The visual approach lighting system could use an update. These lights are CURRENTLY operating in game on an absolute white or red value, when in reality they actually have color that transitions slowly or with a gradient from white, to pink, to red. Please ask real pilots this and you will get this same answer. This ancient coding of how these lights work has been wrong for decades and I think it’s time MSFS puts it to rest and get closer to the mantra, “as real as it gets”.
Since most PAPIs in MSFS are mislocated, (almost always 4 red) you don’t notice the lack of a color transition. 
I happily trade the color transition for a correct/useable PAPI placement.
One of the worst basic bugs since day one.
8 Likes
Yep,
And then there is ORBX that let you pay for V2 with actual working lights.
LIEO
Here is first version.
-Bram
1 Like
Agree lighting would be good, but the PAPI/Glideslope mismatch is one of the most infuriating bugs since day 1 of 2020 and still not fixed.
It is one of the reasons so many people make bad landings, because they hardly ever cross the threshold at the correct altitude because of basically always incorrect guidance.
@dectenor1, I assume you’re talking about the misplaced VASI/PAPI lights.
If so, I believe it was decided to leave correct placement to the WorldHub Scenery Gateway. That, unfortunately, won’t be brought back until 3rd quarter of this year or later, and then it will take a long time unless many, many people get active with the Gateway.
1 Like
Yeah, but it’s just a bit of a mess in general. They are also not corresponding in many, many 3rd party sceneries from developers that have got this correct in previous sims, I find it strange to believe that they all have become incapable of placing the papis in the correct place.
I’m just wondering if it’s something like the sim reads the angle incorrectly, it also hard to maintain 2 reds and 2 whites all the way down, something I have never had a problem with before MSFS 2020/2024 in 20 years of simming. Again I wonder if somehow the sim is not actually getting a perfect 3 degree slope, or maybe the papi angle is far too sensitive and you only have to get on would be a 3.01 degree slope for it to go 1 red 3 white etc. I don’t know I’m just speculating…
There’s also the issue of the glides, again I wonder if this is overlay sensitive in the sim, or somehow it’s not reading them correctly, again with third party developers that have a proven record of getting these things correct in previous sims, there are so so many instances of the PAPIs and glides not matching sometimes one of them being incorrect, sometimes the other, sometimes neither, but hardly ever both correct and matching.
This is just a tiny corner of MSFS that possibly has more than one bug, and just demonstrates how deep of a bug-fest the sim is.
2 Likes
You bring up an interesting question, how sensitive are real world VASI/PAPI lights?
After a little internet search, I found the following:
For a typical 3 degree approach slope, PAPI lights should be angled as follows: 3°30’, 3°10’, 2°50’, 2°30’ (3.50°, 3.17°, 2.83°, 2.50°).[1]: 8–36
I guess we have to assume these angles are what the sim uses, too? (Unless we can measure the angles in the sim?)
2 Likes
I would be interested to find out what values the sim uses!
It’s one of those things one would hope they would get correct.
But I’m not so confident.
2 Likes
The placement of VASI/PAPI lights in the sim is almost always further from the runway threshold than they should be. This means shallower angles than the lights should make with the ground plane, which results in lights that are more sensitive than they are in real life. (If my logic is correct!)
If this logic is correct, the sim may adhere to the angles above but because the VASI/PAPI lights are placed incorrectly, the use of the lights in sim is more sensitive than in real life, as you’ve thought!
1 Like
I’ve got a whole bug-reported, feedback-logged thread on this. I moved a lot of them in Northern California airports while the World Hub was open, just waiting for that to come back so I can resume working on it. But yes, it’ll take a lot more effort.
In terms of angle, the individual LHAs seem to be correct - keep in mind that 0.2° at a distance of 1500’ (roughly 1/4 mile) is only about 5’ vertical difference. I think the bigger difference is the relative lack of depth perception and pitch axis (over)controllability that causes abnormally high sink rates.
But at the end of the day at a lot of it simply comes down to incorrect longitudinal placement.
2 Likes