Rodger Pettichord Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Hi all. This is topic is posted a little early this week because I'm really curious to hear your thoughts. As MSFS has matured, developers including Orbx have produced a great many highly detailed airports. You can walk through them inside and explore them outside and tour their grounds. I almost get the sense there's a whole subset of enthusiasts who do nothing but tour airports and don't bother with flying. And that leads to this week's question. THIS WEEK'S MEANINGLESS TOPIC: How important are highly detailed airports to your flight simulation experience? 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adambar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 None what so ever, an airport is not that exciting to me. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Q Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Exterior details and layout are very, very important. Interior details are nice, but I rarely explore them, so not so much. What I really want is an airport with recognizable buildings, accurately placed and identified FBOs and parking. The reason: I almost always fly on PilotEdge. Several years ago I flew into Reno (KRNO) with default scenery (this is just outside of Orbx region territory). On landing Ground instructed me to taxi to Atlantic (FBO). So, where was Atlantic? Quick look at AirNav, find the approximate location. No signs. No recognizable structures. After parking and closing out, I quickly found a good payware Reno scenery and bought it (sorry Orbx). It's so nice, and greatly increases realism and immersion to be parked at Signature at Palm Springs, for example, looking at the FBO with the aerial tram in the distance, and calling PSP Ground, saying "Palm Springs Ground, Mooney 2442Papa, at Signature with Charlie, ready to taxi..." A realistic depiction of the area immediately surrounding the airport is also great for VFR flying. Also now that my friend and CFII Bill is giving me some real world flying time, i like to preview the flights in the SIM before hand. And accurate Airport makes this much more productive. (We had planned KISP to KACK for yesterday, but defeated by the weather. Next Tuesday). Note, I'm using P3D v5 and no plans to change. Well, maybe 6 someday. Ken 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boetie Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 The outside is most important however I see the inside models as a bonus, particularly if I want to try and do arty screenshots. G 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Heaton Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 As long as it has runways - good taxiways - its' OK by Me However - the artist in me - appreciates the effort and talent of the computer artists that produce these airports of recent times - particularly the ones I use(d) in real life eg Orbx Melbourne. There is one aspect that does annoy me - is the inability to process the tarmac colours and sometimes the grassy areas which dull representations of the sat pics 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfko Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) I personally do not care a s..t about airport interiors. And for those who do, MS/Asobo should consider to release MSAS (MS Airport Simulator). And maybe there eventually will be JustFlight, JustTrains and JustAirports.😉 Edited January 25 by wolfko 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adambar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I should have said the inside is no not important to me, but the outside is very important., so there you have it. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradB Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Zero , I spent way too much time in airports in RL . 🤨😀 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodger Pettichord Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 I'm not particular about the big international airports, but I wish they could detail the little Forest Service strips and remote strips like Orbx did with Papua New Guinea. To me, that is some fun flying! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumbypickett Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Anything that improves the realism of a flight simulator gets the thumbs up. I love airports, in fact I see more of them than I do of ground textures etc, as I fly mainly tubes. cheers Gumby 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wain71 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I appreciate the work they've done but honestly apart from the first time I look at a new airport I really am not interested in the bits inside, I would prefer the buildings and clutter are correct.....some you get no people, some they don't move and others walk like zombies....I tend to land, taxi, shutdown, put the kettle on... 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryisenor Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 I like detailed exteriors (Where we operate our aircraft). Correct runways, taxiways, and parking are essential if using real world charts. Some variation in the runway and taxiway surfaces also adds interest. Some clutter helps the illusion of reality but it does not need to be overdone. Building interiors are not necessary and often lead to performance problems. Of course it is impossible to keep up with all the changes at real world airports but most are reasonably close if recently done. I usually fly jets so correct gate parking is important. Larry 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryanm Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Can be nice to see, but from a Flying point of view, internal details are a complete waste of resources/performance in my opinion. I'd like to have the option to turn them on/off. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Q Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I had a lot of fun playing with the interior of the recreation of Miegs Field in Chicago. Using "Bob" I spent about half hour exploring, going up and down stairs and so on. I enjoyed the novelty of it, for a while. That was fun while it lasted. It was several years ago, and I've never done it again. I have, however, explored the grounds of and around Catalina airport. Those details (all exterior) are nice, and exploring is fun and increases the immersion. I fully agree with Ryanm, that the ability to select on or off for interiors would be good. Then we can have it both ways. Ken 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfko Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 One thing to consider is, that modelling airport interiors decreases performance, delays the release and increases the price. Of which the two latter are also or even more valid when including a panel for switching interiors on or off. