Maybe they could put some people inside the terminals. That'd be the icing on the cake. I love all those details but empty terminals just look weird and abandoned. It's like if you go that far in making it look so darn good, it stands out more that the interiors are empty, like your brain is saying 'where's the passengers'. 😆

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

As stated by others, I'd really appreciate if INI (and any other airport creator) would allow us to switch off the interiors. Don't know if this difficult for the devs, but we have seen configurators of all kind in FSX/P3D, why shouldn't it be possible with MSFS.

I thought I read somewhere that interiors of airports aren't rendered if there is no glass/windows peering into the interior of the terminal.  However, I can't remember where I read that though and how reliable the source was - if somebody has read an official source from Asobo/Microsoft, please post the link for this source.

Having said that, interiors are still rendered for sure, from shorter distances, if there is glass/windows that allow you to peer inside to the interior.  So I wouldn't be surprised with airport terminals that use a lot of glass/windows, the interior rendering can drag down the FPS by a lot.

The Pyreegue developer commented on this in another thread. Apparently the performance hit is nowhere near as bad as some people like to think.

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I thought I read somewhere that interiors of airports aren't rendered if there is no glass/windows peering into the interior of the terminal.  However, I can't remember where I read that though and how reliable the source was - if somebody has read an official source from Asobo/Microsoft, please post the link for this source.

Having said that, interiors are still rendered for sure, from shorter distances, if there is glass/windows that allow you to peer inside to the interior.  So I wouldn't be surprised with airport terminals that use a lot of glass/windows, the interior rendering can drag down the FPS by a lot.

I’m sure all 3D models are rendered if they have no config options or constraints by LODs. Maybe you’re getting it mixed up with parallax texture techniques? Or maybe I’m misinformed… just my two cents. 

For me it's simply like that:
1. Model interiors with people inside?  YES
2. Model empty (no people) interiors?  NO
3. Give people an option to switch them on/off  YES

The argument for modelling interiors must be to increase the immersion of the airport environment in the sim.
It definitely does it for me, but only if there are people modelled inside, otherwise the effect does the opposite: some post-nuclear war airports.

As for the option to switch it off/on, I read somewhere a developer stating that if you know what you are doing, in MFSF interiors do not cost you a lot of performance.
I do not create sceneries however, so maybe a developer could chime in here and confirm or deny it. Anyway, having an option is always good. So I am for it of course.

Only TBIT has a true 3D interior, everything else uses parallax.

42 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The Pyreegue developer commented on this in another thread. Apparently the performance hit is nowhere near as bad as some people like to think.

Maybe, but it sums up with other things, here to two fps, there three fps and elsewhere another two ... and of course it can be balanced with the settings. Nevertheless, I don't look much on interiors, that's why I'd prefer to have the choice.

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by Nemo

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

I thought I read somewhere that interiors of airports aren't rendered if there is no glass/windows peering into the interior of the terminal.  However, I can't remember where I read that though and how reliable the source was - if somebody has read an official source from Asobo/Microsoft, please post the link for this source.

Having said that, interiors are still rendered for sure, from shorter distances, if there is glass/windows that allow you to peer inside to the interior.  So I wouldn't be surprised with airport terminals that use a lot of glass/windows, the interior rendering can drag down the FPS by a lot.

FSDT has said their KORD only renders things inside the terminal if the aircraft is within a certain radius of it, i.e. at the gate. Otherwise none of the interior 'exists'. So you'd only have a small area around your gate depicting interior modeling.

5 minutes ago, threegreen said:

FSDT has said their KORD only renders things inside the terminal if the aircraft is within a certain radius of it, i.e. at the gate. Otherwise none of the interior 'exists'. So you'd only have a small area around your gate depicting interior modeling.

Ahh thanks for the verification. I thought this was the case.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The Pyreegue developer commented on this in another thread. Apparently the performance hit is nowhere near as bad as some people like to think.

Stan Drzewiecki and Umberto also addressed this on a number of occasions. It seems that the internal terminal modeling is becoming a standard now, given the tools and architecture of this platform. I doubt any of these guys would jeopardize performance, sales and countless support hours if they knew there was a major risk associated with the modeling. I am all in for the fully modeled interiors, let's go!

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by Drumcode

As a P3Dv4 user, there is no way that I am upgrading to a more modern flight simulator, only to be confronted by the same bland window textures that I see now. When I make the move, I expect to see detailed terminal interior modelling when I arrive at the gate.

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by Christopher Low

7 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

As a P3Dv4 user, there is no way that I am upgrading to a more modern flight simulator, only to be confronted by the same bland window textures that I see now. When I make the move, I expect to see detailed terminal interior modelling when I arrive at the gate.

Users are exaggerating the performance loss due to interior objects. Its just their particular go to gripe because some folks just don’t care for the feature at all. In areas such of KLAX we are going to see a performance loss even without interior rendering. It isn’t realistic not to expect some sort of performance loss in the KLAX area sitting in the PMDG 737 with max clouds, 2k-4k or VR resolution settings.Same with NYC, Miami, Toronto and Paris areas they are densely packed high traffic multiple scenery in close proximity rendering areas. When properly done, these interior models don’t eat as much performance as other factors I’ve listed. So yes people default KLAX has a performance hit, the Feelthere KLAX has a performance hit (WITHOUT INTERIOR OBJECTS) so you could definitely expect this particular version with all the pretty bells and full detail whistles to come with some sort of performance loss.

Edited September 8, 20223 yr by blueshark747

I would buy if there was a lower cost and better fps version. All they would need to do is turn off the terminal interior. I dont want to walk around terminals admiring check-in desks. I want to fly.

10 hours ago, Drumcode said:

Stan Drzewiecki and Umberto also addressed this on a number of occasions. It seems that the internal terminal modeling is becoming a standard now, given the tools and architecture of this platform. I doubt any of these guys would jeopardize performance, sales and countless support hours if they knew there was a major risk associated with the modeling. I am all in for the fully modeled interiors, let's go!

True, we are in the next gen of both hardware and modelling techniques. When I was building sceneries back on GMax (and 3DSMax) it was a different time. Whatever they use now may be able to deliver things previously not thought of ! I fully admit ignorance here.

4 hours ago, sanh said:

I would buy if there was a lower cost and better fps version. All they would need to do is turn off the terminal interior. I dont want to walk around terminals admiring check-in desks. I want to fly.

Terminal interiors don't eat noticeable any FPS.