search

VATSIM-SSA / sectorfile-fasa

VATSSA Sector File Development for FASA South Africa
1 stars 7 forks source link

Fixes #40 - Added FASH (if applicable) #41

Closed RoboFun01 closed 1 month ago

RoboFun01 commented 1 month ago

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Issue Number and Link

closes https://github.com/VATSIM-SSA/sectorfile-fasa/issues/40

Describe Your Changes

I added a GroundLayout for FASH. BUT, as Jono mentioned in the issue, it is a non-tower aerodrome. So, I only created this to help FACT controllers have better situational awerness. So, all the data is now under the airport, FACT, and not FASS, meaning that it will display on FACT's ASR. FASH also don't have a ASR now.

Checklist

miguelalbano commented 1 month ago

I'm a bit confused. The GroundRadar ASRs are meant to be very airport specific.

However, where I do think this is useful is on the TopSky ASRs (either TMA or CTR) as those positions will be responsible for the airport and having the layout does provide value.

What do you think @RoboFun01 ?

RoboFun01 commented 1 month ago

That makes a lot of sense. I’m home again on Monday, and will also add it to the TopSky ASRs.

Should this then also be removed from FACT’s ASR? 😌

miguelalbano commented 1 month ago

That makes a lot of sense. I’m home again on Monday, and will also add it to the TopSky ASRs.

Should this then also be removed from FACT’s ASR? 😌

I mean, the only file you've submitted is the GRpluingMaps.txt ... so

RoboFun01 commented 1 month ago

But, the way I added it, it will also display on FACT’s ASR. (The airport isnt FASH in the GRMaps file, under the keyword “AIRPORT=“, but it is FACT, meaning it will display on FACT’s ASR. I did this in order to make it more useful to tower controllers (as a ASR of its own would have been useless. (Like FAYP is on FACT’s ASR….)

So, let me rephrase, should I remove it from the GRmaps file completely, and only add it to TSMaps and the related ASRs, or should I keep it in the GRMaps file as is, and just add it also to TSMaps?

miguelalbano commented 1 month ago

But, the way I added it, it will also display on FACT’s ASR. (The airport isnt FASH in the GRMaps file, under the keyword “AIRPORT=“, but it is FACT, meaning it will display on FACT’s ASR. I did this in order to make it more useful to tower controllers (as a ASR of its own would have been useless. (Like FAYP is on FACT’s ASR….)

So, let me rephrase, should I remove it from the GRmaps file completely, and only add it to TSMaps and the related ASRs, or should I keep it in the GRMaps file as is, and just add it also to TSMaps?

I've seen it. Though I wouldn't recommend it as a practice.

Maps should always identify what they cover, and then on the ASR, we can always decide which map we wish to pull in (which in this case would just adding the ICAO itself).

However, this would be relevant more for the TopSky Maps (same logic applies) than the GR ones, if that makes sense.

My perspective is that the GR ASRs should be more static ... aerodrome controllers (GND and TWR) should be focusing on their area of operations and not the neighbouring airfields. That's a job for APP and/or CTR :)

RoboFun01 commented 1 month ago

That makes a lot of sense! I will change it when I am home again.

RoboFun01 commented 1 month ago

@miguelalbano , I commited again, is it better now? :)