ronb62
commented
in reference to scenery pack
79151on December 17, 2020 3:42 PM
The runway locations within this pack are currently correct. What may be the cause of confusion is that runway 3/21 has been replaced by 4/22 and not just because of magnetic change. It is a new runway. To check look at Google and shift back through time using the clock and stepping back. If your Ortho is wrong it is probably outdated.
RotorRick
commented
in reference to scenery pack
79151on December 25, 2020 2:06 AM
This is a problem with 8/26. not 4/22
I have an aircraft BASED at MGJ, I am familiar with the layout.
Hi Rick, I doublechecked and runway 08/26 is within 1 m of official CIFP data. I assume that your Orthophoto is slightly misplaced - this happens quite often. We are not placing airports according to satellite data - but only according to official positional data (where available).
Cheers, Jan
RotorRick
commented
in reference to scenery pack
79151on December 27, 2020 3:36 PM
Then the positional data is for wrong.
A single orthophoto covers many airports in this region and all of them line up perfectly. Except a SINGLE runway to KMGJ. That's a coordinate error not a photogrammetry error.
I would really like to find out what is going on here - could you send me a screenshot of the problem? Just a top-down view of the misaligned runway? Maybe we can sort this out. Email is:
IRL, RW 3/21 was moved a bit, and recommissioned as RW 4/22 in Jan of 2019. FAACIFP data is now correct, but errors when you select an approach for either RW04 or RW22. The approaches to the other runways work fine. Using Navigraph data, an error occurs when trying to select any approach on a GPS. Errors for both data sets suggest a missing RW waypoint/coordinate.
I've been in contact with Navigraph, which in turn is talking to Laminar. Fingers crossed that they have the time to look at this.
Q: Can anything be done at the scenery level to correct this?
You must be logged in to participate in the discussion
The runway locations within this pack are currently correct. What may be the cause of confusion is that runway 3/21 has been replaced by 4/22 and not just because of magnetic change. It is a new runway. To check look at Google and shift back through time using the clock and stepping back. If your Ortho is wrong it is probably outdated.
This is a problem with 8/26. not 4/22
I have an aircraft BASED at MGJ, I am familiar with the layout.
Rick
Hi Rick, I doublechecked and runway 08/26 is within 1 m of official CIFP data. I assume that your Orthophoto is slightly misplaced - this happens quite often. We are not placing airports according to satellite data - but only according to official positional data (where available). Cheers, Jan
Then the positional data is for wrong.
A single orthophoto covers many airports in this region and all of them line up perfectly. Except a SINGLE runway to KMGJ. That's a coordinate error not a photogrammetry error.
Rick
Hi Rick,
I would really like to find out what is going on here - could you send me a screenshot of the problem? Just a top-down view of the misaligned runway? Maybe we can sort this out. Email is:
JanVogel@freenet.de
Thanks!
Missing RW waypoint
IRL, RW 3/21 was moved a bit, and recommissioned as RW 4/22 in Jan of 2019. FAACIFP data is now correct, but errors when you select an approach for either RW04 or RW22. The approaches to the other runways work fine. Using Navigraph data, an error occurs when trying to select any approach on a GPS. Errors for both data sets suggest a missing RW waypoint/coordinate.
I've been in contact with Navigraph, which in turn is talking to Laminar. Fingers crossed that they have the time to look at this.
Q: Can anything be done at the scenery level to correct this?