26 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Indeed, just found a recent video showing it too. That must be new.

The wall is not new it's been around for years nothing new. 

International Terminal

There's also a Terminal that FB has that BMW doesn't.

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Except for... there is no wall in real life (IIRC)?

There is a wall, apparently. See here at 3:20.

Edit: Sorry, just seen that you found a pic showing it already.

Edited June 19, 20241 yr by F737MAX

FB's KSFO looks great but very hard on my PC. I got a lot of stutters on approach & landing with the Fenix. 

People should keep in mind that texturing every detail in remote places (accurate or not) will only eat up VRAM and give that terrible performance that BMW is known for (KMIA...).

I have basically every FB airport that has ever been developed, and all are top notch. I would assume that KSFO will be updated for any of these inaccuracies in the near future, or at least I hope so.

Cheers, Pete

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, absolutely. 
 

For me, I’ll take the superb modeling and texturing of the terminals and ground with FB versus extra details in a fuel farm. For what it’s worth, I get superb performance with FB

12 hours ago, Rocky_53 said:

What a ridiculous thing to say. Since when would adding some static passengers in the terminal create a stutter fest! 

 

because as mentioned before by a few devs before eye candys gets you sales, but it also hits performance.  

Edited June 19, 20241 yr by fluffyflops

We've have come a long way in flight-simming when you see these types of comparisons!  Airports are constantly changing so they will never be 100% correct and a lot of these things I have to admit I would never notice.  I chose to wait for the FB version since I have purchased all of their airports going back to the early P3D/FSX days and always liked the way they were done.  I really like the way FB does the ground texturing (runways, taxiways, etc) and night lighting.  I have also never had FPS/stutter issues at these aiports and my flight into the FB KSFO in the Fenix 320 was perfectly smooth for me.  I wonder how many with stutter issues have AI traffic cranked up??  BMAmsim version also looks really good in many of the shots I have seen. Probably can't go wrong with either one in this case... 

There's never going to be a scenery that has all the detail exactly like real life. There are too many objects, too many miles²/km² of airport real estate, too much quality texturing required for PCs to handle, so compromises need to be made.

The good thing about having more than one option of a certain airport scenery is that you can choose whichever version you feel is more aligned to your taste.

1 hour ago, Jay Perry said:

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, absolutely. 
 

For me, I’ll take the superb modeling and texturing of the terminals 

 

On this I agree with you

 

Happy to hear people are reporting the performance of FB to be good; I was a little worried about a couple of comments that it was hard on frames. My computer is not state of the art so I pay attention to this. FB has always been exceptional in this regard so I am not surprised if it performs well.

And I agree with what others have said, I have no idea why developers are texturing fuel farms and parking kiosks which tend to eat vram and degrade performance for virtually no benefit. I spend absolutely 0 time hanging out in the fuel farm or pretending to be a parking lot attendant at the long-term parking field. AM world would have done better to focus more on the airside and terminal.

From all the comparisons I will certainly get the FB version, hopefully this weekend if I have some time then,