Reviews (by Felix)

I thought ok, good reviews apart from that I have other RDPreset Airports. Here are the reasons why I reviewed with 1 Star: Taxiway Lights in the middle of the taxiway, Missing taxiway signs. 3D Modelling is very simple so are the textures 2-3 Stars maximum. The biggest issue I see is taxiway data as this seems to be not readable by BATC. This is actually the first airport of my 109 Airport collection where this data cant be read properly. The price is way too high for the quality offered. Maybe the Salvuz alternative would have been a better choice.

I would like to edit my 2 star review from below to 5 stars now, as the problem with the runway identifier problem has resolved now. Probably due to SU2. I can now pick procedures.

The Airport itself is great. The reason why I downgraded my review is that you cant select any STARS on this airport with aircrafts using the internal navdata (even updated by navigraph) such as the FBWA380, IniA350. The reason is actually an ASOBO problem, but it should be in the developers interest to report this problem to ASOBO as well or find a fix for their own scenery. In short: The MSFS stock scenery has outdated runway identifiers. In MSFS2020 this was actually fixed by installing a 3rd party airport, which has everything correct and this matches then with the updated navigraph navdata. In MSFS2024 the problem arises because of the loading order of packages. In MSFS2024 Siamflight VTBS scenery is loaded first and THEN the stock scenery (in MSFS2020 3rd party was loaded last). The now wrong runway identifiers (being loaded last) overwrite the ones from Siamflight and now contradict to the updated navdata. The result is you cant access procedures in the FMS/MCDU. Sidenote: Fenix does not have that problem as it uses an independent out of the MSFS2024 environment navdata setup.