• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

Background imaging

W

Wizardd

Messages
25
Country
us-ohio
Hi all!

Back again with a new question. I'm still trying to rework KMDW...I'm wondering what the most common approach is to resolving runway spacing/heading differences between the FSX airport & a background image? In this case I'm using a Google Earth image (found the same problem using the PDF terminal chart)...I aligned the ARP's of both & aligned the parallel runways 4R/L - 22R/L as closely as I can get them. The problem then is that the crossing runways 31 R/C/L - 13 R/C/L in FSX don't align with the background image, the heading is off by a few degrees...the southernmost ends are pretty close but the northern ends are off. I can use the guide tool to determine the heading of the runway in the image & using that info change the runway heading for the runway in question...but doesn't that create brand new problems with the ILS, etc. I can make it look right, but...?? What's the solution most commonly used?

Thanks, Vance
 
Also wondering if there's any way to keep the background image from 'jumping' a bit to the NW everytime I click on a vertex to move it? It does make repositioning the vertex a bit challenging! Do-able, but sometimes a pain!

This isn't a major issue...just wondering?


Thanks, Vance
 
Wizardd said:
Also wondering if there's any way to keep the background image from 'jumping' a bit to the NW everytime I click on a vertex to move it? It does make repositioning the vertex a bit challenging! Do-able, but sometimes a pain!

This isn't a major issue...just wondering?


Thanks, Vance
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is the graphics engine that ADE uses and we have not found any way to stop it :o
 
Vance

Try not to change any runway heading for airports that have multiple ILS's such as KMDW. Small GA airports with no instrument runways in some cases is ok.

In your situation rotate the image in very small increments so the center section of the runways align and the outer ends are offset just a small amount. This is as close as you can get.

I am able to get real close except for runway 13R



I always align on intersections of runways and then tweak from there.
 
Thanks guys!!

Jon - I was afraid that would be the answer! Have just now come up with a work-around that works for me...use the 'cross-hair' position markers on the desired vertex points (the background image won't jump), render the image 'not visible' (to reduce load on system resources) and create my apron...then turn the image back on to verify my work, the markers can then be deleted...or not, since they don't compile.

Jim - Thanks!! Unfortunately, I'll now have to start over on this one...'cause I already modified the headings for the 'trio' of 13/31's...and of course, the ILS related items that go w/them!...lol, live and learn! (In my case, usually the hard way!). You'd think after completing the tutorial, I'd do a few smaller GA airports before moving on to one like KMDW!! Excellent choice for accelerated learning though!

I've been using a modified version of your advice regarding 'bits' at intersections...I've had to leave those short sections as 'taxi' instead of reverting them back to 'runways'...at some point, I'll have to start dealing w/the center lines, etc. but for now this is working visually.

Thanks again Jon and Jim!! I'm positive there will be more questions!! Hope I don't become a PITA about it!

Vance
 
I guess just to be different, I always try to make FSX match the real world rather than the other way, unless it is a question of more work than I want for my purpose. I always try to get as many different documentation of positions as possible, and try to correlate them before reworking the airport. In this case, it looks like GE data is properly located.

In this case, I use USGS seamless to download the hi-res urban image,
NGA USFIF runway shapefile,
NGA USFIF ILS shapefile
FAA AVN database

All agree, and FSX also looks good, except for Taxiway K and Taxiway Y.
Also some overrun/blast pads etc.

Edit:
I add a table, the first line is from ADE runway list, underneath is the data copied from the FAA AVN database:
13C/31C, 13C/31C, 133.6, 6519.0, 150.0, Concrete, False,
Surface: CONC G Width: 150 Physical Length: 6522
Tdz Elevation: 610.5
True Bearing: 133.55
Ft Disp Th: 463
04R/22L, 04R/22L, 043.4, 6443.0, 150.0, Asphalt, False,
Surface: CONC G Width: 150 Physical Length: 6446
Tdz Elevation: 619.0
True Bearing: 43.47
Ft Disp Th: 518
04L/22R, 04L/22R, 043.4, 5504.0, 150.0, Asphalt, False,
Surface: ASPH G Width: 150 Physical Length: 5507
Tdz Elevation: 617.1
True Bearing: 43.47
Ft Disp Th: 758
13L/31R, 13L/31R, 133.6, 5139.0, 150.0, Asphalt, False,
Surface: ASPH G Width: 150 Physical Length: 5141
Tdz Elevation: 608.2
True Bearing: 133.53
Ft Disp Th: 752
13R/31L, 13R/31L, 133.6, 3856.0, 60.0, Concrete, False,
Surface: CONC G Width: 60 Physical Length: 3858
Tdz Elevation: 611.5
True Bearing: 133.56


scott s.
.
 
Last edited:
Hi Scott,

Thanks for your input here, too! I'll do a search for the resources you've listed, always a good plan to have accurate, up-to-date info.

This is my first 'project' post-tutorial, so forgive my ignorance in asking what you mean by you "added a table"?

Vance
 
I probably wasn't too clear, but to compare the default KMDW with the data from FAA, I used the "Lists -> Runways" menu to bring up a table of runway data. I then exported the data using the "export" option to create a text file which I pasted into my posting above, with data from FAA cut-and-pasted in between the ADE data. The intent was to show that the runway data in default KMDW agrees with FAA data to within a couple feet and hundredths of degree orientation. The attachment shows the geo positioning agrees with my other data.

scott s.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top