General Question Wideawake runway numbers

[Interceptor]

Hello,I am wondering if some fellow orbinaut,can tell me how the runways are numbered at wideawake international?the reason I am asking is that two MFD's which I won't name are not matching up,in other words they both are pointing to different locations,this way I will know to tell the author that if there is a mistake made and he could correct it.Thanks:tiphat:

 

[ADSWNJ]

There's no definition of runway name in the base files, so you either go by local data for real airports, (or satellite maps), or apply a convention based on the true headings. For Wideawake, the three runways are all 120/300 degrees. For Glideslope, I picked 12 R, C, L and 30 L, C, R. Others use 12 L, R, RR and 30 R, L, LL. Or, since one runway is designated just for takeoff, you could argue that 30L should not be designated at all.

Happy to change to whatever the author intended though.

 

[Interceptor]

So basicaly I know where the take off only runway is,so the middle runway which side is 12 R,C,L,and which side is 30,R,C,L? you can use the WAI vab for a reference point.Thanks

---------- Post added at 06:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ----------

Nevermind,I figured it out,thanks for the info thou.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

There's no definition of runway name in the base files, so you either go by local data for real airports, (or satellite maps), or apply a convention based on the true headings. For Wideawake, the three runways are all 120/300 degrees. For Glideslope, I picked 12 R, C, L and 30 L, C, R. Others use 12 L, R, RR and 30 R, L, LL. Or, since one runway is designated just for takeoff, you could argue that 30L should not be designated at all.

Happy to change to whatever the author intended though.

The proper terminology is Runways 12 Left, Center, and Right, and Runways 30 Left, Center, and Right. So your choice is in fact the correct one.

Yes, one runway is intended to be a takeoff-only. If that's the case, they should have uniform winds 24/7/365, which I highly doubt.

 

[ADSWNJ]

Thanks Maverick, and yes, I was aware that those are standard naming conventions. (By the way - I had fun with Matagorda, if you look that one up inn Glideslope).

For Interceptor - have a look at the "VB" selection on the Glideslope CFG page. That's a visual base view, where I attempt to plot out the runways and directions for you to visualize as you come down the glideslope. It was quite interesting to code too!

Re the winds - I reckon Wideawake needs a crosswind runway, just in case. You are landing in the middle of nowhere, and potentially deadstick too, so every option helps!

 

[krool1969]

Real life runway numbers

I don't know if this applies to Orbiter but in real life runways are numbered based on the runway heading. The number corresponds to the heading an aircraft will be on on that runway plus a zero, which is not printed. So if an airplane is landing on runway/taking off on runway 9 his heading will be 090. The opposite end of the runway will be runway 27, for heading 270. If there are 2 runways at the same airport one will me 27 L(eft) and the other 27 R(ight).
Three runways will have 27 C(enter).

 

[wehaveaproblem]

A bit late to this thread, even my forum lurking is lacking of late!

I'm not at home this week so can't check my original notes, files and docs for the old Ascension regarding logic behind the numbering. IIRC I just used the orientation of the real world runway for the basis for all runway orientations. The original original Ascension Island only has the one runway, as per RL, and I think I used the sat imagery to position it. It's actually wrong by one digit, it should be 130/13, not 120. It's correct on AU.

But the interesting part of this discussion for me was the wind, I'd never really given it thought before now. I guess my internal logic is that if the RL runway has no crosswind option, then it must be ok. But then again, nor does Gatwick or Heathrow or any number of busy RL airports. I suspect the winds at Ascension, being in the middle of the sea, are predominantly from a similar direction, given the larger weather patterns and no land disturbance etc... or perhaps the RAF/USAF just like a challenge!

And although the launch runway has always been a contentious issue with Wideawake, I reckon an XR/DG class vessel has enough power and lift to take off with even a considerable tail wind...? Well let's hope people buy that argument or they'll hate the walled-in version at AU lol.

 

[ADSWNJ]

Interesting - I do see that the original RAF strip was 13/31 as you mentioned. But "obviously" when they built the whole new spaceport, they renamed the runways to align with the corrected headings (12/30)

On the takeoff runway - at full weight, the XR-5 is close to not lifting off on that strip. With a tailwind, I think you'd risk being in the water off the end!

 

[Hielor]

Interesting - I do see that the original RAF strip was 13/31 as you mentioned. But "obviously" when they built the whole new spaceport, they renamed the runways to align with the corrected headings (12/30)

Happens in real life, too--due to the magnetic drift, runways sometimes get re-numbered. I think Renton airport (KRNT) here in Seattle recently changed their numbers.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

On the takeoff runway - at full weight, the XR-5 is close to not lifting off on that strip. With a tailwind, I think you'd risk being in the water off the end!

That is true, also true for AU actually. For that reason I have been tempted to stretch the launch way by a little bit more. But the xr5 is a true beast of a vessel and I've struggled design wise to accommodate her, yet not have every other vessel dwarfed by infrastructure capable of taking the vanguard. Essentially I have settled for a few close tolerances for that reason, so I think RL will take a second string to design and playability in that regard. Plus it is fun to only just reach your rotate point in time when launching a fully loaded xr5!

 

[ADSWNJ]

If a future Orbiter were to support terrain, you could put a launch ramp on the end of that runway - e.g. like this:

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.ne...VF-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier.jpg

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

And btw - I vote to keep 12L, C, R and 30 R, C, L as the official runway names!

 

[Hielor]

If a future Orbiter were to support terrain, you could put a launch ramp on the end of that runway - e.g. like this:

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.ne...VF-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier.jpg

A launch ramp would probably be a bad idea for something like an XR-5...

 

[Krishnan]

If a future Orbiter were to support terrain, you could put a launch ramp on the end of that runway - e.g. like this:

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.ne...VF-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier.jpg

---------- Post added at 01:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

And btw - I vote to keep 12L, C, R and 30 R, C, L as the official runway names!

That would be nice, but the runway is curved and floating on water in Orbiter 2016

 

[N_Molson]

That would be nice, but the runway is curved and floating on water in Orbiter 2016

Elevation issue, the curve comes from the vertical distortion and water is because elevation of most of the island = 0, which is translated into water. Face's tools (OT3 project) should help you.

 

[Krishnan]

Elevation issue, the curve comes from the vertical distortion and water is because elevation of most of the island = 0, which is translated into water. Face's tools (OT3 project) should help you.

Is there a way to download it?

 

[Face]

Is there a way to download it?

Link to development thread: https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/orbiter-texture-tree-tools-ot3.34136/