Allow Deletion of Closed (non-existent) Airports via 'World Hub'

[Mustang242Sqn]

The World Hub will allow users to edit default airports using stock library assets and submit their changes for release into the sim.

Could it be made possible for users to request or ‘flag’ airports to be completely deleted from the base simulator scenery database, where that airfield no longer exists in real life?

Key points in support of this request:

• The AIRAC data in MSFS is updated regularly. This covers navigation, possibly some airfield data (not sure).
• The airport database in MSFS is considerably older and (as far as I know) is not updated from any global source. As such we have some incorrect (outdated) ICAO codes and many airfields in the simulator (i.e. on the world map) which are no longer there in real life.
• If flying to small airstrips (especially grass/dirt types) chosen from the world map, or any external app which uses the MSFS database (such as Little Navmap, Neofly, AirHauler 2), it is often necessary to check on Bing Maps first, to see if the airfield is still there. Otherwise you may find buildings or other obstacles where the airfield once was.

I raised the question previously about whether the World Hub could be used to remove airports which no longer exist in the real world. Until now, nobody knows. That thread is now closed/locked.

Could the "World Hub" be used to delete non-existent airports?

I’m not sure if this can be answered ahead of time, but I think it’s a very valid question. MSFS receives navigation database updates, but the airport database is sorely out-dated. As a predominently GA flyer, often utilising grass airstrips, it’s not uncommon to find that airfields in the MSFS database (and on the world map) do not actually exist in the game - at least as far as the scenery goes. There may be houses or warehouses where a grass strip used to be. Sure, there is ‘technically’ a r…

I also asked the question via today’s Q&A session which Jayne very kindly asked to the team. See link to relevant part of stream:

Twitch

The answer was:

• Jorg said Nikolai would know
• Martial said that the mechanism to delete content may not be included, as it’s designed to add new content, not exclude existing content
• They would need to check but could ask for it to be added

Finally, some examples as a picture speaks a thousand words:

EGAX + EGAW
As they exist in the MSFS database (Little Navmap screenshot):

As it looked 5+ years ago, both airfields present (if hard to spot):

And today - EGAX no longer exists (top airfield):

EGEJ
As it was, east-west grass strip running near the road:

As it is in MSFS today. Courtesy of everyone that keeps buying from Amazon:

EGIH
As it was - two airfields on the old aerials:

As it is now. The north-eastern airfield is a caravan site:

MSFS database only has the north-eastern airfield in its database. With World Hub we could add the south-western one, but we need to be able to remove the old one!

These are just a few recent examples I ran into, and yes, they are all from the UK, but they do exist the world over and I have seen similar cases in other places.

[Habu2u2]

I find myself wanting to agree with you, with a caveat. In the U.S., “All recognizable hard-surfaced runways, including those closed, are shown (edit added: on Sectional charts) for visual identification. Airports may be public or private.” The unsaid motto is, “any port in a storm”, meaning a closed airport may be your best option in a crisis. Those airports are shown on a sectional chart as a circle with an X through it, and the legend for that symbol says “Abandoned-paved having a landmark value, 3000 ft or greater”. (the quotes are all from the legend of an actual sectional chart). So I think those should remain in the sim, and eventually on the VFR map.
So in my opinion, airports that are clearly now non-existent, e.g. there’s now a Walmart ™ where it used to be, and any that don’t meet the above criteria, should definitely be allowed to be removed from the sim to maintain realism.
Regards

[Mustang242Sqn]

Agreed

There are plenty more airfields that are closed but still have a usable (and visible!) runway. At least you could land on those and complete your simulated flight even if they were closed for real - some simmers may never realise that (and it not matter to them; ignorance is bliss).

Manston (EGMH) is perhaps a good example. It’s in the database, it exists in the real world still, but Little Navmap shows it as closed (as it was in 2014) - see “Facilities” entry in the tooltip & crossed out airfield icon.
I am not sure if that status comes from the MSFS database or some external source that LNM is cross-referencing, but it fits your example.

But, if you’re a simmer who’s using sectional charts, even if the airfield was removed from the database, the runway would still be visible in the sim (with a little less definition in terms of white lines) and so would auto-gen buildings. The sim simply wouldn’t recognise you had landed at a known airport for your logbook.

