Post by ScruffyDuck on Oct 2, 2005 10:24:32 GMT -5
Well I have spent a happy 
few hours trying to match the 1936 AFD list to FS9 current airfields. It has proved both frustrating, enlightening and most confusing.
Assuming that the 1936 location data (Lat/Lon) is more or less right (and some entries are clearly wrong - I would not want to trust it to navigate by
then I can match less than 50 fields between the two sets.
Given that there are 109 listed in 1936 that would seem to suggest that half of them have disappeared and/or been relocated.
My initial plan was to just remove the current set and create a whole new set for 1936. This means creating new pseudo ICAO codes to get them recognized. I then though that I should try and match to existing ICAOs to allow for AI traffic - but with only half of them recognizable today I am starting to think that maybe Florida '36 will have to have it's own traffic files (which I do not know how to make at the moment
)
few hours trying to match the 1936 AFD list to FS9 current airfields. It has proved both frustrating, enlightening and most confusing.Assuming that the 1936 location data (Lat/Lon) is more or less right (and some entries are clearly wrong - I would not want to trust it to navigate by
then I can match less than 50 fields between the two sets. Given that there are 109 listed in 1936 that would seem to suggest that half of them have disappeared and/or been relocated.
My initial plan was to just remove the current set and create a whole new set for 1936. This means creating new pseudo ICAO codes to get them recognized. I then though that I should try and match to existing ICAOs to allow for AI traffic - but with only half of them recognizable today I am starting to think that maybe Florida '36 will have to have it's own traffic files (which I do not know how to make at the moment
)
