Are default airports really so bad?

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I only fly around the UK and Ireland, but one of the BIG reasons why I decided to concentrate on this region is so that I could upgrade every single airport and airfield within it. Default airports are not good enough for me, and even some of the upgraded ones that I have need to be replaced with far more detailed versions (I am talking about relatively large airports here).

[stans 702]

A whole lot has changed since FSX was released and a lot of real world airports have made massive changes.  I find that many stock FSX airports are dull, somewhat featureless and/or grossly out of date.   I have only one payware airport and that is Key West by Latin VFR.  All other airports that I have installed have been either freeware or airports that I have modified.  Odds are that any airport that I frequent in FSX is no longer stock FSX.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

I create modify small rural airports in my area add farm houses, telephone poles, sketchup fake cornfield, and built crappy looking farm equipment as props. Photoscenery of Minnesota and Iowa with my midfield fields adds to immersion. Default ones where runways align, I leave them alone as dont fix what broken.

[~Craig~ 10]

I've been thinking the same as the OP lately - spent so much on airports, and some I haven't even flown to yet (how silly is that?!).     For something like GA flying around Norway (Airports of Norway), Denmark (Vidan), or the Orbx world, I think I will always fly to and from add-on payware airfields.  

 

But I'm becomming more and more disillushioned with large, uber-detailed airports, for use with tubeliner flying.  What with VAS, Memory and Frame Rates, it just ends up being a smoother and more enjoyable flight when I fly something like the T7 from default airports.   90% of my focus and attention is on the inside of the aircraft anyway, flight planning, fuelling, systems, etc.    This is especially so when flying at night - why end up with VAS problems and poor performance just to look out at a fancy airport for the 10 spare minutes you have between planning and take-off.  :smile:

[dazz 69]

 

 

I've been lucky that the few bad apple airports I've bought that performed horribly, I've been able to fix myself by doing simple things like resizing textures, adding mips, and in some extreme cases, decompiling the bgls, removing certain FPS hogging models/items then recompiling them

 

What did you use to compile / decompile those BGL's please?

[Bjoern 1,153]

Got a few defult airports retrograded to their 1980s state without too much effort. Try that with payware.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Got a few defult airports retrograded to their 1980s state without too much effort. Try that with payware.

 

Which brings up the only good thing about default airports:  Loading them up in ADE in order to provide a starting point for editing. ^_^

[scott967 62]

And you can't beat the flexibility arising from the use of default files and editing them with free tools. Changing layouts, adding rwys or elevations or removing those dreaded fuel boxes literally takes place within minutes.

 

True, but if it is an airport with any amount of AI, it takes a lot of work to get things moving smoothly.

 

scott s.

.

[HiFly 16]

      During the old FS98 days, I soon realized that spending money on a quality AFCAD design program was light years ahead of waiting for someone's payware or freeware upgrade.  When I converted to FSX, I did the same thing.  For me Airport Design Editor has fit the bill.  If I want to fly to an airport, I first pull the most current charts (most of them freeware, now-a-days) and then slew a default 737 to each of the runways in the scenery and fix the VASI/PAPI positions and reset the localizer and glideslope to match the charts.  I then modify the aprons/taxiways and add sufficient gates for the type of traffic that frequents the airport.  I then close FSX and compile the scenery. When airports upgrade, it has become a simple matter to download the latest charts and modify the AFCADs appropriately.

 

     Now, of course, I am a real world pilot, so my concern is realistic functionality...correct taxiways, airdrome, gates, runway headings, etc..  I use ASN for the most realistic weather for the same purpose.  Over the last several years, I have updated over 1000 of the default airports within FSX to match the real world charts and continue to tweak them as necessary to keep them updated before I choose to use them.

 

    I have never found the need to purchase any add-on scenery for FSX.  As one of the previous posters had mentioned, those of us who are using the simulation for airline flying never have occasion to view much scenery, anyway.  Most of us are concerned with the visual depictions of the instruments and systems since that is what we are mostly looking at.  I find that FSX has done a reasonable job of depicting what I see from 35,000+ ft. up and the view during taxi is very limited from the flight deck of a tubeliner.  Much more important to have less eye-candy and better performance during those high VAS demanding environments in my opinion.

 

    Though retired professionally, I still enjoy a little real world scenic flying around Florida in my Skylane, particularly now that fuel costs are coming down, but my simulation time is strictly for the big ones I can no longer fly.

 

 

   Cheers!

[Mickel 42]

In theory, my priority is major environmental stuff (weather, textures, LC etc) since those a relevant in a microlight and a big, fat airliner, then planes, and finally airports. (don't have many utilities). But I can be a bit of a sucker for the eye candy, and get more than I 'need'.

 

I tended to buy smaller strips in Orbx world. I bounce between them in small planes, and when you're there you're taxiing you're right in the middle of it all. They're close together, so you can visit three or four in one session if you want. I can almost justify those. Lately I've been getting bigger airports. Truth is, I don't really get to them much. I figure I'd need as many take offs or landings as I spent dollars on them ($1 landing fee is still really cheap!) to make it worthwhile. I'll get there with most, hopefully. Some I buy largely to support devs - PacSim is an example of that. I won't get to Tonga a lot, but I want the guy to keep making airports like that.

 

The defaults generally aren't a patch on a good improved package - payware or otherwise. Then it's down to cost/benefit - a wholly personal opinion.

 

Mike

[zmak 331]

Preferring to fly real routes in the T7 Im very selective when it comes to a purchase. The first thing I do is go to flight stats and see the routes. I need to make sure that it links up with at least a handful of my other airports. that way they all get utilized and I will never have to stare at an ugly grey blob from my immaculate 777 ever again  :rolleyes:

[IUBrian 151]

As someone who flies almost exclusively airliners and owns about a dozen payware airports (and just bought kiah today), I am conflicted.

 

On the one hand, in terms of value, is a payware airport "worth" about a third of PMDG's T7, in terms of return on investment, the time you will spend with it? Not even close. But then again, the primary reason I enjoy those sophisticated aitliners is the realistic immersion, and an ugly generic representation of an airport I'm taking off from or landing at is a distraction, even though I only interact with it for ten or so minites. For me, paying for an airport is basically buying an enhancement for an add-on. It's not worth it to me to go hog wild and buy everything in sight, but I'm willing to engage on long term mission of accumulating detailed airports representing the major airports in the area I fly (the U.S.). Then I'll move to Europe and Asia.

 

There's really no right or wrong answer other than how much one is willing to spend on this hobby, both in terms of money, or time if you're going to try to modify a large number of airports yourself.

[FSDanL 3]

I couldn't agree more. What I do is try to fill out the map over time with select airports. The cost adds up, so I keep it simple and appreciate the occasional sale.

 

But, I always try to look at purchases like this as a way to contribute to a developer's work in making improvements to the simulation experience. I do think the airports add something to it.

[Patco Lch 1,464]

I'm hopeless. I started this thread Friday determined to tighten up . I have been planning my next trip, DFW to Santiago Chile and downloaded a freeware airport. I have my charts and flight plan. Then I looked at Latin VFR SCEL and I'M going to have to have it. Sim is my hobby and I love it and will continue to spend on it. I have enough on FSX now I could consider it an asset in my retirement portfolio. I guess in a round about way it is since, I will use it as long as I am able. The devs have given us some exciting work in all areas and I will continue to support them. I hope the Good Lord understands.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

I do, my child. Go forth and enjoy