[Habu2u2]

I thought they made a valid point in the livestream today that it was going to be/is built to only edit current airports, but I think you bringing the issue up made them realize there was a valid option they hadn’t addressed in their planning for the hub.
My concern now is they’ll add it to the list of things to fix, so we might not see it on release, and we know how long “fixes” can take.
But you made a Great Point concerning something they should allow in the World Hub.
Let’s hope for the best!
Regards

[CharlieFox00]

Part of the problem is that the Bing imagery may or may not match the sim’s database. Perhaps it’d be better to allow putting a closed X on the runway if it is indeed currently a closed field, but still exists on the imagery.

[AncientDisc6642]

Narrow self interest will result in unwanted consequences.
Meigs, Kai Tak and Tegel are three closed and/or non-existent airports,
yet they still are welcomed and even paid for by MSFS users.

It is important to recognise that MSFS is a simulator.

That means that one of its other purposes is to allow those who wish to,
to recreate scenarios that are no longer possible.

What next, require the removal of all aircraft models and liveries that
have been consigned to museums in the real world?

By all means ask that it is made possible to edit out what you don’t want on an
individual copy of MSFS at your house, but be careful what you wish for and think
of those who may not share your opinion.

[Mustang242Sqn]

@AncientDisc6642

It is important to recognise that MSFS is a simulator.

That means that one of its other purposes is to allow those who wish to,
to recreate scenarios that are no longer possible.

I’m afraid I find your post somewhat argumentative and rather short-sighted. Do you really believe I intended to deny anybody of the chance to recreate their desired scenarios? I think you may have missed my point entirely… how sad

Yes, it’s a simulator. I recognise that fact We each customise it to our own liking. But by default it is trying to simulate the world, as it is today. That is the base “layer” of this cake. The starting point. The modern world. That is why we don’t have airfields from 100 years ago in the sim, nor historical aircraft flying around as ATC. It wasn’t the intention to mix time periods in the base simulator.

If you then choose to add layer upon layer of futuristic or historical content, you are free to do so. Everyone is. That’s the beauty of freeware and payware. I support it entirely.

But right now, we have an imbalance. This is the situation with the MSFS world:

• Bing aerials - reasonably up-to-date to the real world (less so in remote areas)
• Navigation data - very up-to-date, regularly updated (AIRAC)
• DEM data - reasonably up-to-date, improved regionally with each World Update
• Airport database - about 10 years old, and does not change (only manual fixes?)

See the issue? The airports are falling behind the rest of the world. The new World Hub will let the community improve all of the world’s airports, for you and others, for free. Why is it right to only add, but not take away?

Since the aim of MSFS, in the first instance, is to make a roughly 1:1 representation of the world today, it makes perfect sense to clean out the dud airport entries. To match the visuals we see with the database (as used by the world map, VFR map, external flight planners, GPS systems etc.).

Right now, there are many airports that I can start from on the world map, that are not there. I start inside a building instead, or a forest. Is that OK by you? To me, it seems ridiculous.

If you want to recreate flights from an historic, long-since built-over airfield in your simulator, you will download some freeware or payware and install that into your simulator instead. That will not change! You can still do that! Install the content, and “bing” (no pun intended), the airport is back on YOUR world map.

I like Meigs Field as much as the next guy, but since it’s no longer there for real, I would prefer to see the area as it really looks now - by default that is. If I want to add that to my sim, I can just install it from the Marketplace/Content Manager (or freeware as necessary). I hope you see where I’m coming from.

Why do you think I want to rob everyone of the chance to recreate something that is no longer possible? I don’t have a “narrow self interest” at all. In fact, I want to make the MSFS world a better, more accurate place for everyone… so on the contrary, I would say your view is very short-sighted in fact, and driven by your own narrow self interest.

@AncientDisc6642

By all means ask that it is made possible to edit out what you don’t want on an
individual copy of MSFS at your house, but be careful what you wish for and think
of those who may not share your opinion.

As I said, I think you missed the point of this request entirely and reacted based a misunderstood fear that you would lose something important to you. It is not a selfish request. It is a request to align the world’s database with what we are ALREADY seeing out of the window.

