>Ut oh. This is going to turn into one of those mile long>threads about "please do my home town airport, no mine, no>mine" >>PS: Please do KLAX in high detail! }( KLAX IS in high detail mate! No, I demand ESMS is done in explicit detail!! No?...ah, well... :+

I want one of DC area airports done. Reagon and Dulles! If not both then Dulles for sure!

>KLAX IS in high detail mate!No kidding!! LOLPersonally, I want to see Ketchikan and Juneau done to a more realistic level!!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Please no more high-detailed airports, unless you give the option for people with lower-end systems to be able to disable them for 'default-type' airports. I don't want to have to stop flying to any more airports in the new FS because of poor frame rates. The high-detail airports are an idea which is ahead of what current hardware limitations allow if you're talking about adding a realistic level of AI traffic, which is what more and more users are now doing. You can't just start throwing in detailed pretty airport sceneries if it's just going to mean bad framerates and stutters. I'd much rather have the means to be able to have a decent amount of AI traffic taxiing about my airport than the detailed scenery if the compromise has to be made, which IMO unless you have an absolute monster of a system, it does...

>Please no more high-detailed airports, unless you give the>option for people with lower-end systems to be able to disable>them for 'default-type' airports.I second that. Airport environment is already one of the greatest FPS hog.Marco

Most modern systems do handle the detailed airport just fine! It is combination of detailed airport, a lot of clouds and hundreds of airplanes at these airports that bring the systems to their knees. But I like to have the choice to reduce traffic and not sacrifice detailed airport (where as to you detailed airports don't seem important)Please note that most of the new improvements in each version of FS is possible due to advances to hardware. To suggest improvements should not be made, so you don't have to upgrade your hardware is short sighted. If they listened to comments like yours, we would still be viewing two buildings in Chicago and be flying stick figure airplanes of FS3!!! Ironically MS has always accomodated people with lower end systems by putting performance sliders in FS! If you don't want to or can not upgrade your system, you have few choices: 1)keep your scenery complexity low. 2)keep your AI Traffic low 3)Stay with FS9, etc.. But please don't suggest that rest of us shouldn't be able to enjoy better scenery, because you don't want to make those choices.

>If they listened to comments like yours, we would still be viewing>two buildings in Chicago and be flying stick figure airplanes of>FS3!!!Everyone has his own priorities. Currently, I would be happier with improvements in flight dynamics and other things than improvements in scenery. But don't worry, 99% of user base agrees with you, so my opinions don't pose a threat. :)>But please don't suggest that rest of>us shouldn't be able to enjoy better scenery, because you>don't want to make those choices.I never said anything like that. Please read the original post I replied to:"Please no more high-detailed airports, unless you give the option for people with lower-end systems to be able to disable them for 'default-type' airports."Marco

I'm sure my local airports here in NY/NJ will be highly detailed.

To suggest>improvements should not be made, so you don't have to upgrade>your hardware is short sighted. If they listened to comments>like yours, we would still be viewing two buildings in Chicago>and be flying stick figure airplanes of FS3!!! >>Ironically MS has always accomodated people with lower end>systems by putting performance sliders in FS! If you don't>want to or can not upgrade your system, you have few choices: >1)keep your scenery complexity low. 2)keep your AI Traffic low>3)Stay with FS9, etc.. But please don't suggest that rest of>us shouldn't be able to enjoy better scenery, because you>don't want to make those choices.With respect I did say that FSX users should have the choice of being able to disable the detailed airport sceneries if they wish, not that newer detailed airport sceneries shouldn't be included in FSX at all. By all means have the new high detail airport sceneries for those that want them.

There is already a way to do that! When you reduce scenery complexity, the airports lose a lot of their detail such as jet ways etc!

yeah, slide it one notch to the left...jetways & baggage carts go...then a couple more notches and frighteningly large chunks of the terminals start to go AWOL...lol not exactly the solution I had in mind

Personally I think all of the 24,000 airports (if I had my way) should be detailed exactly like it is in real life. However for those that have low end systems, have the ability to just choose a few and select from a list or search menu to make them highly detailed. For example if I fly mostly in Orange County, I would select KSNA, KFUL etc. etc. Or you could select the airports you most visit according to which airline you fly the most. I fly American, so I would select of course all of Socal airports plus KDFW, KORD, KJFK, KMIA and so on. Just a thought.

guess I am confused! Either you want eye candy or not? something has to give?

time and cost associated with make it an impossible wish. Each airport is painstakingly detailed by artists! It takes a long time to just create one. But 24000?

Actually it's not impossible. We already hand-edit all 24,000 airports in the game but our tools are optimized for the source material we have as well as constraints of the game engine and distribution media.In the futute one could imagine that our tools and game engine evolve to a point where creating 24,000 airports with the detail of, say, Fly Tampa or Emma Field is possible. However I would also expect that whatever advances we make for the core product will almost immediately be surpassed by third-parties for individual add-ons. (At least that's my hope.)