active LIEO PAPIs RWY 23

[KimK]

Hello,

 

I just landed at your LIEO airport and noticed that, while the G/S seems correct (3°), the PAPI lights are NOT set at 3.0° as they should be according to chart "7-30" from the latest LIDO charts dated 18-JUL-2019.

 

 

I believe this was previously reported.

Thanks.

[KimK]

Btw I noticed something else :

 

In the AFCAD, the runway is set to be at 2800m. There is aswell a physic sign in the scenery stating 2660m of TODA from 05 while the RWY is supposed to be 2445m.

[KimK]

Hello, not my intend to spam but :

 

For the PAPIs angle, a simple modification of the AFCAD can be made. For the wrong runway length though, only the developer can do something. Thanks

[mopperle]

looking at the official chart available at Eurocontrol, eveything seems to be correct to me:

Sometimes certain data are interpreted a bit differently by various chart provider

It might also be that something has changed after the release of LIEO.

[KimK]

Hey mopperle, so for the Runway 05 the PAPI is indeed correctly configured (3.5°). For Runway 23, as stated on your chart it should be at 3° but it was set at 3.5° - I obviously noticed it when I made an approach on the said runway and when I had a discrepancy between the G/S and PAPIs I decided to trust the PAPIs... well, bad decision . A small AFCAD fix with ADE fixes it though.

 

However, I have to disagree with you with the runway length. The number to look at is "2445 x 45" (above the one you circled). Please see below charts.

 

3-20 :

 

 

You can see that the TORA is 2445 for both runways and the central number (2445 x 45) confirms that the runway should be 2445 m long and 45 m width. It is the total distance from A to E in this case (more or less), excluding the grey parts (clearways is my guess).

 

2-10:

This chart confirms that runway 05 has a displaced threshold of 244 m and a landing distance available of 2201 m (244 + 2201 = 2445).
The runway 23 should be 2296 m long with a displaced threshold of 150 m (2296 + 150 = 2446 - for a reason I cannot explain but well, close enough ).

 

Although, in the AFCAD the runway is 2800m long ! It is my deduction that ORBX was wrong about the runway length.

 

Now, was the runway recently shortened (between 31st March 2019 - released date - and today) ? Very unlikely, but who knows. Even if it was, there is now a clear discrepancy between charts and ORBX's scenery runway length.

[KimK]

No devs answer ?

[Matteo Veneziani]

On 7/25/2019 at 12:26 PM, KimK said:

Hey mopperle, so for the Runway 05 the PAPI is indeed correctly configured (3.5°). For Runway 23, as stated on your chart it should be at 3° but it was set at 3.5° - I obviously noticed it when I made an approach on the said runway and when I had a discrepancy between the G/S and PAPIs I decided to trust the PAPIs... well, bad decision . A small AFCAD fix with ADE fixes it though.

 

However, I have to disagree with you with the runway length. The number to look at is "2445 x 45" (above the one you circled). Please see below charts.

 

3-20 :

 

 

You can see that the TORA is 2445 for both runways and the central number (2445 x 45) confirms that the runway should be 2445 m long and 45 m width. It is the total distance from A to E in this case (more or less), excluding the grey parts (clearways is my guess).

 

2-10:

This chart confirms that runway 05 has a displaced threshold of 244 m and a landing distance available of 2201 m (244 + 2201 = 2445).
The runway 23 should be 2296 m long with a displaced threshold of 150 m (2296 + 150 = 2446 - for a reason I cannot explain but well, close enough ).

 

Although, in the AFCAD the runway is 2800m long ! It is my deduction that ORBX was wrong about the runway length.

 

Now, was the runway recently shortened (between 31st March 2019 - released date - and today) ? Very unlikely, but who knows. Even if it was, there is now a clear discrepancy between charts and ORBX's scenery runway length.

Hi,

 

the length of the runway has been increased to 2800mt because the current runway of the airport will be extended to 2800mt also with a new taxiway.  official sources spoke of the start of work in 2019 but at present it is still all stopped.

 

 

[mopperle]

That happens, when a dev thinks he is doing something good, when making an aiport how it might look in the future.

While I appreciate your effort, I would never do so. Always release an airport in its current state and maybe deliver an update, when major construction work has been finished, otherwise you will end up with something like this. Think about the new Berlin airport.

[Matteo Veneziani]

29 minutes ago, mopperle said:

That happens, when a dev thinks he is doing something good, when making an aiport how it might look in the future.

While I appreciate your effort, I would never do so. Always release an airport in its current state and maybe deliver an update, when major construction work has been finished, otherwise you will end up with something like this. Think about the new Berlin airport.

