Dos Kuala Lumpurs!

W

Wulf190

Charter Member
Agian I have been going through my airfields and this time I found a set of twins...kinda.

DEI_Kuala_Lumpur and MAL_Kuala_Lumpur. One is done by Maskrider, and the other by Exavier. They are not on top of each other, but are located pretty close. They also have totally different layouts, and runway lengths. So my question, which is the right Kuala Lumpur?!:help:
 
In a retail flight sim, neither...LOL

Ok seriously, both of these well-respected designers put an awful lot of research and care into the fidelity of their creations, using data sources that seemed most accurate in their own eye. Far be it from any of us scenery slugs here to tell them that one is right and the other is wrong in this public forum. At the end of the day the choice is YOURS alone, so just pick a girl and dance. Its a simple process of activating one and omitting the other from its scenery bgl folder.
 
Simpang Air Force Base was the main airport for Kuala Lumpur from 1952 to 1965, so it might be the most accurate. Most of the air strips in WWII were coverted in such a manner after the war.

The timing of the AF base would certainly suggest that this might be the case.
 
I'm sorry if I misspoke! :173go1: By which one was the right one, I was interested in which one best represents the airfield as it appeared during the second world war?

Both of these designers are great and I enjoy all of their strips. But I am curious about this complex.
 
I cannot respond you know about the level of accuracy with which I did my airfield as I have lost the notes I took at the time. BUT what I can tell you is that I remember that at the time Kuala Lumpur was a quite a second-class airfield (no concrete runways and such stuff), being more primitive than Alor Star or Kota Bahru (and of course, of those of the Singapore complex).
For the rest, I recommend you to follow Bearcat suggestion and choose the one you like more:) Even if you use that of Chris instead of mine :d :wavey:
 
Ah rats, and here I was thinking one was an auxiliary or secondary strip for the other. Kinda like Fighter I and Fighter II.

Reason for that assumption? They are not copies of each other even at basic layout, and one is set at a lower elevation then the other.

Oh well, I'll keep um both and use them as such, I can have my cake and eat it too. :amen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top