10 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I *think* why we get such detail landside, rather than airside, is due to the availability (or lack of) source material for devs – Google maps has plenty of photos from passengers in terminals, but rarely from the de-ice pad or cargo apron.

Also, as most simmers are passengers, we will recognise the terminal interior far more than, say, GA parking. By making detailed interiors, devs are tapping into Constructivist theory and making us more likely to buy their work.

It would be great if developers would be able to get airside access but I guess that it is often difficult to arrange. Airports have little to gain from allowing access.

The next best thing is that they infer (or make up) details from what little there is available, rather than use low-rest buildings. Since we don't have access to the airside of things either we wouldn't know the difference. I'd rather have the immersion than something that is realistic but looks bad.

3 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

I only see parts of the airport i couldn't care less about. Is this where we're at now?

The key part of that statement is the second "i". It is entirely possible that others may care a great deal more than you 🙂

5 hours ago, Paladin2005 said:

Not so important to have a proper ATC, bugfree aircraft and working windshield wipers, clouds and watermasks and ...

Scenery developers have nothing to do with those things. 

Edited October 1, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, Allard said:

It would be great if developers would be able to get airside access but I guess that it is often difficult to arrange. Airports have little to gain from allowing access.

Technically the interior shots of terminals are  probably "airside". 🤐

Airside (official term is security restricted area)  starts beyond the secrity check point and extends to the jetways.

Apron-access would be of more value since mostly we see the outside of the terminals, when looking through the windows of our virtual planes.

3 hours ago, Allard said:

It would be great if developers would be able to get airside access but I guess that it is often difficult to arrange. Airports have little to gain from allowing access.

Many developers do. It's an expense to travel to the airport, and some can't or don't want to foot that bill. 

Without any in game purpose, I also feel airport interiors are a waste of time. If somehow flight planning, airplane/runway/apron condition reports, crew/pax notes, and weather planning were started or received in a room in the airport then I'm all for it.

48 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

Technically the interior shots of terminals are  probably "airside". 🤐

Airside (official term is security restricted area)  starts beyond the secrity check point and extends to the jetways.

Apron-access would be of more value since mostly we see the outside of the terminals, when looking through the windows of our virtual planes.

I meant of course the apron-side of the airport as opposed to the landside, a term which is often used to describe the parking, roads etc on the other side of the airport.

3 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Without any in game purpose, I also feel airport interiors are a waste of time. If somehow flight planning, airplane/runway/apron condition reports, crew/pax notes, and weather planning were started or received in a room in the airport then I'm all for it.

On small airfields I can see myself walking to a hangar, opening its doors and prepare my virtual GA aircraft for flight. using the towbar to pull it out of its hangar, doing a walkaround etc.

Doing the same for the big jets seems less attractive to me, but to have the option would be nice. But we would need an interactive virtual copilot for this to be complete.

13 minutes ago, VeryBumpy said:

Without any in game purpose, I also feel airport interiors are a waste of time.

I feel 90% of all airports and aircraft are a waste of time, because I don't use them and don't fly there.

What Innsbruck needs now more in priority 1000% is a good photogrammetry from MSFS, I am happy with the actual airport. The autogen is so unreal-cartoon for me already, I try to avoid autogen places.

No almost interiors please also, or some basics, I am in VR and I do not have fps to waste, or a easy way to disable them in MSFS or ones more fps friendly to watch them far from the exterior or optimized etc..

The new Stansted from Gaya (I think), it is a no go zone for me, yes it is very detailed, but the stutters are very detailed too, a pity.

Edited October 1, 20241 yr by peloto

that's the big problem with alaska also

43 minutes ago, peloto said:

I am in VR and I do not have fps to waste

so am I, and there are no fps wasted here. lost fps due to airport interior is  a 1.000 year old myth: they don't show while you are flying, and show up only if/once you walk inside. fps are pretty much the same no matter if I am inside the terminal building or outside looking away from the buildings.

Edited October 1, 20241 yr by turbomax

Guessing no mesh collisions on the interior for walk-around mode with handcrafted airports unlike in 2020 with handcrafted airports that have modelled interior parts-like LOWS from WU18 for example has an airside interior, but mesh collisions prevent you from exploring that with the Showcase drone camera.

Edited October 1, 20241 yr by amsfsx02501

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

so am I, and there are no fps wasted here. lost fps due to airport interior is  a 1.000 year old myth: they don't show while you are flying, and show up only if/once you walk inside. fps are pretty much the same no matter if I am inside the terminal building or outside looking away from the buildings.

I can watch them from outside... curious myth, maybe it is my imagination. And for that people nowadays recommend withdraw the interiors .bgl for performance reasons. I mean when you are near flying or in ground, not at 30.000 feet haha

Maybe there are more modern ones that are well optimized like that, yes, I was referring to those type of improvements in my first and former message with "optimized etc.". The new MSFS Stansted is horrible in performance, by their interiors or not, I don´t know the exact culprit, or are more than one etc..

Edited October 1, 20241 yr by peloto

I have been inside so many IRL airports on so many trips across so many years that even seeing these shots gives me stress.

I LOVE flying.

I HATE airport (interiors).

The only places in airports I find interesting are the ones you generally can't get to - things like control towers and such. Freight and GA areas and military aprons are also obviously difficult.

I get it - and obviously the developers are responding to consumer demand (I think...?).

But as a few others have said, I'd much rather the exterior & surrounding areas of the airport be as detailed as possible.

I was always a fan of the Orbx "regional" airport sceneries where there was additional detail even outside the airport bounds, and particularly so if it related to a better experience on approach or departure. I realize MSFS has greatly reduced the need for that, but still...

And to be clear, I'm not talking about wanting IRL pixel perfect detail on the ramps and other areas. Just good approximations based on available data, or even learned experience from other airports.

But come on - is it really that much easier to create hyper-detailed INteriors than EXteriors? You can generally learn a TON from Google Earth and Bing.

I'm even betting that (some) Airport Authorities would be happy to co-operate. After all, airshows give nearly incredible access to even airfields that are normally strictly off-limits.

And as a (overly) avid consumer of payware airports, I, for one, sure would appreciate a lower price per airport, and am very willing to trade the detailed interiors out to get it.