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Emms Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Well I like having a look around inside but it's not the be all and end all. cheers Iain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosqr Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 If a developer creates a full scenery he gets you You know his products won't disappoint Actually I purchased Sheremetyevo long ago but did the usual thing, take off and land but last nigh... oh my god. I explored every corner It was amazing Details such as all terminal interiors made, with sound!! even the train station The animated trains add charm to the scenery The location/setting, the winter and those colors are great There are so many details within the product that really impresse you The materials used, the vibrant colors, the good frames, all the airport cluster, actually it is a massive airport so spacious, immense views to the outside! you feel small inside that terminal, I felt great experiencing all that. I love the use of glass and how reflection works on that also the look of the other side through that glass. I ended asking myself how I didn't explore the product in depth at purchase moment. Same happens with Renton, and the airplane factory, it's so immersive, these type of products are jewels because they make you feel there. When you finish flying you end with such a satisfaction for that product and you fall in love with it and with happiness for having it, all creates engagement to that developer For most people it is about taking off and landing, but when a developer puts so much time, effort, dedication/devotion to his "child" product he deserves that we explore it in depth. This becomes a product a must, mandatory for me, and I'll fly it again and again. Though if not fully developed like IniBuilds Dubai it's fine, as long as all the rest remains of quality but I find this a weakness. If someone comes with a fully detailed Dubai, then IniBuilds one is out. Similar thing with San Diego by LatinVFR and BWOTW. One has the city landmarks, LatinVFR, that leaves the other one automatically out for me. LatinVFR may not be the best quality but offers more. I spend more time flying over cities than visiting airports, that's why I have every city out there, even many photogrammetry ones. So, the more you add the better you position as company and keep competitors bellow the line, they would have to do an utmost to create something superior to that version which is also a risk considering the original one is already positioned. For example I doubt someone tries to launch another Sheremetyevo, Renton, Edinburgh, Milford Sound, Christchurch, Wellington, Minneapolis, etc. For example Feelthere vs IniBuilds , you don't do that. Or launch a product FlyTampa or MK Studios has launched a few weeks before! By the way I took 83 pictures of Sheremetyevo, that's how much I enjoyed it, and I'll be choosing some to showcase the product in the screenshots section 😁 Cheer Carlos PD sorry for such a long text 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Burgess Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 A great and, definitely, contentious issue Rodger. So from my purely personal perspective - which others seem to share. The last place I want to spend time in real life is the inside of a terminal. So when testing I'll take on board what the developer intends and test accordingly. Nice to have but not, for me, a priority. I'm guessing we love FS because we want to be in the cockpit. So yes, to me, a detailed airport from the cockpit perspective is an important thing. That probably includes enough of an interior to give some depth arriving at the gate. More importantly it includes things like the ILS's working correctly. The first thing I check. One of the pleasures of a Simulator (not game) is that you can pull up a real world chart and fly the approach as it lays down. When you arrive it's nice to have a detailed airport from the pilots perspective. So, yes, to me that's important. Personally I love the tiny wee strips, not the major airports. Maybe, if their is enough demand, someone will create a passenger simulator to model the endless and slow moving queues of bored looking people waiting to get to the next bit of the terminal Has anyone else noticed (in real life) that tends to bring out the best in people? None of us want to be there but we understand why it's happening so we get on well together. No pushing or shoving. I digress. All the best, John 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Q Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I quite agree with John B, indeed John, we are very much on the same page. Back when I started with flight simulation, nearly thirty years ago, there was very little correlation with the real world; the simulator (FS5) and the computer that ran it did not have that capability. So if an airport lacked real world verisimilitude we accepted it, and accepted that our "real" airport was the one in the sim. Today, fortunately, it is quite different. We have all sorts of real world resources available, FAA charts, Skyvector, VFRmaps, and Navigraph Charts. These lay out airport diagrams, taxi routes, parking, etc. There are also approach plates, SIDS, STARS, and other procedures, all of which we should be able to use in our sim. Anyone who belongs to PilotEdge knows that the controllers assume the real world setting. Mostly we can. But there are limitations: Some airports are more faithful to the real world: Orbx payware, detailed, airports seem to be spot on, at least at the time the scenery was created. Orbx freeware and enhanced Region airports are quite accurate, but of course not as detailed. Default airports in P3D are a mixed bag. Based on old FSX scenery most are "OK" but they do have problems. In all of these a major, but insoluble problem is that our Sim airports are frozen in time at the time they were developed. The real world changes, and these changes are obviously not reflected. And there are just plain inaccuracies. Lately I've been doing a couple of real world flights out of Islip Mac Arthur Airport (KISP). I like to rehearse these flights in the Sim first. The plane is kept in a private parking area on the east side, connected to the airport by Taxiway "H." But from there the taxiway does not connect with "S" as in the real world. Also, the east/west runway in the sim has been closed for some time. These are frustrating, but ultimately not important. I just follow the path shown in Navigraph Charts, even if it has me taxiing over grass. Our Flight Simulators are still really incredible, and getting better. For the most part we can compensate for the glitches end enjoy a really realistic experience. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Ken Q said: ustrating, but ultimately not important. I just follow the path shown in Navigraph Charts, even if it has me taxiing over grass. My eternal mantra for flight simming is the notion : suspension6of disbelief. It makes simming much more fun and less stressful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts