ORBX - AXONOS - KRIC Richmond International Airport Scenery

[Keirtt 593]

Finally some good payware scenery hitting the market for Richmond, VA. KRIC has always been one of those fields that is neglected in the sim and I think the folks at AXONOS did a great job modeling this. Looking forward to the release on April 6th!

ORBX - AXONOS - KRIC Richmond International Airport

[chapstick 2,762]

No terminal interiors, even at this small airport where perf impact would be minimal. I swear the U.S. gets some of the most mediocre scenery devs. 

[Keirtt 593]

4 minutes ago, chapstick said:

No terminal interiors, even at this small airport where perf impact would be minimal. I swear the U.S. gets some of the most mediocre scenery devs. 

I'll be completely un-bias as I can here. I personally have never seen the benefit of terminal interiors. Maybe it's the old school simmer in me, but I've always felt this was a waste. With that said, Richmond doesn't have much to look at inside.

[F737MAX 5,738]

10 minutes ago, chapstick said:

I swear the U.S. gets some of the most mediocre scenery devs. 

😆 Nah. There are major hubs in the USA by Flightbeam, FlyTampa, Drzewiecki and iniBuilds, all of whom are among the best/better scenery devs for MSFS.

If you'd said "mediocre" about Africa, South America and parts of Asia, you'd have a much better argument.

Edited April 4 by F737MAX

[thepilot 591]

4 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

I'll be completely un-bias as I can here. I personally have never seen the benefit of terminal interiors. Maybe it's the old school simmer in me, but I've always felt this was a waste. With that said, Richmond doesn't have much to look at inside.

I don‘t get it either. If you want to see how it looks inside, just head over to the nearest YouTube video. 

[ryanbatc 13,038]

17 minutes ago, chapstick said:

No terminal interiors, even at this small airport where perf impact would be minimal. I swear the U.S. gets some of the most mediocre scenery devs. 

I could less about interiors....get rid of all of em!

[Mace 1,960]

Surprised to see this, I didn't think anyone (except FSXScenery) would ever make a KRIC.

It's a good spot to sim regional jet flights, to hop to DCA or Philly or New York, or even Charlotte/CLT or ATL.

[micstatic 4,340]

8 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

😆 Nah. There are major hubs in the USA by Flightbeam, FlyTampa, Drzewiecki and iniBuilds, all of whom are among the best/better scenery devs for MSFS.

If you'd said "mediocre" about Africa, South America and parts of Asia, you'd have a much better argument.

agree.  Vertical Sim is also very nice.  

[Keirtt 593]

4 minutes ago, Mace said:

Surprised to see this, I didn't think anyone (except FSXScenery) would ever make a KRIC.

It's a good spot to sim regional jet flights, to hop to DCA or Philly or New York, or even Charlotte/CLT or ATL.

Agreed! There is a nice freeware version out there, but it doesn’t have the same level of detail yet as this. Glad to see something higher quality out. A lot of near little things about this field that people don’t know about haha.

[JYW 2,990]

33 minutes ago, chapstick said:

No terminal interiors, even at this small airport where perf impact would be minimal. I swear the U.S. gets some of the most mediocre scenery devs. 

What do you actually do when you 'walk' into an airport interior in MSFS?  (Serious question).  

Is it just to have a peek and then never look again, or would you regularly walk into the airport.   I'm not taking the **** here, I'm just trying to understand the advantages of high detailed interiors, given the potential performance impact.

I do like to see some interior detail in terminals - but just from the outside, and a decent parallax effect is more than enough for my desires.

Edited April 4 by JYW

[Keirtt 593]

4 minutes ago, JYW said:

What do you actually do when you 'walk' into an airport interior in MSFS?  (Serious question).  

Is it just to have a peek and then never look again, or would you regularly walk into the airport.   I'm not taking the **** here, I'm just trying to understand the advantages of high detailed interiors, given the potential performance impact.

I do like to see some interior detail in terminals - but just from the outside, and a decent parallax effect is more than enough for my desires.

I agree with this completely. I tend to walk around the airports that have them to peak inside and I never go back, but I really do like the parallax windows when I pull up to the gate.

[Mace 1,960]

I'm the same way, whatever of the interior I can see from the flight deck, I'm good with that.

If it shows people moving around in there that would be super-neat, but even a parallax effect is ok with me.

I think I actually purchased the FSXScenery KRIC some time ago, thinking "no one else will ever make this airport"........ ...... ...
I like the architecture at KRIC, it's pleasant.

[Flic1 1,000]

12 minutes ago, Mace said:

If it shows people moving around in there that would be super-neat, but even a parallax effect is ok with me.

I think FlyTampa did the interiors really well on their KBOS.  It's very convincing pulling up to the gates.  I think modelling the entire interior of an airport is a waste of time and effort. Looks good for the marketing pics I guess but I really do not understand why they are done at all.

[F737MAX 5,738]

33 minutes ago, JYW said:

I do like to see some interior detail in terminals - but just from the outside, and a decent parallax effect is more than enough for my desires.

Don't need intricate detail of the whole terminal interior, but I much prefer a modelled one to parallax effects when it is visible from the aircraft stands.

Off the top of my head, EGLL T5, EICK, LEBL T1, EDDK T2, KDCA T2, VVNB T2, would all look terrible (IMO) if the respective devs had used parallax effects.

[chapstick 2,762]

1 hour ago, Keirtt said:

I'll be completely un-bias as I can here. I personally have never seen the benefit of terminal interiors. Maybe it's the old school simmer in me, but I've always felt this was a waste. With that said, Richmond doesn't have much to look at inside.

Because if a terminal has large glass windows and you're parked right in front of it, I'd rather something be modeled there instead of just a blacked-out window. Also, at night, those textured windows look terrible in MSFS. 

54 minutes ago, JYW said:

What do you actually do when you 'walk' into an airport interior in MSFS?  (Serious question).  

I don't walk around them. I just want some decent modeling of the terminal so that I'm not staring at a blank, blacked-out window when I'm parked at the gate. I don't need the check-in areas modeled, just some effort put into the terminal airside for the reasons stated above.

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

😆 Nah. There are major hubs in the USA by Flightbeam, FlyTampa, Drzewiecki and iniBuilds, all of whom are among the best/better scenery devs for MSFS.

If you'd said "mediocre" about Africa, South America and parts of Asia, you'd have a much better argument.

Sure, some major hubs are covered, but everything else is shovelware from Fly2High and BM/Amsim. There are lots of smaller airports that aren't getting good renditions. 

1 hour ago, thepilot said:

I don‘t get it either. If you want to see how it looks inside, just head over to the nearest YouTube video. 

See my reasons stated above.

53 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

I agree with this completely. I tend to walk around the airports that have them to peak inside and I never go back, but I really do like the parallax windows when I pull up to the gate.

See my reasons stated above.

42 minutes ago, Mace said:

I'm the same way, whatever of the interior I can see from the flight deck, I'm good with that.

That's all I'm asking for, and it's clearly within the realm of possibility for devs these days.