Addon Scenery Airfields

[G-Bazz]

Forgive me if this topic has already been discussed, I did a search and did not come up with any.

Is there any restrictions on requesting airfields to be added if not in as default, I am thinking of some of the one that come with scenery addon ssuch as Misty. Tonga and Glacier Bay just to name a few. I know that ae not exactly all true airfields in these scenery addons but they are good and give hour of enjoyment. I was just wondereing if they have been or could be addon to FSA data base if I was to give locations etc of each airfield?

I do understand that some people like to be purist and only include 'Real world' Airfields so no offence to those of you who like to stick to that train of thought.

[vaccaro]

I am not against fictious airfields and aircraft. Also a big fan of Misty Fjords.
But fsairlines (and similar systems) also focus on economics, so those kind of airfields would really be difficult to include in the database. Especially because of fuel prices.
Don't get me wrong but there might be someone who would want to build a mega airport for their A800s or B999s in "Neverland" where they might be spending 0.70 v$/kg on fuel.
Do what I do. Take your favourite GA bird and fly there without fsairlines when you want to have fun.
Just my 2 new turkish pences (which will be replaced by pence soon).
Cheers,

[CAPFlyer]

The rule is that the airfield must have existed at some time in the past. Otherwise, we don't allow them and that won't change. There is a simple reason for it - we have no basis by which to generate the needed economic data for the airfields. For example, Glacier Bay is in a location that is unsuitable in the real world for any sort of commercial operations. It looks great, but it would have no use in FSAirlines because in the real world, there would barely be enough people to fly out to fill a Cessna 206. In fact, the biggest problem would be getting many of the supplies needed to support an airport in there because of various logistical considerations (like the entire bay ices over during winter precluding water resupply and inadequate road structure).

As for fake aircraft, the same reasoning applies. We cannot create a realistic operational basis for these aircraft, especially when it comes to construction and operating costs. In fact, many of these "fantasy" aircraft have operating economics that are 100% created and consume unrealistically low amounts of fuel while carrying unrealistically heavy loads, thus making it unfair for anyone not operating those aircraft.

Everyone needs to remember that the point of FSAirlines is to create a plausible environment for airline operations. By allowing in things with no basis in reality makes it hard to create such an environment and we must draw a line somewhere. It is far easier for everyone when that line can be drawn in a clear manner and in such a way that anyone can easily check the data presented on our website.

[G-Bazz]

Ok Fully understand, had to ask though.