• 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.

Visualizing Airspace

Back to the original topic.

Max will easily MAKE and export an object this large.

ModelconverterX will load a cylinder, for example, of 50,000m radius .. it just won't apparently display it.

Not sure whether FSX will display such an object

Is there a scale map of the KSFO airspace with altitudes etc annotated. It would be pretty easy to trace and extrude parts of it into a giant colour coded model.

The issue, as already discussed, is whether it will display as one object or in bits.

The theoretical range to display objects in FSX was 60nm (not sure where I got this information from!)
 
When I was building NAS Fallon, I found that the electronic charts that the FAA had available (for cheap) were actually georeferenced and could be pulled into Global Mapper. I had intended to use large translucent objects to designate supersonic transit lanes, bombing ranges, etc.

I was able to resample the FAA charts through Global Mapper and the Terrain SDK and make the ground look just like a chart. I was going to use this for object placement.

I made and placed some of the objects, but the scenery became so unrealistic that I abandoned the attempt. It is possible though.

Jim
 
mgh said:
But other countries are different. In the UK for example, the London CTR, which surrounds Heathrow, is Class A airspace from the surface to 2500 ft. Stacked above that is the London TMA, which is also Class A and steps up from 2500 ft to FL195. That's why it should be modelled. EDIT: To the best of my recollection, the London airspace was modelled in FS9.
Click to expand...
Hence why I said the USA only. :) I wasnt referencing the entire world, just that the USA is going to the ICAO system more closely than it does now.

UPDATE: I totaly missed the point of your post, I apologize. You were referiing to Class A being displayed/modeled because of how it is used elsewhere in the world. Fully understand how you meant it now, and I agree it should have been modeled outside the USA in FS. FS can only get so real. At some point you actually have to get into a real airplane.
I havent checked XPlane to see how they model airspace, but may be picking up X10 shortly, if I dont go the P3D route instead.

That was my point. Surely it's a good thing to standardise these definitions internationally - aviation is international. The ICAO Class A definition is

Type of flight: IFR only
Separation provided; All aircraft
Service provided; Air traffic control services
Speed limitation: Not applicable
Radio communication requirement: Continuous two-way
Subject to an ATC clearance: Yes

That's hardly "...integrated multiple aspects into one massive confusion."
Click to expand...
The aviation ICAO system is a conglomeration of multiple coutries aviation systems to uniform it. It can get confusing when you get really deep into it beyond what the wiki shows. :)
What you show above is only airspace types, I was referencing ICAO as a whole when I stated that. Im not arguing any points, just clarifying.

hcornea said:
Back to the original topic.

Max will easily MAKE and export an object this large.

ModelconverterX will load a cylinder, for example, of 50,000m radius .. it just won't apparently display it.

Not sure whether FSX will display such an object

Is there a scale map of the KSFO airspace with altitudes etc annotated. It would be pretty easy to trace and extrude parts of it into a giant colour coded model.

The issue, as already discussed, is whether it will display as one object or in bits.

The theoretical range to display objects in FSX was 60nm (not sure where I got this information from!)
Click to expand...

I tested a 30mile radius object in FS9, did not test in FSX at the time to see the differences. I think I stated that MCX wont display an object past a specific size, but it will convert. Arno could probably state the range MCX would allow. I dont know if there is a way to modify range the object displays as in FS9 my test radius was 30 or 40 nm from center and it vanished (at work so I cant reconfirm if it does or does not vanish at 30 or 40).

mgh said:
What's the purpose of your post other than arguing against my personal opinion?
Click to expand...
Lol Thats a good response. But lets leave it at that. We dont want the mods closing this thread over civil unrest, its still new afterall. We can bicker when it reaches 90 days :)
 
Last edited:
the absence of Class A airspace is tedious to say the least.

I created my own for the UK using a different classification. The London TMA has 18 separate area, the Worthing CTA has 6, Daventry CTA has 9 and the Manchester TMA has 2. I had to extract all the coordinates from the UK AIP, format them as XML and then compile to get a BGL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top