As an experienced programmer you surely realise, that no flight developer creates the runway data for thousands of airports manualy by hand
And how this ensures that data is always read correctly and the translation from reading the data to displaying it is also done correctly ?
If FSTramp shows your runway information and ILS flags correct for your airports Vancouver, Zurich and Basel 15R, where would the flag information come from for runway 33R, other than your given data.
But since "our given data" has the ILS on RWY 33 and NOT on RWY 33 L , the only possible explanation is that utility is confusing the runways.
Beside that, you did have this same problem with Vancouver and Basel before you resolved it
No, we didn't. Basel and Vancouver had a completely different issue: they used True Heading instead of magnetic, so the heading was wrong, NOT the association between the runway and its ILS.
The given logic easily leads to conclude, that there must be an error in your data, which is only being automatically processed through FSTramp.
No, that logic doesn't conclude anything, other than FsTramp possibly being confused by correct data.
Doesn't that sound resaonable to you?!
No, because it's based on the assumption our data is wrong, even after I posted you the source code for it, have you even bothered to check it ?
- Is the ILS associated to RWY 33 ? Yes, BOTH ILS are associated to RWY 33.
- Does RWY 33L has any ILS ? No, 33L doesn't have any ILS.
- Have you tried to FOLLOW that ILS IN THE SIM ? It is guiding you on the grass perhaps ?
I bought the Euroairport Basel from Justsim and attached the FSTramp screenshot of the airport
That doesn't mean that airport is "correct". It only means it missing the grass runway, so FsTramp is not confused anymore by it, and shows the correct information that it SHOULD have shown with our airport too, if it wasn't confused by the otherwise perfectly legal secondary grass runway.
To be honest, I believe that your little airfield is causing the problem.
Which is inserted according to proper SDK specifications and has no ILS associated to it. If it's confusing FsTramp, then FsTramp should be fixed. I hope you are not really trying to suggest developers should stop including secondary runways "just" because they might confuse FsTramp.