Thanks for all your impressive work!
I was suggested to post this issue in this thread by a moderator.
Hope this will be fixed!
Have a nice day
1 Like
No problem!
I get why the mods said that - on the surface it looked like one thing, but it ended up being another. Sometimes it’s not easy to classify these issues without a deep dig.
That’s an interesting explanation. Hope that who needs to read this is actually reading.
1 Like
Now I’m curious. It’d be fun to watch all the planes come in to EDDS on the ILS and be super low over the 25 threshold.
In other news, apparently the low glideslope TCH had been noticed by other users. We’ve just finally confirmed the issue in detail. But with Stuttgart being such a busy airport, I’m surprised this wasn’t being absolutely screamed about from the rooftops!
Good work in noticing the issue, @INoooch !
1 Like
With that part resolved, I did want to refocus the discussion back to the original issue, which is the real-world variability in PAPI installation distance from threshold, specifically at smaller airports/runways, and the resultant variability in TCH.
The sim is mostly defaulting to installations 900-1000’ down the runway, and that is clearly not the case on the thousands of runways with these installations in the real world. This leads to very high approaches and long landings, some on very short runways. Let’s push hard and get this fixed!
1 Like
There is an argument for doing the same with Planes, to compensate for the lower resolution of the monitor, compared with one’s vision in RL.
Ie, when they are not close up, and they move away from the viewer, their actual rendering size on the screen, should decrease at a rate less than geometrical Physics would dictate.
the same effect as being suggested for PapI ( and including other items, such as windsocks).
Maybe , for the PURESTS, that do not believe this should be implemented, there should be an User Control Option to control the amount of size compensation that is done.
Maybe consider this an Accessibility feature, for the Visually Impaired, or those of use who cannot run MSFS on an 85" 8K Monitor.
3 Likes
This is such a big problem for me at the moment and I’m surprised it’s not as high priority as I believe it should be. Every landing I se to do, following the PAPI put me somewhere in the middle of the runway.
It is very easy to accidentally ‘terraform’ the underlying scenery when placing a runway in the SDK.
But again you would hope that for any major airport and payware 3rd party, checks would be made to ensure the runway thresholds are at the correct altitude (AMSL?)
Great work as always 
2 Likes
Thanks! Yeah, I agree it’s easy to mess up the terraform (ask me how I know, haha), but I’d think with an airport of this size and stature, it’d have been addressed at some point. And someday when I have a bunch of free time, I’m going to sit there for a while and watch planes come in way too low. Maybe I’ll stream it! 
2 Likes
Maybe VASI and PAPI locations and types will be up-to-date and accurate n FS2024? We can always hope!
Not an eye candy feature. So it won’t be fixed.
1 Like
I’ll just have to keep ranting and making fun of how ridiculous it is on my streams until they do.
1 Like
Yes, whatever you can do to help. After all, PAPI and VASI are still basics of flight best practices as far as I know.
I am currently working on five different airports. Every one of them has had more than two VASI issues (type incorrect, location incorrect, wrong side of runway, missing, etc.).They’re all pretty small, with just two runways. The exception is when there is no issue!
1 Like
Oh, they’re using a 15-year old database, back when VASI installations were still marginally predominant in the US. Aside from the specific issue this thread addresses (longitudinal placement and the effect on landing aimpoint), the type and side of runway, and whether they even exist are as often as not completely off. If you extrapolate the error rate in my random sampling, it will affect thousands of installations (along with approach lights).
It’s simply not effective or reasonable to expect scenery designers to go in and fix each one. They basically need to get the new data (which are publicly published every 28 days in the US) and do a full, system-wide re-run.
I have a separate wishlist addressing the overall wrong/missing light types. But it only has 13 votes which tells me either people don’t care, or more likely, they don’t know what they don’t know and why they should care, for the sake of fidelity.
4 Likes
Agree 100%. To rely on the up and coming scenery gateway to fix the issues would take decades and they would never all be fixed. I know the US data you’re talking about. It gives exact placement of VASIs / PAPIs. Type is easier to find. I would think European data exists as well. Don’t know about other areas of the world.
I read your post about wrong/missing light types last night but apparently didn’t vote. I did today, though.
1 Like
feedback logged, never fixed 
Up to 24 votes now…. 100% agree with you
108 votes … what people look while they are landing?
1 Like
Guess this could be corrected with the - never released- scenery gateway system. 
2 Likes
“10 years support”
1 Like