This just shows you how incorrectly BMW/AMsim models buildings.  The Flightbeam on is dead on to the real building.  I can see at least 5 incorrect things about the BMWAmsim model and texturing.

For reference, this is the hanger in real life (In 2007).

 

Edited December 13, 20232 yr by BrammyH

21 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

You wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

no im just tired of developers all trying to do the same scenery as everyone else, yes its great we get to chose between 3 BSL's . 3 AGP'S  , 3 MRS, 2 PER'S  , 2 INNS. etc etc 

but then it leaves other airports which desperatly need doing untouched or unfinshed because the dev's rush off to do their next project.  Then no one complains and the process starts all over again.  CYYZ being a good example.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 20232 yr by fluffyflops

20 hours ago, Zimmerbz said:

Speaking of KSFO, has there been any updates on the release?

Mir chimmed in a month ago or so and did say KSFO would release by the end of the year. I never held him to it though because although it came straight from the horses mouth, it wasn't posted anywhere else. 

19 hours ago, aniiran said:

This just shows you how incorrectly BMW/AMsim models buildings.  The Flightbeam on is dead on to the real building.  I can see at least 5 incorrect things about the BMWAmsim model and texturing.

I see it the other way around.  Bmw&Amsim accurately depicted the shape, color and materials of the hangar.  There are even stains of dirt on the gate.

2 hours ago, environmental_ice said:

Mir chimmed in a month ago or so and did say KSFO would release by the end of the year. I never held him to it though because although it came straight from the horses mouth, it wasn't posted anywhere else. 

that would be awesome! fingers crossed

2 hours ago, Flying-Hare said:

I see it the other way around.  Bmw&Amsim accurately depicted the shape, color and materials of the hangar.  There are even stains of dirt on the gate.

After looking at my own photos, you are correct.  The flight beam color scheme is wrong, but the BMW Amsim one is missing the lights.  Also the scene BMW depicts is dumb and operationally fantastical.  they should just close the doors, I have been there many times an have never seen that hangar open.

Neither one has cabeling.  FB is missing the flying vikings as well.  Interesting that niether one has it right even though there are clearly pictures availible on the internet that would aid in getting it right.

Edited December 14, 20232 yr by aniiran

Blooming gorgeous! 

  

On 12/13/2023 at 8:02 AM, Cognita said:

Back in the late FSX and P3D days, when everything about flight simulator was smaller, they made some efforts to coordinate, sometimes by telling a separate third party what they were beginning to work on, so the others would know it was being worked on but not necessarily by who. This way they would not invest hundreds of hours of work into a project that would end up dividing the market and result in a poor return on investment for both developers. They would also announce an airport well in advance and there seemed to be an unwritten but fairly well-respected tradition that other developers did not begin to work on a project that another had already started. The market is much larger now and it seems to be able to sustain a couple of versions of the same airport -- but the recent situation in Montreal, with FlyTampa removing itself and FSimStudios delaying their release -- suggests that more than 2 versions is problematic.

This is actually correct. There was a lot of dialog in the P3D days. There is a little bit now, mostly between partners only.. but for the most part it's a free-for-all. You will soon see 3-4 versions of each airport probably in the next few years. I would get used to this now before it becomes shocking. We're also going after other developer airports as well, unless I have a back-channel open with them. It's a two way road 🙂

21 hours ago, aniiran said:

After looking at my own photos, you are correct.  The flight beam color scheme is wrong, but the BMW Amsim one is missing the lights.  Also the scene BMW depicts is dumb and operationally fantastical.  they should just close the doors, I have been there many times an have never seen that hangar open.

Neither one has cabeling.  FB is missing the flying vikings as well.  Interesting that niether one has it right even though there are clearly pictures availible on the internet that would aid in getting it right.

