Simviation Forums

I have a 3 ring binder full of obsolete charts that all are around the 2006/2007 time frame.

No. FSX is "fixed" into the world as it was in 2005. Nothing you can do will ever change that...

No. FSX is "fixed" into the world as it was in 2005. Nothing you can do will ever change that...

I believe you, but there has to be more to it than this.

it may not be the runway itself that is messed up at all.  It the the "start location" that was made in "AFCAD2.2.1" or "A.D.E." or whatever program was used to make the airport.


in FS9...

KSEA, 16L/34R,  (16L is positioned at a center point of N47* 26.8391', W122* 18.4716'   ... True Heading: 180.340 // Magnetic Variance: 19.4 // Magnetic Heading: 160.9)  .... the "Start Location" for 16L is set at a heading of 180.300

rwy34R starting location is set at 0.3.


If you are flying NON-DEFAULT airport, whoever made the airport might either have their Variances wrong for that airport (which it does not seem being that they line up with your OLD Sectionals) but more that the Start Locations do not line up correctly to the runway. 

I considered that the start locations might be screwed up as well, but that that isn't it.

Let me use another example, this time kpdx, portland, rw10L:

-The June 2007 ILS or LOC 10L chart gives a heading of 99 deg...
-The Jan 2010 chart still shows 99 deg...
-The fsx map shows 99...

Starting the airplane on the runway gives a heading of 102.

Funny.. as a pilot, and navigation enthusiast; I've never noticed this.

It's because I've never encountered a situation, where it would matter. The last time I cared about true vs magnetic north, was when teaching that cumbersome flight-planning routine to new pilots. You feel kinda guilty making them go through that.. because no pilot alive can hold a heading +/- a few degrees for any length of time.. but it's needed, because it drills home theories

When navigating by radio, you're only concered about relative headings/courses. A VOR radial will always lead you to a VOR, and intersecting radials, wll always intersect. Now of course, if you were using that intersection because it was a published fix.. we got problems, but again, not really, as real-world fixes are rarely hit exactly.

As for approaches.. Non-precision approaches (VOR/NDB), are just that. Not precise. A precision approach (ILS) is runway realtive, so if it's magnetic orientaion is off a bit, it doesn't matter.. you're tracing the runway "radial". And an ATC vectored (or your own navigation) ILS, will have you intercepting the ILS far enough out for any reasonable error (by you, or the FSX magnetic deviation).

In summary.. don't sweat it..

[quote]

As for approaches.. Non-precision approaches (VOR/NDB), are just that. Not precise. A precision approach (ILS) is runway realtive, so if it's magnetic orientaion is off a bit, it doesn't matter.. you're tracing the runway "radial". And an ATC vectored (or your own navigation) ILS, will have you intercepting the ILS far enough out for any reasonable error (by you, or the FSX magnetic deviation).

In summary.. don't sweat it..

Ah.. I see your point, kinda. I don't fly big jets often. I have the CS757, and I'll use the FMS for the climb, cruise and descent.. I'll even fly a STAR, and then land visually, by hand... unless it IMC, then I'll use the ILS..

Almost forgot.. I'm impressed that you're simming with realism and accuracy and an attention to detail at a level needed to discover this