NZFF

Hi Lawrie,
I am in the process of constructing approaches for use with the GPS and I have started with Kerikeri and Kaitaia.
I have noticed that the NDB and DME are not in the correct place. When I altered them to the correct values they appeared in the incorrect place on your scenery. FYI according to the measured data, using Google earth, your runway midpoints are too far to the West and this is why the NDB and DME show up in the incorrect place (between the terminal apron and the runway). I tried to alter the values but this of course changes everything else. The stock airport is miles off.
Cheers
Steve

cowpatz wrote:

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Aug 4 2008, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Lawrie,
I am in the process of constructing approaches for use with the GPS and I have started with Kerikeri and Kaitaia.
I have noticed that the NDB and DME are not in the correct place. When I altered them to the correct values they appeared in the incorrect place on your scenery. FYI according to the measured data, using Google earth, your runway midpoints are too far to the West and this is why the NDB and DME show up in the incorrect place (between the terminal apron and the runway). I tried to alter the values but this of course changes everything else. The stock airport is miles off.
Cheers
Steve

Hmmmm,.......... NZKK and NZKT,.............. some of my early sceneries, that i originally built many years ago, long before the NZ Topo came out.
I dont doubt that they may be a little out of place.
I was actually thinking about a rebuild of NZKK, to make it fit the NZ Topo better, and be more in its correct location ( i think i originally built it to fit the default location, long before NZ Topo etc was around).
Might be a while before i get around to a rebuild of it though,............ have many other projects on the go, way up the list from that.

Lawrie.

No problems Lawrie,
I think that NZKT is OK. The problem comes when constructing RNAV approaches that basically aim at the threshold. If the thresholds are wrong then it puts the whole approach out as the initial approach fixes are correct and the thresholds are not. Incorrect distances can play all sorts of havoc as well as the problems of popping out of an approach somewhere to find no runway or at least not where you expect it.
I am also having trouble with North Shore airfield NZNE in Auckland 2005. I can alter the AFCAD to reflect the correct positions, runways lengths and widths etc, however the visual runway position is different to the AFCAD position. I can be on the runway visually but not on the AFCAD runway position. I'm not sure what I can do about that. Some of the default FS9 airport placements are loose for want of a better description.
Cheers
Steve

cowpatz wrote:

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Aug 4 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problems Lawrie,
I think that NZKT is OK. The problem comes when constructing RNAV approaches that basically aim at the threshold. If the thresholds are wrong then it puts the whole approach out as the initial approach fixes are correct and the thresholds are not. Incorrect distances can play all sorts of havoc as well as the problems of popping out of an approach somewhere to find no runway or at least not where you expect it.
I am also having trouble with North Shore airfield NZNE in Auckland 2005. I can alter the AFCAD to reflect the correct positions, runways lengths and widths etc, however the visual runway position is different to the AFCAD position. I can be on the runway visually but not on the AFCAD runway position. I'm not sure what I can do about that. Some of the default FS9 airport placements are loose for want of a better description.
Cheers
Steve

I built an NZNE North Shore scenery to fit into Robin's RealNZ Photoreal Auckland City, with the help of Charl. He re-did the photoreal ground textures for it.
If you have RealNZ Auckland City, you could try my NZNE scenery.
Remembering, the Auckland 2005 scenery was originally designed for FS2002.

Lawrie.