This is an area that I intentionally left as simple looking. Our customers, for the most part, have absolutely no interest in flying military aircraft, like a c-130 from MSP airport. So I've diverted all resources and texture budgets over to the civilian side. Those C-130's with 20k polygons+, trucks and default MSFS fuel trucks from AMSIM screenshots look cute, but that's a performance penalty I'm not pushing onto customers, especially if 99% of them are never going to be visiting this ramp on their usual flights.

Instead, I put all resources here, gate-side, where players are the most:

Customers boast about good performance at our KMSP airport. If we push the same detail at the military ramps and all other remote areas.. that performance luxury is long gone.

However, a brand new interior is going into all these terminals in a matter of weeks. It's extensively optimized though, so there is no performance penalty at all.

 

On 12/10/2023 at 11:28 AM, ryanbatc said:

It's unfortunate that two devs were doing the same airport.  Maybe FB should have announced it earlier...idk I don't have the solution but I'd bet the amsim version won't sell great.  But who knows!

Flightbeam announced KMSP airport for MSFS on our roadmap at least 2 years ago. 😎

4 hours ago, Mir // Flightbeam said:

  

 

This is an area that I intentionally left as simple looking. Our customers, for the most part, have absolutely no interest in flying military aircraft, like a c-130 from MSP airport. So I've diverted all resources and texture budgets over to the civilian side. Those C-130's with 20k polygons+, trucks and default MSFS fuel trucks from AMSIM screenshots look cute, but that's a performance penalty I'm not pushing onto customers, especially if 99% of them are never going to be visiting this ramp on their usual flights.

Our customers?  You talk like I'm not a customer who has bought every single one of your products since the beginning. I get what you are saying, but there would have been no penalty to use the correct colors and texturing or to put the Flying Vikings at the top. And also anytime you taxi down Mike or Papa or land on 12L this building is unique and eye-catching and will be in sight for quite a while.  My point is I hold you in regard as the top of the top tier and someone just showed me that a building was made incorrectly after I argued Flightbeam is always accurate.

I love the scenery and it's performance there is no way I would ever switch from Flightbeam to BMW/Amsim.

2 hours ago, aniiran said:

Our customers?  You talk like I'm not a customer who has bought every single one of your products since the beginning. I get what you are saying, but there would have been no penalty to use the correct colors and texturing or to put the Flying Vikings at the top. And also anytime you taxi down Mike or Papa or land on 12L this building is unique and eye-catching and will be in sight for quite a while.  My point is I hold you in regard as the top of the top tier and someone just showed me that a building was made incorrectly after I argued Flightbeam is always accurate.

I love the scenery and it's performance there is no way I would ever switch from Flightbeam to BMW/Amsim.

Hi aniiran,

I was just speaking about the objects, not about any color correction, which has no performance hit. Feedback like that are all jotted down on a working list that go into the next update. I’m always looking for comments like that, which is why I lurk on AVSIM and other forums 😄 It helps improve the product over time.

7 hours ago, Mir // Flightbeam said:

  

Flightbeam announced KMSP airport for MSFS on our roadmap at least 2 years ago. 😎

Well then it would have been on amsim to take notice.

All I can say about Flightbeam and this is going back to the FSX days, without a doubt they are the number ! airport developer in simming.  I pretty much have an average system, but when I fly in or out of KMSP  in a PMDG 737, performance, optimization, is without a doubt FANTASTIC..

Other developers should take a look what Flightbeam is doing.

9 hours ago, Mir // Flightbeam said:

 

Instead, I put all resources here, gate-side, where players are the most:

This is the right priority. Since this is the main location of the pilot at the airport. 

2 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Well then it would have been on amsim to take notice.

Why though? Competition is good in that standards usually go up and it gives us a choice. If you're someone who's keen on seeing a detailed military apron at KMSP, the AmSim/BMW version will give you that.

I've been very glad of the existence of options on several occasions, e.g. EBBR, ENGM, EGPF and LOWI. The alternative is what we currently see with KATL, KMIA, EDDF and OMDB

 

Edited December 16, 20232 yr by F737MAX