Hi alligator
The landclass cannot be changed by the gateway airport - it is defined when the global base scenery is built. So this will be corrected when the new XP11 global scenery is released.
And I choose to not put too many ground polygons down to cover up some not so solidly green areas, as these areas are already quite green and not too obvious of a mismatch.
On the terrain issues - I'm not sure what you mean by that - the active airport area is flat already and does not seem to require any flatten switch.
Michael
From googling, there is no difference in the runway width (60 m) between the two classes. Only the runway/taxiway distance is slightly larger as 182 m (E) to 190 m (F). According to the chart, the distance is 192 m for this airport. Hence, nothing appears wrong.
I think the issue here was that the RUNWAY is not size F. So even if the rest of the airports (which is really nice, btw) supports size F aircraft, the runway won´t.
So if a size F aircraft gets included (A380) with Xplane, it cant use the runways.
Trying to upload a new version to reflect the changes, WED issues a CFP error that saying runway 16/34 missing. That runway designation is changed to 16L/34R from this June. And a new runway 16R/34L is now operational. Please correct this false error.
CIFP data will be refreshed in the next version of X-Plane. In the interim we have to abide by the existing data when creating airports for the Gateway.
The scenery includes a runway 16/34 and a runway 16R/34L. The former should be changed to 16L/34R. At the moment this is causing problems with some add-ons (ToLiss A319).
RKSI - severe terrain problems and underlying landclass showing through
Michael Minnhaar November 21, 2016 11:14 AM
Hi alligator
The landclass cannot be changed by the gateway airport - it is defined when the global base scenery is built. So this will be corrected when the new XP11 global scenery is released.
And I choose to not put too many ground polygons down to cover up some not so solidly green areas, as these areas are already quite green and not too obvious of a mismatch.
On the terrain issues - I'm not sure what you mean by that - the active airport area is flat already and does not seem to require any flatten switch.
Michael
Jan Vogel February 23, 2021 5:55 PM
Several updates to this airport since then - this report can be closed.
The airport has multiple F class gates, and F class taxi routes. None of the runways are F class. According to the charts, all three should be.
BG Kim December 6, 2019 7:29 AM
From googling, there is no difference in the runway width (60 m) between the two classes. Only the runway/taxiway distance is slightly larger as 182 m (E) to 190 m (F). According to the chart, the distance is 192 m for this airport. Hence, nothing appears wrong.
Jan Vogel March 6, 2021 5:01 PM
I think the issue here was that the RUNWAY is not size F. So even if the rest of the airports (which is really nice, btw) supports size F aircraft, the runway won´t.
So if a size F aircraft gets included (A380) with Xplane, it cant use the runways.
Trying to upload a new version to reflect the changes, WED issues a CFP error that saying runway 16/34 missing. That runway designation is changed to 16L/34R from this June. And a new runway 16R/34L is now operational. Please correct this false error.
Julian Lockwood July 6, 2021 10:32 PM
CIFP data will be refreshed in the next version of X-Plane. In the interim we have to abide by the existing data when creating airports for the Gateway.
Northeastern292 October 21, 2021 12:00 AM
I will second this. Does the CIFP data update have to wait for XP12? Is it hard-wired? (i.e. like approaches in legacy MSFS?)
The scenery includes a runway 16/34 and a runway 16R/34L. The former should be changed to 16L/34R. At the moment this is causing problems with some add-ons (ToLiss A319).
XPJavelin November 18, 2022 5:31 PM
Solved by submission 93258 by XPJavelin November 18, 2022 6:31 PM