Hello Richard,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I now understand your position, and I agree with your main point: Navigraph should not modify real-world aeronautical data simply to compensate for incorrect runway coordinates in the simulator.
I also understand the potential consequences you mentioned. Moving the Localizer alone could create inconsistencies with terminal procedures, fixes, IACFs, courses, distances, charts, etc. That is certainly not what I am asking Navigraph to do.
However, there is one important point I would like to add.
I am just an end user of MSFS and Navigraph. I do not have any direct communication channel with ASOBO/Microsoft, nor do I have any particular visibility within the MSFS development process.
You, on the other hand, are an established navigation-data provider and have a direct relationship with ASOBO/Microsoft. For this reason, I believe it would be extremely valuable if Navigraph itself could report this discrepancy to ASOBO/Microsoft, rather than leaving the issue to individual users to report.
The problem is not simply that “the scenery is wrong”. There is a clear discrepancy between:
- the real-world FAA runway coordinates;
- the runway coordinates represented by MSFS;
- the real-world ILS/LOC coordinates provided by Navigraph;
- and the way MSFS 2024 combines these datasets.
In the case of PABR, the Navigraph ILS data is actually consistent with the real-world position visible in satellite imagery and the FAA data you provided. Therefore, moving the Navigraph Localizer to the MSFS runway position would solve the visual alignment in the simulator, but would make the navigation data geographically incorrect.
That is precisely why I believe this should be brought to ASOBO/Microsoft as a data/georeferencing problem in the simulator, rather than being solved by modifying the real-world navigation data.
There is also a very practical reason why I am asking this.
If I report this as an individual user, there is a realistic possibility that the report will receive little attention or be interpreted simply as a scenery issue. A report from Navigraph, showing that the real-world FAA runway coordinates and ILS coordinates are correct, while the corresponding MSFS runway geometry is displaced, would carry considerably more weight and could make it much easier for ASOBO/Microsoft to investigate and correct the underlying problem.
At the moment, the practical situation for users is quite problematic:
It is effectively impossible to fly PABR correctly with Navigraph active, because the Localizer does not coincide with the runway represented by MSFS.
And there is another important aspect: when Navigraph navdata is active, it effectively overrides the simulator’s corresponding navigation data. Therefore, simply telling users to remove Navigraph is not really a viable solution for someone who wants to use current, real-world navigation data.
This is why I believe that finding a proper, permanent solution to the underlying MSFS runway/georeferencing problem would be much better than asking users to choose between:
- correct real-world Navigraph navigation data with an incorrectly positioned runway in MSFS, or
- the simulator’s default navigation data with a visually aligned Localizer.
I fully understand and respect Navigraph’s position that your mission is to provide real-world navigation data, and I am not asking you to compromise that principle.
What I am asking is simply:
Could you please raise this specific discrepancy with ASOBO/Microsoft and see whether there is a proper way for MSFS 2024 to reconcile its runway geometry with the real-world navigation data?
I believe that, given Navigraph’s position and relationship with ASOBO/Microsoft, this could significantly facilitate finding a real solution to the problem.
Thank you again for your time and for looking into this.
Cheers,
Sergio
