> Hi Thorsten, > > ThorstenB wrote: >> On 23.04.2012 13:52, Christian Schmitt wrote: > >>> We could, if the xml parser would not simply discard any new runways >>> that >>> are not already in the apt.dat file. >> >> If I understood a comment of James in the bug tracker correctly, this, >> however, always has been and still is the normal behaviour, since these >> XML files were only intended to provide updated airport info, not >> introduce completely new ones (so it's not a new bug, as someone >> suggested). > > Indeed, the XML structure was primarily meant to override incorrect > values of pre-existing airfields. Anyhow it's by far flexible enough > to add additional features wherever it makes sense. Thus, for the > cases you outlined, I don't see the need for distributing yet another > set of files carrying almost redundant data. >
Hi Martin Is the code/the queries to produce the xml output from the postgres apt/nav.dat database available for public somewhere? Cheers, Yves ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