I agree with you, but consider that when I started designing the airport the work had already started and then stopped, no one could know that they were stuck for so long.  However, various things are already be changed at the real airport, like the route of the road that passes near the runway, this changes are already in the scenery.  Without a doubt I would have preferred to not do this expansion, it was not easy at all understand how the runway would change, but surely if I hadn't done it probably a lot of people would have complained and besides I would have had to update the scenery shortly since the works were in  course.

[KimK]

Thanks for the answer Matteo.

 

Although, is ORBX now doing false advert for its sceneries ? I will surely think it twice before buying another one from you guys.

 

You state : "Highly detailed, accurate representation of Olbia Costa Smeralda airport with new runway and taxiway" on this link https://orbxdirect.com/product/lieo but it is not a highly detailed nor an accurate representation of Olbia's airport, and the runway and taxiways are not the newest one because it is a project in real life - I doubt you'll be able to tell the exact runway length and details while it is not built yet.

 

Plus, the point of throwing 25€ in a scenery is to get the replica of the real one, otherwise I can stick with the default or freewares.

 

I feel cheated because nowhere on your website you state clearly that the airport is NOT up-to-date with the latest charts (at the date of release) and if I didn't check the AFCAD I would never have known it.

[Matteo Veneziani]

6 minutes ago, KimK said:

Thanks for the answer Matteo.

 

Although, is ORBX now doing false advert for its sceneries ? I will surely think it twice before buying another one from you guys.

 

You state : "Highly detailed, accurate representation of Olbia Costa Smeralda airport with new runway and taxiway" on this link https://orbxdirect.com/product/lieo but it is not a highly detailed nor an accurate representation of Olbia's airport, and the runway and taxiways are not the newest one because it is a project in real life - I doubt you'll be able to tell the exact runway length and details while it is not built yet.

 

Plus, the point of throwing 25€ in a scenery is to get the replica of the real one, otherwise I can stick with the default or freewares.

 

I feel cheated because nowhere on your website you state clearly that the airport is NOT up-to-date with the latest charts (at the date of release) and if I didn't check the AFCAD I would never have known it.

Yes the runway and the taxiway are already how will be in the future, based on documents I've seen, nothing is invented.

[Kian_Andrews]

In all honesty I'm a little disappointed to hear this also. I would always expect a scenery to be accurate on the day of release, if then the airport irl was to have works completed I would accept that mine was an old version and wouldn't expect a free update to the scenery but of course, it would be welcomed, as many devs do. 

 

I'm a little doubtful also about how much it has helped you, as frequently building works change during their course. So, we currently have a replica of a proposed future version of LIEO. Surely, if thy change their plans now you will have more customers complaining than if the customer had LIEO as it is today, even in a couple months we saw the completion of some works which meant ours is no longer entirely accurate. Because, if they change their proposed works then we neither have one nor the other. The fact the works have stopped in my eyes suggests that it's not going to go to the original plan.

 

Thanks

[Matteo Veneziani]

7 minutes ago, Kian_Andrews said:

In all honesty I'm a little disappointed to hear this also. I would always expect a scenery to be accurate on the day of release, if then the airport irl was to have works completed I would accept that mine was an old version and wouldn't expect a free update to the scenery but of course, it would be welcomed, as many devs do. 

 

I'm a little doubtful also about how much it has helped you, as frequently building works change during their course. So, we currently have a replica of a proposed future version of LIEO. Surely, if thy change their plans now you will have more customers complaining than if the customer had LIEO as it is today, even in a couple months we saw the completion of some works which meant ours is no longer entirely accurate. Because, if they change their proposed works then we neither have one nor the other. The fact the works have stopped in my eyes suggests that it's not going to go to the original plan.

 

Thanks

I started developing the airport in September 2018. At that time the work had started and should have been completed before the scenary was released.  So it would have been a mistake not to include enlargement.  releasing a new scenary that would not have been updated at present would have been a serious mistake.  this would have resulted in a very important update to be made shortly.  it would have been different if I had included a hypothetical enlargement that they should have done.  in my case everything was already approved and was in progress.

I do not have more to say.

 

Regards

[KimK]

15 minutes ago, Matteo Veneziani said:

releasing a new scenary that would not have been updated at present would have been a serious mistake

 

That's precisely what you did though.

[Nick Cooper]

Hello KimK,

 

these forums are full of requests that Orbx airports must be updated because of real life changes.

In this case, Matteo has done his best to model what should have been and extraordinarily,

the real world has not kept up.

 

While I understand your point of view, you have not been cheated and your attack on the developer

is unwarranted.

