active KVNY 16R Glideslope incorrect with Orbx KVNY

[Kurt V]

Attached are screenshots of default scenery KVNY ILS, and Orbx KVNY ILS

I have tested this in 1.0 and 1.1 and the problem occurs in both versions.

I'm beginning to think that the floating windsock and this ILS might be related, because if the ground was 30ish feet lower in the Orbx version, that would explain the incorrect GS.

See images.  It should be obvious which is which, since the Orbx one at least looks like KVNY 

Thanks... 

 

[Ed Correia]

Could you please try this and see if it resolves

 

 

[Kurt V]

Will check that and advise.. thanks.

[Matteo Veneziani]

Hi, yes the ground has been flattened because there were a lot of problem with elevation here, for example i tried without the flatten and there were a bumps in the runway, so the unique solution was to make it flat. Unfortunately in this zone where there is the photogrammetry the terrain it is not responsive like other part of the world and it is super buggy.

Hovewer i will look what i can do to fix correct the glideslope.

 

regards

[wolfko]

6 hours ago, Kurt V said:

Attached are screenshots of default scenery KVNY ILS, and Orbx KVNY ILS

I have tested this in 1.0 and 1.1 and the problem occurs in both versions.

I'm beginning to think that the floating windsock and this ILS might be related, because if the ground was 30ish feet lower in the Orbx version, that would explain the incorrect GS.

See images.  It should be obvious which is which, since the Orbx one at least looks like KVNY 

Thanks... 

 

 

Uhm, I am not sure if I understand you correctly.

But according to your instruments, on the first shot you are are slightly above the glideslope and on the the second one you are slightly below.

Also the altimeter indicates different hights. So IMO all seems to be correct.

[Kurt V]

6 hours ago, wolfko said:

 

Uhm, I am not sure if I understand you correctly.

But according to your instruments, on the first shot you are are slightly above the glideslope and on the the second one you are slightly below.

Also the altimeter indicates different hights. So IMO all seems to be correct.

The altitudes are different because I'm not at the exact same spot in each shot.  Or maybe I am and the terrain is lower?   Either way, the gauge shows on target (if slightly imperfect, see below) and the visual picture is not on target.

In order to be far enough above GS to have two white lights out the window, I'd be beyond the limits of the circle in the gauge.  Being so close that the needle is still covering the dots is effectively right on the money.  By your argument the second photo should show red lights outside.  If this condition existed in real world the approach would be taken offline for maintenance.  It's way off.
 
While the instrument is very precise in sim and in real life, I'm not far enough out on either of those shots for the visual picture to be that wrong.  The angle to the runway in the stock VNY is what you would expect to see if on the marks... The sight picture in the Orbx shot is way high, even tho the GS indication is pretty much on the nose.

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Kurt V

[Kurt V]

12 hours ago, Matteo Veneziani said:

Hi, yes the ground has been flattened because there were a lot of problem with elevation here, for example i tried without the flatten and there were a bumps in the runway, so the unique solution was to make it flat. Unfortunately in this zone where there is the photogrammetry the terrain it is not responsive like other part of the world and it is super buggy.

Hovewer i will look what i can do to fix correct the glideslope.

 

regards

If it is useful to you Matteo, the runway as it was in the MSFS original version (the elevation changes) are roughly accurate to real world, more accurate than the flat version if my memory is right (haven't flown out of there in a long time, but I remember it being noticeably not flat in real world).  Elevation at taxiway C is 802ft, and at R it is 746ft, and my memory is there really was a bit of a hump to it as shown in the MSFS version... Trying to see if I have a photo somewhere.

I am attaching a video I found at the bottom of this -- Not my video.   In it you can see there is a bit of an undulation to the runway... Not as severe as MSFS original had it, but from threshold to about half length its on a relatively flat, or slightly uphill, and then after that it slopes down to the 749 ft elevation by the south end.  The video also showcases what a great job you did with the look and feel! 

So maybe if you could figure out a way to work that in?  I don't know -- I know nothing about scenery creation, or what difficulties that might cause.

As you can see from the images, its not a deal killer or anything.  The airport is usable, but I think people who fly a lot of IFR will probably prefer it fixed if possible.
 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Kurt V

[Matteo Veneziani]

15 minutes ago, Kurt V said:

If it is useful to you Matteo, the runway as it was in the MSFS original version (the elevation changes) are roughly accurate to real world, more accurate than the flat version if my memory is right (haven't flown out of there in a long time, but I remember it being noticeably not flat in real world).  Elevation at taxiway C is 802ft, and at R it is 746ft, and my memory is there really was a bit of a hump to it as shown in the MSFS version... Trying to see if I have a photo somewhere.

I am attaching a video I found at the bottom of this -- Not my video.   In it you can see there is a bit of an undulation to the runway... Not as severe as MSFS original had it, but from threshold to about half length its on a relatively flat, or slightly uphill, and then after that it slopes down to the 749 ft elevation by the south end.  The video also showcases what a great job you did with the look and feel! 

So maybe if you could figure out a way to work that in?  I don't know -- I know nothing about scenery creation, or what difficulties that might cause.

As you can see from the images, its not a deal killer or anything.  The airport is usable, but I think people who fly a lot of IFR will probably prefer it fixed if possible.
 

 

Hi Kurt,

 

yes i know and it is something that i realy want to add but at the moment it is not possible. The sim in this zone has a very buggy terrain, which forced me to add a flat over the airport surface to avoid many issues and artifact. For example without the flat there are sever bumpes over the runway/taxiways which make the airport unusable. Untill asobo do not update the sim with a more responsive terrain and correct the various bug it is not possible have the airport with correct elevation, my apologies.

 

regards

[Kurt V]

1 hour ago, Matteo Veneziani said:

Untill asobo do not update the sim with a more responsive terrain and correct the various bug it is not possible have the airport with correct elevation, my apologies.

Understood, thank you for the work you've put in.  It feels great to be able to fly home again!   I'll just not do it in IMC until this can be sorted out!

[Matteo Veneziani]

27 minutes ago, Kurt V said:

Understood, thank you for the work you've put in.  It feels great to be able to fly home again!   I'll just not do it in IMC until this can be sorted out!

Thank you! And what do you think the idea to make the elevation of the airport like the elevation of 16R? So higher than now? It would be better in term of usability? But remember everything will be flat 

[Kurt V]

12 minutes ago, Matteo Veneziani said:

And what do you think the idea to make the elevation of the airport like the elevation of 16R? So higher than now?

Since the normal usage is 16R and 16L, and since the ILS is there, the correct threshold at 802ft would be best.  This is also considered to be the official field elevation, so again... probably best.

While the backcourse approach on 34L is sometimes used, its not common.  Therefore, I believe you'd be best served by setting the elevation at the north end as 802ft.

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Kurt V

[Matteo Veneziani]

6 minutes ago, Kurt V said:

Since the normal usage is 16R and 16L, and since the ILS is there, the correct threshold at 802ft would be best.  This is also considered to be the official field elevation, so again... probably best.

While the backcourse approach on 34L is sometimes used, its not common.  Therefore, I believe you'd be best served by setting the elevation at the north end as 802ft.

 

Ok i will look if i can and if there are any problems! Thank you for this info.

 

Cheers