Gelendzik Aerodrom discrepancy between printed chart and ingame information.

[[31st] Bubba]

There seems to be a discrepancy between the printed and ingame chart of the Gelendzhik aerodrome. The printed chart seems to be the correct one. However, can someone confirm which shows the correct information? Especially for elevation information.

[Ironhand]

Neither. Gelendzhik’s elevation is 131 ft (40m). But you could always sit on the runway in the sim and read the altitude off the baro altimeter (assuming you’ve dialed in the correct air pressure). Then you’d know which is correct for the sim.

[shu77]

Aerodrome data on the F10 map in game is notoriously unreliable, I normally dont bother looking at it for my charts, you find massive discrepencies between the actual readings in Sim and reality.  Gelendzhik was one of the alst airfirelds added from memory so may have also changed a bit.

[NineLine]

On 5/3/2021 at 3:04 PM, shu77 said:

Aerodrome data on the F10 map in game is notoriously unreliable, I normally dont bother looking at it for my charts, you find massive discrepencies between the actual readings in Sim and reality.  Gelendzhik was one of the alst airfirelds added from memory so may have also changed a bit.

Have you done charts for the Caucasus Map?

[shu77]

I did a set back when Mozdok was new and Nevada had 2 airfields, the header indicates May 2011, though maybe a bit later, I removed it from distribution years ago. 

 

I stopped working on it when ED published the charts for the map that come in the game file but have all the hard parts needed to rebuild them fairly easily. I can't speak to whether the F-10 data for the Caucasus is accurate, but can note that the data in maps like Syria seems to come from an external text file rather than being derived from the sim data directly which means its prone to inaccuracy.

7 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Have you done charts for the Caucasus Map?

 

[Recoil16]

Regarding the elevation: 72ft should be correct in-game.

 

Gelendzhik is the worst offender to throw people off when comparing RL to the game because in 2004 (i think) it was completely reconstructed and today looks nothing like it does in-game. In fact the new runway that was built is 20+ degrees off from the previous runway (and the one we have in game).

 

So I believe what has happened is this:

- The runway and airport we physically have in DCS is in its pre-reconstruction state, when it was (i believe) runway 04/22.

- The runway and airport were reconstructed from ground up, the new runway being runway 01/19, true heading 014°/194° (magnetic 007°/187°). See also the current airport chart of the reconstructed airport: http://www.caiga.ru/common/AirClassABV/validaip2/aip/ad/ad2/urkg/2-ad2-rus-urkg-031-031-1.pdf

- Somehow the "numbers" (01/19) of the new runway have made their way onto the old runway that we have in DCS.

 

Now the question is this:

- What year is the Caucasus map supposed to resemble?

 

If the year is supposed to be pre-2004, then the corrective action is to paint the correct numbers (04/22) onto the runway at Gelendzhik and change the runway numbers in the aerodrome data.

If the year is supposed to be more current, then the airport needs to be remodeled from ground up to reflect its post-construction state. This will however also open up a slew of other issues at other airports (like the fact that Novorossiysk airport was closed decades ago or the fact that Sochi looks nothing like it does today).

[Ironhand]

8 hours ago, Recoil16 said:

If the year is supposed to be pre-2004, then the corrective action is to paint the correct numbers (04/22) onto the runway at Gelendzhik and change the runway numbers in the aerodrome data.

Based on satellite imagery from 2003, the numbers are actually 3/21. Also, based on the location, direction and length of the runway (1.5km in the imagery and 1.7km in the sim), it'd be reasonable to conclude that the sim's runway is the earlier one. The new one has a completely different orientation so that its length could be more than doubled.

 

 

 

[Recoil16]

4 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Based on satellite imagery from 2003, the numbers are actually 3/21. Also, based on the location, direction and length of the runway (1.5km in the imagery and 1.7km in the sim), it'd be reasonable to conclude that the sim's runway is the earlier one. The new one has a completely different orientation so that its length could be more than doubled.

Good point. Didn't take into account magvar when I came up with those 04/22 numbers.

I think the length discrepancy you're seeing there is the fact that the runway in DCS starts at the threshold and doesn't have the overrun or displaced threshold modeled that you can see on the south end on the sat images.

But even then on the 2003 imagery the airport layout is entirely different from the one we have in DCS, with no taxiways going end-to-end, just a single one coming off the runway center.

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Recoil16 said:

…But even then on the 2003 imagery the airport layout is entirely different from the one we have in DCS, with no taxiways going end-to-end, just a single one coming off the runway center.

Neither does the new one for that matter. I chalk that up to artistic license in service of game play. My guess is that they were less concerned about exact replication than player accessibility.

[Recoil16]

1 hour ago, Ironhand said:

My guess is that they were less concerned about exact replication than player accessibility.

Which is a somewhat disappointing thought

[Ironhand]

Not really, at least for me. Guess I'm less of a purist. At the time this map was created, their focus was slightly different.