Imagine these scenarios:

• You plan a flight on the current world map from airport A to B. When you arrive at B, it’s not there! Just houses, or shops, or farmland. That happens now. If we can delete “B” with the World Hub, it won’t happen and you will never face the disappointment at the end of your flight…
• You are flying with something like the GTN750 which can automatically give you guidance to the nearest airport in case your engine fails. Your engine quits. Panic! But it’s OK, the GTN750 takes you to the nearby local airport! Relief! But when you glide over the top of it, it’s not there. Just buildings, no runway. Bing is up-to-date, but the 10-year-old airport database in the GPS is not. If only someone had deleted that old entry from the airport database using the World Hub, you wouldn’t have to unexpectedly crash into the town…

See where I’m coming from? I sure hope so…

In short, I want users to be able to clean up the obsolete data that’s left in the sim, no longer matching what we see out of the window.

In an effort to help prevent further misunderstandings, I have edited the topic title to say “Closed (non-existent) Airports” - maybe that will help.

[CharlieFox00]

Good post. The runway lights that exist at some airports in the sim is evidence the airport database is closer to 15 years old (2007-2008)!

[AncientDisc6642]

Thank you for the lesson.
My main point is that the choice would be better left to the user,
rather than being imposed by a “World Hub”.

[Mustang242Sqn]

I appreciate why you would feel that way, but you have no choice in receiving navigation data updates, nor scenery or sim updates - they happen regardless. Why not airport updates too?

While I don’t know for sure, I believe that the community’s efforts to update airport data with the World Hub will be added into your sim automatically, whether you like it or not. While you may see that as your choice being taken away from you, I don’t believe it is the case at all.

Any add-on content installed into the sim is always added “on top of” the base scenery, with higher priority. So if you have bought a payware airport, you will always see it, no matter what happens to the base scenery ‘underneath’ that content. And airport can be added, changed, or removed, but your payware airport will remain happily in the sim, unchanged until such time as you choose to change it.

In other words, you have nothing to be afraid of! (Well, except the general update cycle which may occasionally break other parts of the game…)

[NixonRedgrave]

You’d asked me to contribute my findings that I’d posted here:

Scenery Gateway System - World Hub

Do we have any description of the “Scenery Gateway System” that will be implemented in MSFS? Will such a system allow us to correct things such as “airports” that don’t really exist in real life that do exist in the sim? For example: KLOS – this doesn’t exist. I cannot even understand how the sim autogenerated an ICAO-type name for this broken cracked defunct asphalt runway in the middle of rural California ranchlands. 36CN – this doesn’t exist. Looking at satellite imagery, it would appear …

The thing is, most of what I’m seeing isn’t that the airstrip/airport is simply non-existent in the real world and needs to be deleted, it’s more an issue of the way the development of the sim was constructed that many of the private or defunct airstrips are assigned ICAO-esque names.

My posts and my concerns, thus far, are focused on the USA and, specifically, California.

My preliminary research has revealed that an individual with a private airfield would (could? should?) register with the FAA and would be able to be assigned a Location Identifier (LID).

What is confusing, to me, is why many of these private/defunct airstrips (perhaps, that don’t have an official LID) are given K-based ICAO codes.

There are many examples in California alone:

• KSAM
• KBUO
• KTAB
• KTAA
• KLOS
• etc.

As an example, this is what “KLOS” looks like zoomed in on one end. This is a closed, unmaintained airstrip:

And this is what the sim is calling KBUO “Buttonwillow Airport”, when in reality that looks like a private airstrip for, what looks like, a crop duster (when zoomed in via a maps app) parked over by the hangar to the west:

This is the real Buttonwillow Airport known as L62 south of the aforementioned private strip:

Rather than using an unofficial unsanctioned ICAO designator for these unidentified airstrips, it would have made more sense to have a non-official, sim-specific identifier code that represented unregistered private or defunct airstrips.

For me, I don’t want these deleted, but I’d rather they be designated something else that classified them as closed, private, defunct (aka dilapidated) rather than assigning them an ICAO-esque name as if they were a proper airport.

[CharlieFox00]

Agree 100%

I think a lot of them ended up in the sim when the AI scrape pulled them in. Looks like a runway, must be a runway, though funny enough, many charted/registered private strips and tons of uncharted/abandoned ones did not make it. I know several of the latter in CA alone.

Anyway, I’m sure they had to give them a code to make them work with the sim’s internal nav and menu/airport select system.

We need a standard, not only for the sim’s AI scrape, but for scenery builders who do fantasy and retro airports. I propose using X as the ICAO prefix for these going forward, followed by a letter, then any combination of numbers and letters for the last two digits.

