answered YSCB/ZSCB

[catman63]

Six years on, and regardless of other posts on this topic, it still doesn't make sense to me why it was deemed appropriate to split YSCB into RPT v GA (ZSCB) categories. After all, an airport is an airport and it's not unusual for small, medium or heavy category aircraft to use the same airport.

Are there any plans to remedy this in the future (together with a fix for the completed new terminals and infrastructure at Canberra)?

 

HNY

 

Steve

[Graham Eccleston]

It was done that way to control the movements of the AI Traffic. Without that setup, you would have the commercial aircraft and larger GA using the smaller crosswind runway as well as the main runway. The smaller GA would also use the main runway plus their shorter dedicated runway.

 

Unfortunately, neither FSX nor P3D have given us the ability to direct AI traffic to specific runways for take off or landing so we have to structure the APX  with two discrete runways with slightly different codes to enable the required separation of operations.

 

Queenstown airport was also set up using this method.

 

if you choose to have no AI traffic at all, it would be relatively easy to add the smaller runway to your main YSCB APX and remove the ZSCB APX file altogether.

 

There are no plans to update this airport at the moment.

[catman63]

Thanks for the response Graham. To be perfectly honest, I would prefer to have the AI traffic as that can be dialed down to suit or turned off. This causes issues when using other 3rd party add-ons like Aivlasoft EFB as it doesn't recognise ZSCB which removes rwy12/30 and screws up parking options no end. 

ORBX should be at least advising users prior to the release of new software where this method has been adopted or even poll users as to their thoughts when a new build in imminent. Don't get me wrong, I love the ORBX products but I believe the user should be able to decide if AI is an issue, not have the decision made for us.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

I am not questioning your reasoning but as far as I can see, this airports was developed 

and released in 2009 and is probably no longer "new".

[John Dow]

hi Catman

 

As a local resident and familiar with the airport operations, i find the compromise solution to be the best option, as it does simulate the actual operations of the airport better than alternative solutions, withing the constraints of FSX/P3D..

 

As Graham has said, there are tools you can download free to modify the APX to your specific requirements, or the simple solution of just having YSCB which removes traffic from 12/30 and presumably is more 3rd party program friendly.