Skip to content
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

Draft
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

feature/2081 - Add MKJP #2082

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

jessie846
Copy link

Resolves #

The purpose of this pull request is to
Make it easier to work on this project together.

added pretty much everything now just need to add a few more things to the video maps to finish it off
@jessie846 jessie846 added WIP Add this label to work-in-progress PRs which are not yet ready for review DO NOT MERGE PR author's request to not merge a pull request labels Feb 3, 2023
@jessie846 jessie846 linked an issue Feb 3, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@render
Copy link

render bot commented Feb 3, 2023

@erikquinn erikquinn removed the DO NOT MERGE PR author's request to not merge a pull request label Feb 3, 2023
@erikquinn erikquinn changed the title Feature/2081 feature/2081 - Add MKJP Feb 3, 2023
@erikquinn erikquinn added airport/airline/aircraft Changes to airport/airline/aircraft files feature Addition of a COMPLETELY NEW feature labels Feb 3, 2023
@erikquinn erikquinn marked this pull request as draft February 3, 2023 18:42
jessie846 and others added 5 commits February 3, 2023 16:57
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.
@jessie846 jessie846 requested review from a team and removed request for a team March 5, 2023 20:30
Copy link
Member

@Fechulo Fechulo left a 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

@jessie846
Copy link
Author

Is, it fine if the procedures are in the file, just not in the spawn patterns?

@Fechulo
Copy link
Member

Fechulo commented Mar 8, 2023

Yep! A player should be able to clear aircraft on any procedure that exists in real life. But not every procedure must be used

@jessie846 jessie846 requested a review from Fechulo March 9, 2023 00:52
@jessie846
Copy link
Author

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

@jessie846 jessie846 requested a review from a team March 13, 2023 02:17
Copy link
Member

@Fechulo Fechulo left a 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"

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
"iata": "KIN",
"magnetic_north": -8,
"ctr_radius": 80,
"ctr_ceiling": 14000,
"ctr_ceiling": 140,
Copy link
Member

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

@@ -57,6 +57,37 @@
}
],
"fixes": {
"_MLY17AB": ["N17d38m54.884", "W76d44m09.460"],
Copy link
Member

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

"name": "Alkol Five",
"rwy": {
"MKJP12": ["_MLY12D", "ALKOL"],
"MKJP30": ["MLY"]
Copy link
Member

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

},
"body": ["MLY"],
"exitPoints": {
"ALKOL": ["ALKOL"]
Copy link
Member

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)

"MKJP12": [""],
"MKJP30": ["GUDIL"]
},
"body": ["ALPEN"],
Copy link
Member

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)

"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"],
Copy link
Member

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

"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" ],
Copy link
Member

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

"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"],
Copy link
Member

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!

"body": [],
"rwy": {
"MKJP12": ["CIBUG"],
"MKJP30": ["#MLY"]
Copy link
Member

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.

@@ -43021,4 +43244,5 @@
]
}
]
}
Copy link
Member

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
airport/airline/aircraft Changes to airport/airline/aircraft files feature Addition of a COMPLETELY NEW feature WIP Add this label to work-in-progress PRs which are not yet ready for review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add KIN- Norman Manley INTL
3 participants