Description of the issue: SU6 adds light poles to third party airports that do not need them.
Asobo cannot release the new airport lighting feature in SU6 in this current state. The addition of night lighting impacts dozens (hundreds?) of add-on airports.
Coordinates or location: KORD (one example)
FREQUENCY OF ISSUE
Always.
REPRODUCTION STEPS
Please list clear steps you took in order to help our test team reproduce the same issue:
I’d expect the new default light poles to be removed by the exclusion zone third party developers place under the scenery they’re developing.
If these new poles dont’ get removed by the exclusion zone, that’s a bug. If the developer didn’t properly have an exclusion zone; that’s up to the developer to fix in an update.
We have created an internal ticket to see if our team already has this logged, and if not they will attempt to reproduce the issue and create a new bug report. This item is now marked as feedback-logged. If there is an existing bug report or one is created, we will move this thread to bug-logged.
Forcing developers to update all of their sceneries – that they have already released – to exclude lightpoles added by Asobo is not thoughtful design. They should take another look at this.
I completely agree. In a simplified way, during the MSFS loading process there is a scan that checks the airports we have installed, whether they are purchased add-ons or free third-party sceneries. So, in a way, MSFS already knows which airports are third-party and should automatically exclude them from these kinds of changes.
That’s how I see it. The simulator already has the information needed to handle this properly instead of requiring developers to update sceneries that were already released.
Well, in reference to my original example, of course iniBuilds excludes default objects on their KORD. So, it seems reasonable to assume that Asobo is ignoring that and just plopping down lightpoles anyway.
no, that could mean that the new objects (light poles) aren’t being removed by the exclusion zone, which is a good bug to report during a beta phase (that’s the point of having a beta phase after all).
This is nuts. Also shame on the devs for not adding exclusion rectangles because we all know most wont release updates for their airports. There should be an option to toggle these on and off for those of us that only use 3rd party airports. I could go in the SDK and create a project with tons of little exclusion rectangles but then you run the risk of also omitting airport specific library objects and thats hours of work I shouldn’t have to spend as a paying customer.
My Personal Comment & Observation
I suspect that the inclusion of light poles to 3rd-party aircraft is not by design but a bug. Now that it has been feedback-logged , hopefully the test team will be able to repro the issue quickly & upgrade the tag to bug-logged , with a fix put in place before SU6 releases.
MastLights have been added to a large number of generic airports, ranging in size from M to XXL, with automatic placement. This improves illumination at parking spots at these airports in night conditions.
The 2024 SDK lists six sizes of airport:
0: Extra Small Airport
1: Small Airport
2: Medium Airport
3: Large Airport
4: Extra Large Airport
5: Extra Extra Large Airport
So I think one should see these in any generic airport that is not small or extra small. I’ve not seen any definition of what defines a specific airport size in MSFS (e.g. "small < 10 hectares, large > 1000 hectares) so I think it is up to the airport designer to use the sizes as they see fit.
No idea - needless to say, I’ve not visited them all IRL!
I’m guessing that there is no master database that could tell you if they existed or not IRL, so MSFS just places them at Medium Airports & above, assuming that small & extra small would not have them.
