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
