On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:14:33 +0100, Giles Robertson

> Would adding in ILS/glidescope aerials (where they exist; that's easily
> checkable off Robin's database) count as too much clutter?

On the contrary, that would add realism to the airports.  The risk
right now is overequipping the airports with stuff so that even the
smallest paved strip looks like a mini KLAX.

Small airports typically have one or two runways, sometimes paved. 
When the runways are under 4,000 ft (or so), there is only one
windsock in the middle of each runway -- in fact, the airports often
contrive to have only one windsock shared by all the runways.  There
might be a rotating beacon, but it will not be on a fancy tower right
beside the runway.  Taxiway signs are a toss-up -- sometimes you'll
see them (especially if the airport has instrument approaches) and
sometimes you won't.  There will almost always be some hangars beside
the apron and some kind of FBO building, often with fuel pumps or fuel
trucks parked beside it and an antenna on top or beside it for the
UNICOM.  If there is scheduled air carrier service, there will
generally be a small public temrinal building beside the FBO (no
jetways, of course).  The runway markings are often simple and faded,
and the taxiway markings are almost non-existant, especially at
VFR-only airports.

Busier airports (a small minority) have control towers, but many do
not, even those with commercial commuter air service.  Once there is a
tower, you can count on taxiway signs (i.e. "A", "B", etc.).

One thing we could add, at least for my part of the world, are
animated groundhogs all over the airport -- also flocks of birds near
the threshold.  I also heard a story recently of cows eating the
fabric covering of a tube-and-rag airplane.

All the best,



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to