Post by volkerboehme on Aug 10, 2008 9:12:16 GMT -5
I fear you are contemplating a lot of unnecessary work that may deliver less realism, lower diversity of procedure, and uncertain results versus FS9 mesh and masts than better and easier options. There is no obvious reason to suppose that a current or recent NDB approach is different to a 1943 NDB approach; unless it also *needs* to be different in FS9 to avoid modern obstructions. As you will see if you follow the Calclassic links the modern procedures for SBBE retain the wartime tear drop approaches where applicable and must begin and end at double the altitudes you propose.
In conjunction with the recent publication of the 2008 Propliner Tutorial Tom Gibson published a charts link page also linked from www.calclassic.com/tutorials. Along with hundreds of others, It links to three different real NDB approach procedures, to three different instrument runways at SBBE. In many cases there is no reason to 'invent' classic era procedures, they still exist in the modern era, in every realistic, diversified, and glorious detail, and only need to be linked to.
If the current procedures for a relevant airfield no longer include the relevant NDB approaches you can obtain maximum realism by downloading the current VOR approaches and placing your 'new' FS9 NDB where the VOR is today then replicate the current VOR procedure in full or just tell users to download it.
However I recommend that you think very hard about whether bothering to replace the FS9 VOR with an NDB so that FS9 users can fly the arrival and approach looking at an ADF needle is really sufficiently different to avoid telling them to just tune the VOR and fly the same approach looking at the VOR RMI needle on an RMI gauge. For most FS9 users the only practical difference will be the frequency they tune, whether you bother to turn a VOR into an NDB or not. There are easy ways and difficult ways to turn a VOR approach into an NDB approach. Most FS9 users won't allow for drift anyway.
If the simplest current/recent approach requires DME substitute a timed leg in your wartime procedure and increase minima to allow for the inaccuracy. Or just tell FS9 users they must.
Remember if you work from old plates not current/recent plates you must convert all magnetic tracks to FS9 MAGVAR. By using current or recent plates (for that part of the world) you can probably avoid MAGVAR problems, but 65 year old plates may need substantial change before they can be used in FS9 and those out of date tracks and procedures may still impact FS9 masts after conversion to 2003 MAGVAR. Other users may have installed more accurate mesh and obstructions than you have installed. Some will be using payware scenery you are not even aware of.
If you can find no current/recent procedures for a particular airfield then you should base the procedures on the current ones for nearby airfields. That way you can discover whether the missing approach procedure was likely to be racetrack or procedure turn or tear drop.
In any event in all cases FS9 users will expect 'backdated' arrival and approach procedures to work in FS9 the way they have configured it with the mesh and obstructions they have installed, including post 2003 obstruction updates. Everything in any FS9 add on has to be configured to work in FS9. If the modern IAF & FAF are not at the wartime locations then the chances are they moved to avoid obstructions that will be present in FS9.
Just publishing wartime procedures, that are no longer safe, would be unhelpful even if they were available. You won't be thanked for telling FS9 users to fly instrument approaches at half the real minimum safe altitudes versus FS9 obstructions. I gave all this considerable thought before deciding on the recommendations in the 2008 Propliner Tutorial and am only repeating them here.
FSAviator.
In conjunction with the recent publication of the 2008 Propliner Tutorial Tom Gibson published a charts link page also linked from www.calclassic.com/tutorials. Along with hundreds of others, It links to three different real NDB approach procedures, to three different instrument runways at SBBE. In many cases there is no reason to 'invent' classic era procedures, they still exist in the modern era, in every realistic, diversified, and glorious detail, and only need to be linked to.
If the current procedures for a relevant airfield no longer include the relevant NDB approaches you can obtain maximum realism by downloading the current VOR approaches and placing your 'new' FS9 NDB where the VOR is today then replicate the current VOR procedure in full or just tell users to download it.
However I recommend that you think very hard about whether bothering to replace the FS9 VOR with an NDB so that FS9 users can fly the arrival and approach looking at an ADF needle is really sufficiently different to avoid telling them to just tune the VOR and fly the same approach looking at the VOR RMI needle on an RMI gauge. For most FS9 users the only practical difference will be the frequency they tune, whether you bother to turn a VOR into an NDB or not. There are easy ways and difficult ways to turn a VOR approach into an NDB approach. Most FS9 users won't allow for drift anyway.
If the simplest current/recent approach requires DME substitute a timed leg in your wartime procedure and increase minima to allow for the inaccuracy. Or just tell FS9 users they must.
Remember if you work from old plates not current/recent plates you must convert all magnetic tracks to FS9 MAGVAR. By using current or recent plates (for that part of the world) you can probably avoid MAGVAR problems, but 65 year old plates may need substantial change before they can be used in FS9 and those out of date tracks and procedures may still impact FS9 masts after conversion to 2003 MAGVAR. Other users may have installed more accurate mesh and obstructions than you have installed. Some will be using payware scenery you are not even aware of.
If you can find no current/recent procedures for a particular airfield then you should base the procedures on the current ones for nearby airfields. That way you can discover whether the missing approach procedure was likely to be racetrack or procedure turn or tear drop.
In any event in all cases FS9 users will expect 'backdated' arrival and approach procedures to work in FS9 the way they have configured it with the mesh and obstructions they have installed, including post 2003 obstruction updates. Everything in any FS9 add on has to be configured to work in FS9. If the modern IAF & FAF are not at the wartime locations then the chances are they moved to avoid obstructions that will be present in FS9.
Just publishing wartime procedures, that are no longer safe, would be unhelpful even if they were available. You won't be thanked for telling FS9 users to fly instrument approaches at half the real minimum safe altitudes versus FS9 obstructions. I gave all this considerable thought before deciding on the recommendations in the 2008 Propliner Tutorial and am only repeating them here.
FSAviator.