David Megginson writes: > You're right and FlightGear is wrong. > > First, Robin Peel's database omitted the localizer for 25. I had > started to rough it in a long time ago but never finished. As a > result, I'm amazed that you were able to do any ILS approach at all to > 7/25. That's my mess, and I've fixed it by checking in a new > default.ils.gz (I still need to clean up the other ILS). > > The rest of the mess is FlightGear's. There are a few large airports > that use paired ILS transmitters on the same frequency: someone added > some code a few months ago to support those few runways and broke > hundreds or thousands of regular BC approaches. I had understood that > the problem was fixed and had forgotten about it, but your posting > reminded me. I can confirm that the problem is still there, and I > will look into it.
David, I agree that we need to get to the bottom of this and understand what's going on, but the code you are refering to only selects the ILS that most directly points at you. There's nothing about that code that should break BC approaches. That's my recollection anyway. If the needle is moving backwards on other ILS BC, that most likely got broke some other way. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
