Just made the following request on zendesk: (IF you like the idea, please vote it up. I think this type of system can be used to fix all types of other requests about missing or incomplete or wrong information)
The idea started when taxiing on a local Intl. Airport (CYYZ Pearson Intl. to be exact) in which I have the proper airport taxi charts for. Jeppeson.
Most of your taxi ways for these airports are incorrectly labeled which makes it very difficult to realistically follow the taxi directions when the taxi signs on screen are so small.
If you created a wiki-like community trust system that would allow people like myself to go and correct these issues that would be amazing. All types of information within the sim, taxiways, headings or navaids, terrain heights etc… could be edited by community members and confirmed by other community members slowly gaining trust and slowly improving the accuracy of your database.
I think you’ve done an amazing job at this, and instead of inundating you with requests to fix certain airports or other relevant information, why not engage the community to do it for free. I would gladly help fix the airports in my area and beyond to improve the system as a whole. You could be upvoted and information confirmed from others that would improve trust ratings… hopefully, you get the idea, and its potential in creating a system that would remain unrivaled.
This is already a thing. Keep in mind that duplicates reduce the effectiveness of these wishlist threads. What wouldve been 15 more votes for this thread is now split into two.
@trevoC655 ill let you decide if you want me to merge this or if you want to keep it as a separate post.
Great idea Ryan, but in fairness the execution is similar, but the idea is different.
As a developer myself I see it being much more of a stretch for them to accept this idea in regards to scenery for multiple reasons. (love it by the way, just doubt they’d implement it)
As far as data goes, runways headings, taxi signs etc… that’s not something that needs as much quality control.
I could live with the sims scenery as is. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see your idea implemented, but quality control would be a nightmare, and I doubt they would allocate resources to controlling it.
That being said, Its hard to live with information like taxiways that is incorrect.
I hand’t seen your post prior, but if I had I would have still made mine. I may have just mentioned that it is similar to others ideas of a community gateway.
Information like taxiways is either true or false.
Scenery is very subjective and would require a number of resources to get working correctly.
I think if you start simple with something that they can implement with little to no resources that are required to be ongoing there is more of a chance of it getting done.
Once done, other items could be added.
I think if people end up here they should have a look at your thread and up vote it also.
I just have a hard time seeing MS/Partners wanting to move from their very large vision to this.
Sounds good, I was just worried that you were thinking of the same thing that the other thread addressed. There’s a lot of similarities, mainly being that the Gateway thread involves a repository in which users can fix, create, or edit airports. I’ll send my vote into your thread as well.
The big difference between them is one is focused on content creation, which I would be very surprised if MS is going to give up the control over their prize baby to this idea and my idea is focused more on fixing and completing the content they have already created.
Therefore there is no content to be approved with this idea, more of just a trust system to edit and approve the existing items that are incorrect.
Taxi ways obviously were big for me, but runway headings change every year as magnetic north slowly shifts. If MS left changing these things to the community I bet they’d be completely accurate.
I could imagine things like terrain or sea level altitude adjustments etc…
Scenery however, I could maybe imagine people labeling areas or outlining things like windmills or smoke stacks or giving data to MS in such a way that allows their AI to build more accurate scenery, but actually providing scenery would surprise me.
How do you even start to control that? Hundreds of different “looks” would start appearing and some worse than others etc… They’ve already provided a way for the community to add scenery, and I’m betting the best way to have community scenery is by that existing choice… Otherwise they are forcing everyone to use community scenery that may not hold up to par… personally I don’t want that. I like to pick and choose the quality of my addons. anyways I’m rambling.
I would love to edit more than airports and airfields. I’d like to fix missing “POI” - not for nice screenshots - but for a appropriate (N)VFR terrestric navigation experience. There are missing a lot of tall buildings at lots of regions which are not important for the official dev-teams. I would add/fix them, but I only would, if that has an impact on the official map data, not for a custom scenery add-on, nobody cares but me and two local “buddies”.
Just came here to submit this idea, searched first and was glad to find this. Hope it gets upvoted sufficiently, as I think this could speed up corrections significantly while also taking a big load off of Asobo developers, allowing them to focus on things most of us can’t do.
Hmm, I do think this thread should be merged with the scenery gateway thread regardless the discussion that this is asking for something different.
Two reasons:
as it turns out they are working on the scenery gateway after all, which was assumed to not to be the case by op. Which makes it so these two threads are asking the same thing?
I don’t think it makes sense to create multiple topics on a request for a major feature if the feature isn’t there yet. You first should ask for the feature, let them implement it, and then make further requests based on what’s there/how they did it. Of course, you can out your desires in the single wish-thread, but now we’re diluting votes. The same goes for the multiple helicopter threads by the way.