[Mustang242Sqn]

Thanks for sharing. Given that airports are a key element of flight simming, it’s good to shine a light on this topic.

Your post and that of @CharlieFox00 raises some interesting questions, such as whether some of the smaller airfields were really generated in the sim from the “AI scrape” as mentioned. For smaller grass strips, I would say not as they are fairly indistinguishable and we’d have lots of ‘false positives’. What’s more, plenty that I have found in the UK have parking spots and more, which is likely based on old data from when they were really active.

Then there’s the question of the ICAO codes. I hadn’t looked into them but assumed the ones I’d found were historical and had fallen out of use. But it seems they were auto-generated in the absence of other information - as in, the airfield data existed from some source, but a regular ID didn’t, so Asobo or their data providers used an algorithm to name them automatically. I agree that’s not a great solution.

Many of the defunct airfields appear in other databases, such as on Volanta’s map, which is multi-sim compatible of course so has to cater for all sorts. They often have unique IDs such as “GB-0xxx” for UK airfields. Some appear as runways but have no icon or ID showing at all. (Volanta has an online form to submit requests for missing airfields though.)

Here’s one of the examples I showed earlier. In MSFS, the now defunct airfield on the coast is EGIH, but to Volanta it’s GB-0387. That allows it to exist for the purposes of recording flights to/from the airfield, if you choose to use it in MSFS (especially if you have custom scenery). Meanwhile, the ‘real’ (current) airfield to the west is in the database with two runways, but has no icon.

Your KBUO is the same. Runway but no icon or information:

I don’t recall if Volanta reads the full MSFS database (or just checks for add-on scenery), but if not then that data is clearly coming from somewhere.

Well, once the World Hub is out, we’ll have to see what we can do about it. Maybe we can at least flag these for moderators to review, even if we can’t outright remove* them by community-made submissions.

*Allowing for the fact not all should be removed - depends on the airfield.

[Mustang242Sqn]

Well, @NixonRedgrave @CharlieFox00, I have some hope for removing airports now, after exploring the SDK and airport editing this evening.

By making a new project to edit an airport, it’s easily possible to set the status to ‘Closed’ in the airport properties, which outright removes it from the world map!

One of my earlier examples, EGEJ, which does not exist in any shape or form in reality or on Bing Maps aerials, is no longer on my world map - the little icon and black runway have gone:

It remains in the database of course. After updating Little Navmap’s scenery database from MSFS, the airfield is listed but it shows closed there too.

(I added a [Closed] tag to the end of its name while playing around with the various fields available but will remove it.)

So, I hope we can make simple submissions like this to the World Hub, to close defunct airfields in the sim, while leaving them in the sim’s database for use by various external programs that might still use them, e.g. to recognise them if you land there, such as in an emergency (for those with a runway still available).

Some external programs, like Little Navmap, clearly read the ‘closed’ status. Some others, like Air Hauler 2, do not.

Now to begin making some clean-ups. Whether World Hub compatible or not, I can share a bundle of “closed airport” updates later

[DinoPete11]

Can we downvote ideas? I for one want neglected airfields in the sim. It’s enough they’re disappearing left right and center in real life.

I definitely DO NOT want their traces in the sim to be removable by anybody in the userbase

[Speed1994]

@DinoPete11

Can we downvote ideas?

Hi @DinoPete11,
There is no way to downvote a Wishlist request, forum members have the choice to not vote for features they don’t want.

Members can however disagree and make their case as to why they think it isn’t a good idea by replying to the topic (as you have done), as long as they do so constructively while complying with the Code of Conduct.

Cheers

[TheReproCase]

What if I want to fly into older airports, back before suburbia ate the rest of the land?

How long until someone uses the world hub to delete Meigs?

[DinoPete11]

Opt in version you’re proposing here is fine by me, voluntary cleanup on your local copy of MSFS

But the idea of leaving the general, shared database at the mercy of wider public that may not have the best judgement? I don’t like it at all and I hope it does not come true.

I have already lost the legacy museum/airfield in Kraków at EPKC, it was present as a start location in alpha and got purged with updates. The runway is still functional, and up until last year the airfield was reactivated yearly for a minor local airshow. It’s status as active airport was murky, but it was mostly inactive except as heliport for Police - and now this very convenient location is not a viable takeoff/departure, due to either some auto database update or some helpful soul reporting it as dead throughout alpha.

