On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:14:33 +0100, Giles Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would adding in ILS/glidescope aerials (where they exist; that's easily > checkable off Robin's database) count as too much clutter? On the contrary, that would add realism to the airports. The risk right now is overequipping the airports with stuff so that even the smallest paved strip looks like a mini KLAX. Small airports typically have one or two runways, sometimes paved. When the runways are under 4,000 ft (or so), there is only one windsock in the middle of each runway -- in fact, the airports often contrive to have only one windsock shared by all the runways. There might be a rotating beacon, but it will not be on a fancy tower right beside the runway. Taxiway signs are a toss-up -- sometimes you'll see them (especially if the airport has instrument approaches) and sometimes you won't. There will almost always be some hangars beside the apron and some kind of FBO building, often with fuel pumps or fuel trucks parked beside it and an antenna on top or beside it for the UNICOM. If there is scheduled air carrier service, there will generally be a small public temrinal building beside the FBO (no jetways, of course). The runway markings are often simple and faded, and the taxiway markings are almost non-existant, especially at VFR-only airports. Busier airports (a small minority) have control towers, but many do not, even those with commercial commuter air service. Once there is a tower, you can count on taxiway signs (i.e. "A", "B", etc.). One thing we could add, at least for my part of the world, are animated groundhogs all over the airport -- also flocks of birds near the threshold. I also heard a story recently of cows eating the fabric covering of a tube-and-rag airplane. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
