Total re-think of the situation...
G'day again folks, and thanks for the prompt replies.
I am new to all this, as you have probably gathered, and I just found out that MS have released a SP1 & SP2 for FS-X so I have downloaded them and will install them before I mouth off anymore and maybe stick my boot into my mouth.
I also thought of the possibility that I may be stuffing up the situation by inserting magnetic variation into the airport parameters or something of this nature, so I have downloaded from Scruffy Duck a tutorial into the correct usage of ADE and will read up on it as well.
I will, however to answer all before i go any further.
To Scruffy Duck:-
Yes, I was creating an entirely new airport (using the geographical centre of the airfield taken from Google Earth coordinates), which is on my daughter's family farm at Durong in Queensland, using ADE 1.39 and when I compiled it and ran FX it ended up in the middle of the Mundubbera Highway about a kilometer east of it's real position.
I then flew to this position without the files in FSX and inspected the terrain surrounding this distinctive section of scenery and found that it was identical in every form to reality in as much as road positions and curves, river and stream placement and also the terrain is exactly the same shape as in reality.
I then used the slew command to get the coordinates shown in FSX and redid the airfield in ADE to match these new coordinates and when it was compiled and run it was perfect.
I just don't understand why there is a discrepancy in the Lat. and Long. by at least a minute and a half.
However, as I said I will do a re-install of FS-X with the two Service Packs and then start again and see what happens.
I will let you know what the result of all this is when I find out. By the way, thanks for ADE, it is so easy to use.
To BASys:-
I never knew anything about different ways of viewing Earth coordinates, and when I followed your link to the Oil & Gas page, it made me realize that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.
I will study up on this data to see if it is involved in the discrepancy.
Thanks for the heads up on that.
To Arno:-
Yeah mate, I did get those coordinates correct, using either HR/MN/SEC or the decimalization of the value achieves the same results. However, as Basys says there could be a whole different set involved.
I will have to look into it further.
Well guys, thanks for your help so far and I will report back to either tell you what it was that was leading me astray, or to get further ideas if I do not fix the impasse.
Carberg