It would be equally ridiculous to attack the developers of the real world airport because their airport

does not match its plans.

 

Sometimes these thing just happen, the product is still very good indeed and no doubt eventally the

real one will be just as good.

[KimK]

Nick,

 

Yes these forums are filled with update requests, but it's the game ; when I buy a scenery, I understand it's not going to be up-to-date ad vitam æternam due to magnetic variation and possible bigger renovations.

 

In this case, I bought an airport believing it would be up-to-date as of March 31, 2019. Although it is not the case because I bought an airport as it should have been according to blueprints. I hope you understand that you sold me a fantasy and led me into error with your selling arguments, and nowhere it is written on the product's page that the airport is NOT up-to-date. 
I am not btw attacking the developper whose decision of doing the airport as it was currently or might be, as bad as I think it is, belongs solely to him. I'm not attacking anyone, but if I am, it would be ORBX Shop for advertising the airport as up-to-date while it is not. Of course casual simmers may not care, but Innsbruck would be less fun if you added 400m to the runway, don't you think ?

 

Let's only hope the "real world developers" will consider taking your AFCAD as a blueprint

 

I hope you understand this was a respectful opinion sharing and I meant no offense, I will go no further as I understood your position on the matter and I think you understood mine.

Thanks for the answers nonetheless, more appreciated than a silence

[mopperle]

23 hours ago, Matteo Veneziani said:

I started developing the airport in September 2018. At that time the work had started and should have been completed before the scenary was released.  So it would have been a mistake not to include enlargement.  releasing a new scenary that would not have been updated at present would have been a serious mistake.  this would have resulted in a very important update to be made shortly.  it would have been different if I had included a hypothetical enlargement that they should have done.  in my case everything was already approved and was in progress.

I do not have more to say.

 

Regards

Ok, under these circumstances I agree with you, and it is/was simply bad luck that they stopped the work at the airport, especially since neither you could know that, nor when they will start again and finish it (if at all).

[chrisptinney]

Im glad I came across this thread as I too was rather confused with the runway length vs charts.

 

I have no issue at all with the developer thinking ahead, ts actually a nice touch to help future proof a product and much appreciated.

 

 My only thought though is maybe to try and replicate what Aerosoft do in similar circumstances. They give you an option on some scenery to activate how it looks currently, and or how it will look with current planned building. Take EDDB for example, that has been future proofed but you have the option of the brand new Brandenburg Airport (when it finally opens) or just sticking with the current EDDB.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[mopperle]

And EDDB is the only Aerosoft Airport offering this. And the reason is that the layout of the new airport had been finished at the time when the addon was released (release date was short before the planned opening of the airport). But I'm sure, when the real airport will be opened (if at all ), the addon will be outdated. And when the old part is closed (whenever ) it will be totally outdated.

And finally, the option in EDDB effects only the used rwys, nothing else. Rendition of the airport is in both options the same.

[KimK]

Just a word on Aerosoft EDDB, it is already outdated.

And as for the "old part" (I guess you refer to the North Apron), it will not be closed but will be used by Ryanair.

 

But Berlin is known to be a mess, I can't blame 29Palms even if an update would be most welcome.

[Captain Lars]

I came here because I noticed the same aberration of the PAPIs and will have a look at the Afcad as it is said to be a minor operation with ADE.

 

That said, shit happens I guess, you can never be sure what the outcome will be in Italy or Berlin. The FS world is a facsimile. It is more important that it is has beauty and integrity than to be 100% up to date. But I agree that the "age" of a product should be communicated openly.

[Jacob Mark Alvarez]

Looking at my jepp plate the PAPI is ok but the loc location is about a mile off. 3000FT intercept on the ILS 23 APP is 9.4 on the IOL DME. In the sim it intercepted at  10.4. Any help?

[Vieira12]

On 7/31/2019 at 7:50 PM, KimK said:

Thanks for the answer Matteo.

 

Although, is Orbx now doing false advert for its sceneries ? I will surely think it twice before buying another one from you guys.

 

You state : "Highly detailed, accurate representation of Olbia Costa Smeralda airport with new runway and taxiway" on this link https://orbxdirect.com/product/lieo but it is not a highly detailed nor an accurate representation of Olbia's airport, and the runway and taxiways are not the newest one because it is a project in real life - I doubt you'll be able to tell the exact runway length and details while it is not built yet.

 

Plus, the point of throwing 25€ in a scenery is to get the replica of the real one, otherwise I can stick with the default or freewares.

 

I feel cheated because nowhere on your website you state clearly that the airport is NOT up-to-date with the latest charts (at the date of release) and if I didn't check the AFCAD I would never have known it.

W