid having to climb the cliff.
Have crosschecked Google Earth data for RW 5-23 and find they fully support the lat/lon and elevation of the ends of the 5-23 runway. This means that the countours of the land used by XP for this airport are faulty and the gradual transition from elevation 1180 at the 5 end and the elevation 1222 at the RW 23 end is still existing in the real world.. Not sure just what to do about that, but it directly points to faulty data for the ground contours in this area in the XP.
An additional interesting fact is that there is a set of landing "end of runway (ILS) markers" which are positioned on the runway 500 or so feet past the threshold of RW 5 and ON TOP of the rise that supports the rest of the runway. If I shorten the runway so that it is just beyond this marker, there will be no problem with any aircraft using RW5. The entire runway will be at about 1220 ft elevation. But the runway will not reflect actual length and elevation. The elevation is wrong now anyway. Do you want the airfield changed in this way??