On 9/9/04 at 9:00 AM Alex Perry wrote:
>From: David Megginson <davi...> >> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:35:30 +0200, Erik Hofman <eri...> wrote: >> > I do think so, don't we. >> > I mean, this is an essential part of airfields, but don't know enough >> > about this subject to assert that the numbers are always right this >way. >> > There's also the danger of overengineering our airfields > >Yeah. Most of the airports I fly into have them, but then they also have >instrument approaches and runways longer than 4kft. I'm tempted to say >that we add them onto any runway longer than 5kft or having a LOC/ILS. > I like the heuristics suggestion. You might want to consider longer than 5kft *and* either wider than some value or having a precision approach, to weed out the long runways at small high altitude airports. However, the X-Plane data format does currently contain a "has distance remaining signs" flag. So, you (Chris) could download his data from www.x-plane.org/users/robinp and feed that into your script in addition to FG data, or alternatively get Curt to request that this flag gets added to FG data, at which point it will come available in the future. Of course, I'm not sure how consistent this flag is in his data wrt real life... Cheers - Dave This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