I do not want to have to deal with this for any other field due to random netizens having ideas.

You mention keeping airports in the database for use as destinations by neofly, airhauler, etc. Cool. Now, how are you going to take off from them, if they’re purged from MSFS departure airport list by overeager world hub users? You’re gonna slew over there from a neighboring airport that wasn’t cut yet?

This idea, in the form of world hub updates, can backfire in more ways than I can count

[DestructZero915]

I’m cautiously optimistic about how this will turn out, but there are some issues that concern me as well. My hope is that my LOCAL changes that I make through the SDK continue to supercede changes made by ANYONE else, even the World Hub.

One of my hobbies is messing around with airports, but I never upload them to the public. Sometimes I remove large buildings, sometimes I add more hangars, painted lines, etc. I would never want anyone else to have to accept my changes, and I certainly wouldn’t want to fire up MSFS one morning and find that my work was overlaid. The assumption I’m making here is that as long as the airport remains to exist in MSFS, then I can make my local changes at will and never see them overlaid.

But I assume this poses a problem when it comes to removal of non-existent airports. I’ve never altered an airport that didn’t exist in real life, but I’m sure that someone has. The Meigs example is valid - what would happen if someone put a lot of effort into making changes there, and then someone deleted it from the sim? Or what if enough people wanted Meigs to be re-created in some historical context, and a 3rd party signed up to do it? Would that even be allowed?

I personally would be fine with maintaining my own airports, since I really like creating and altering and I don’t plan on making changes to defunct airports. However, there are a lot of people out there who don’t want to get into the SDK and don’t want that to happen.

[Mustang242Sqn]

I’m not going to go over old ground in my reply, but what I cannot understand is why people who might want to remove (i.e. 'correct") the world are being labelled negatively as “random netizens” or “over eager” or otherwise. That’s implying that people are going to sabotage airports, and your sim will be decimated. It’s not going to happen. X-Plane has a working scenery gateway system, much to everyone’s benefit (well, there are always those that take exception).

The World Hub alpha is soon to start so some will find out. It’s likely to be an opt-in system, but even if it was not, then it would surely be moderated for sanity. So only improvements/corrections would go live, not someone deleting Heathrow for giggles

Think of this: You all readily accept Bing Maps updates, city updates, navdata updates (where a nav beacon or airway might just vanish!) and so on. Why do you want the airports to be locked in the past?

@DinoPete11

Can we downvote ideas? I for one want neglected airfields in the sim. It’s enough they’re disappearing left right and center in real life.

I definitely DO NOT want their traces in the sim to be removable by anybody in the userbase

Why is it so unpalatable to imagine the airport data being removed if the airport is long gone? Remember: The physical runway and buildings will remain - if they are still there in real life. So you could still use them. You just wouldn’t be able to spawn there easily without add-on content to “put it back on the map” as a selectable airfield - as anyone can do with Meigs with the 40th anniversary content.

@TheReproCase

How long until someone uses the world hub to delete Meigs?

It’s not in the sim by default, as far as I know. It’s only added by optional content from the 40th anniversary release. Can’t delete what’s not in the default world scenery!

When MSFS 2024 arrives, I am sure the world’s airport data will be more up-to-date anyway. What then, when the closed airports have finally disappeared from your sim? 2020 didn’t have Meigs but we all survived… it then could be optionally added later.

I do understand the concerns, but since the whole world is evolving and updating, so too should the airports along with it. Those who want to resurrect airfields of a bygone age can do so with community-made add-on content, like those who recreate WWII airfields for example.

At some point you have to agree that it makes no sense to include old airfields in their original format, decades after they close. They won’t “fit” with the rest of the world. The world - by default - should be generally “up to date”. Exceptions for ‘historical reasons’ should be exceptions; and that’s where community add-ons and third-parties can come in.

Either way, the sim will have scenery “layers” and I expect it will work like this from low to high priority:

• Base content, default airports
• World Hub airports from the community (opt-in basis, most likely)
• Add-on content downloaded or created by the user (‘community’ folder)

Either way, thanks for the ongoing engagement. If you all enjoy spawning on a runway that goes through the middle of a car park or industrial estate, who am I to say it should spoil your immersion?