-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feature/2081 - Add MKJP #2082
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feature/2081 - Add MKJP #2082
Conversation
Your Render PR Server URL is https://openscope-develop-pr-2082.onrender.com. Follow its progress at https://dashboard.render.com/static/srv-cfe7kucgqg49c8mtij00. |
Fixed the STAR, to avoid a near collision at the start of the file, and added the ILS for RWY 12 and the around procedure into the video map.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even if only one SID/STAR is normally used, unless there is a very good reason not to, all procedures must be defined in the airport file.
Waypoints used for intercepts or dme arcs should be made 'invisible' and their names should follow the documentation
Is, it fine if the procedures are in the file, just not in the spawn patterns? |
Yep! A player should be able to clear aircraft on any procedure that exists in real life. But not every procedure must be used |
got it, So i have added everything as well as made the fixes invisible |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GitHub won't show me the entire diff, so I'll have to include some of the comments here instead.
AMEKO2:
- Not available for RWY30
- What you defined as exitPoints aren't really exitPoints as they are not technically part of the procedure. The SID ends at AMEKO, after that I assume aircraft would be vectored to their exitPoint. These should be added to the spawnPatterns instead off the SID. The spawnpattern route string would then look something like this
"MKJP12.AMEKO2.AMEKO..IMADI"
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ | |||
"iata": "KIN", | |||
"magnetic_north": -8, | |||
"ctr_radius": 80, | |||
"ctr_ceiling": 14000, | |||
"ctr_ceiling": 140, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unless the ceiling is at 140ft, 14000 was correct
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
@@ -57,6 +57,37 @@ | |||
} | |||
], | |||
"fixes": { | |||
"_MLY17AB": ["N17d38m54.884", "W76d44m09.460"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They're invisible now ✔️ but their names are meaningless ❌
Have a look at the required naming format in the docs
Make sure to do the same for all of the R3... fixes
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"name": "Alkol Five", | ||
"rwy": { | ||
"MKJP12": ["_MLY12D", "ALKOL"], | ||
"MKJP30": ["MLY"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I can tell, this procedure isn't available for RWY30
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
}, | ||
"body": ["MLY"], | ||
"exitPoints": { | ||
"ALKOL": ["ALKOL"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
WIth MLY in the body and ALKOL as an exitpoint, aircraft will fly from ALKOL to MLY and then back to ALKOL again, which I assume isn't what you intended.
The chart isn't too clear on what's meant to happen after MLY. Does the SID end at MLY? The textual description just says to "proceed via MLY R156 inbound" so in theory aircraft should continue flying on a heading of 336 until further instructions. You might know better about this so I'll leave it up to you, but you have two options:
a) End the SID at MLY (allows aircraft to join airways from there)
b) Add a heading (336) after MLY (aircraft will continue on that heading until you give them a direct to their next point)
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"MKJP12": [""], | ||
"MKJP30": ["GUDIL"] | ||
}, | ||
"body": ["ALPEN"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aircraft should join the MLY R173 outbound to ALPEN, so that should be encoded here. To do that, add an invisible waypoint _MLY173005
which is 5dme from MLY on the radial (You can use GPSVisualizer to calculate those coordinates)
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"SAVEM" :["SAVEM", "R343T", "HAVBO", "_MLY17SA", "_MLY17SB", "_MLY17SC", "_MLY17SD", "R318Q", "ZINAN", "_MLY17LA", "_MLY17LB", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"RADOK" :["RADOK", "R355T", "R355Q", "R343Q", "HAVBO", "_MLY17SA", "_MLY17SB", "_MLY17SC", "_MLY17SD", "R318Q", "ZINAN", "_MLY17LA", "_MLY17LB", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"KESPA" : ["KESPA", "R290Q", "_MLY17KA", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"LIBEX": ["LIBEX", "R318S", "R318Q", "ZINAN", "_MLY17LA", "_MLY17LB", "R300Q", "ELSER"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
R318S should be a fly-over fix and renamed
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"RADOK" :["RADOK", "R355T", "R355Q", "R343Q", "HAVBO", "_MLY17SA", "_MLY17SB", "_MLY17SC", "_MLY17SD", "R318Q", "ZINAN", "_MLY17LA", "_MLY17LB", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"KESPA" : ["KESPA", "R290Q", "_MLY17KA", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"LIBEX": ["LIBEX", "R318S", "R318Q", "ZINAN", "_MLY17LA", "_MLY17LB", "R300Q", "ELSER"], | ||
"ALPEN": ["ALPEN", "R173Q", "ACEDA", "_MLY17AB", "_MLY17AC", "_MLY17AD", "_MLY17AE", "_MLY17AF", "R205Q", "_MLY17DA", "_MLY17DB", "_MLY17DC", "_MLY17DD", "_MLY17DE", "_MLY17DF", "_MLY17DG", "_MLY17DH", "_MLY17DI", "_MLY17DI", "_MLY17DJ", "_MLY17DK", "_MLY17DL", "_MLY17DM", "_MLY17DN", "_MLY17DO", "_MLY17DP", "_MLY17DQ", "_MLY17DR", "R290Q", "_MLY17KA", "R300Q", "ELSER" ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
R173Q should be a fly-over fix and renamed
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"icao": "KEYNO3", | ||
"name": "Keyno Three", | ||
"entryPoints": { | ||
"DATOM" : ["DATOM", "R205Q", "_MLY17DA", "_MLY17DB", "_MLY17DC", "_MLY17DD", "_MLY17DE", "_MLY17DF", "_MLY17DG", "_MLY17DH", "_MLY17DI", "_MLY17DI", "_MLY17DJ", "_MLY17DK", "_MLY17DL", "_MLY17DM", "_MLY17DN", "_MLY17DO", "_MLY17DP", "_MLY17DQ", "_MLY17DR", "R290Q", "_MLY17KA", "R300Q", "KEYNO"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All of the comments I made regarding the ELSER5 arrival apply to the KEYNO3 as well. I know you mentioned that ELSER5 was the only arrival used, but reading the chart it appears it for the VOR approach into RWY12 while the KEYNO3 is for the ILS approach. I would be surprised if they used the VOR approach over the ILS, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
"body": [], | ||
"rwy": { | ||
"MKJP12": ["CIBUG"], | ||
"MKJP30": ["#MLY"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Neither arrival seems to be available for RWY30.
assets/airports/mkjp.json
Outdated
@@ -43021,4 +43244,5 @@ | |||
] | |||
} | |||
] | |||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The airport fails to load and I get the feeling this bracket has something to do with it
Resolves #
The purpose of this pull request is to
Make it easier to work on this project together.