I've never seen this with any other product offered by Orbx. They can keep it. I'll stick with the imaginesim version which is good enough for me.

I've been enjoying the new Atlanta but I hope a few things get addressed. I have asked the questions on Discord but others come back quickly as it's an Asobo issue. I get that Asobo is part of the problem but I believe other devs have worked around some of these issues.

1. Performance - Currently being addressed.

2. Ground Traffic - It would be nice to be able to turn off the moving ground traffic.

3. VRAM Usage - Hopefully they can reduce some of the textures. Not an issue on my end as I have 24gb VRAM. Pushing 21 GB at times.

4. Taxiways - We all agree, the taxiways are pretty rough. I'm waiting for a bank angle warning on some of the taxiways, hahaha. Seriously, I know they say it's an Asobo issue but they also mentioned that it could possibly be addressed. The dev mentioned the following on Discord, "temporary solution would be to add an invisible surface where the aircraft will go above and you do not feel the bumps. Is not an easy task, you have to add this surface by attempts since you cant import msfs terrain inside 3d model program". It seems like this is what MKStudios did at KFLL for all the slopes and elevations, especially around runway 10R/28L and Xcoder KDEN has working elevations.

5. Gate Signs - They are missing on all the gates. The Dev said, "For the jetways, i will investigate if is possible to add number on top of them. It could be complicated because you would need to have unique jetway for each gate and it might be impossible since there are too many gates. I agree that would be a cool detail to have. If possible will be added in a future update". I get that Atlanta has the most gates in the world with 193+ but we have the numbers signs at KDFW w/168, KORD w/190+, KDEN w/169. It seems simple to point to Asobo for everything related to Atlanta. Again, not arguing. I just see them at other airports in the sim.

Atlanta is my home town airport when I was growing up and I want it to be the best it can be. I have high hopes for it and wish them the best and hope some of thse items can be addresed in a future update.

Edited May 31May 31 by Wise87

4 hours ago, MarcG said:

So as a question (which I think I may of asked once before but forgot the answer), is there nothing like this in the SDK when creating Airports? So that those Terminals buildings where you cannot see from the outside, don't need to render their models/textures? Or is it a case of "build everything and the GPU sees everything"

They do, it’s just regular culling that this forum and many in this community seems to think isn’t a thing. You can make extremely detailed airports or aircraft and due to the modular simobjects, adherence to LOD requirements and just efficient technique of building models, you can have a performant sim.

People keep saying “I don’t want detailed interiors it’s going to cost me fps” when that’s not how any of this works. It’s not being rendered on your machines because it’s been culled. This is the case for most modern game engines. It’s a really old mindset that just won’t die.

Vram is a priority

50 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Vram is a priority

again the size of the texture files are huge.. just like orbx YBBN

pushing 21 gig or vram is nuts. sure you can sell that as Ultra HD textures or some guff but at the end of the day, thats nuts

Edited May 31May 31 by fluffyflops

7 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

I bet its chock full of stuff in the terminal that the kids like which is hammering the performance. Never forget eye candy sells copies, good performance does not.

Which would rather suggest that eye candy is precisely what people want. Otherwise presumably developers would be flocking to produce high performing but not necessarily particularly good looking scenery.

3 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

do you think it might be anything to do with the size of the texture files being 21.3 MB (22,370,272 bytes) each with the taxi signs PNG being 85.3 MB (89,479,168 bytes) ?

this is the same as what happened to ORBX YBBN which is what made it a stuttering mess

I have reduced the file for a lot of textures without compromise the visual in this performance update that is coming very soon. For sure will help.

Regards, Matteo

Edited May 31May 31 by Matteoveneziani

26 minutes ago, Matteoveneziani said:

I have reduced the file for a lot of textures without compromise the visual in this performance update that is coming very soon. For sure will help.

Regards, Matteo

Oddly enough, I find the airport's baseline performance to be perfectly fine. I just completed a flight in the Fenix A320 and was seeing well over 100 FPS on approach and at the airport with my setup. The issue was not FPS, it was the stutters.

Is this optimization update specifically intended to address the stuttering? Has it been tested on other users' systems to verify that it improves stutter performance?

To be completely honest, the issues I'm seeing here are very similar to what I've experienced with Fly2High products. Even smaller airports like TUL struggle with stutters and terrain issues. It almost seems as though some developers use a development style that does not mesh well with MSFS, while others have found approaches that simply work, even in highly complex environments. For example, iniBuilds' JFK, EWR, and LAX all perform exceptionally well on my system with very few stutters.

I do not place all of the blame on the developer. I think Asobo's changes to the LOD system have contributed to many of these issues. However, that still does not explain why iniBuilds can deliver airports like LAX and JFK with minimal stuttering, while Fly2High struggles with much smaller airports such as TUL.

Thanks for clarifying, Matteo, what we can expect from this optimization update.

Edited May 31May 31 by Keirtt

3 hours ago, Keirtt said:

I think Asobo's changes to the LOD system have contributed to many of these issues.

For 2024 native airports (which this is), the new LOD system would (should) actually help improve things. Airports that are designed for 2020 used the old LOD system (which means possibly no LOD's at all). 2024 actually forced you to use proper LOD's. I have one particular airport built for 2020 but 2024 'compatible' that is actually a fairly small size but I was having a lot of stutters. I checked it in Dev mode and not a single object had LOD's so I would guess there are many other airports like that out there. Texture size can be an issue as well, it does appear the textures on KATL are massive and probably causing the VRAM issues (??). F2H airports...I never actually bought one again after my first 2 purchases with similar lousy performance and sloppy work. This KATL is a work of art..but I agree, it's basically unflyable for me with the epic stutters. I think there needs to be a more reasonable balance with these huge airports so you can get reasonable performance on approach/takeoff. I noticed the first reviews that came out were people sitting at the airport and droning around with seemingly great performance. Once you actually try to fly in or out with a complex airliner and AI traffic.....it's another story altogether.

Finally fun to fly in and out of Atlanta.

Love the airport.

OK Flight in and out. The only stutters for me is outside the plane.

My system is pretty good however. Took a hit, but I have a lot to work with.

MD88 BATC Simpassengers FSRealistic. Basically the works

Any chance the International terminal will get an interior in later update?

5 hours ago, Wise87 said:

I've been enjoying the new Atlanta but I hope a few things get addressed. I have asked the questions on Discord but others come back quickly as it's an Asobo issue. I get that Asobo is part of the problem but I believe other devs have worked around some of these issues.

1. Performance - Currently being addressed.

2. Ground Traffic - It would be nice to be able to turn off the moving ground traffic.

3. VRAM Usage - Hopefully they can reduce some of the textures. Not an issue on my end as I have 24gb VRAM. Pushing 21 GB at times.

4. Taxiways - We all agree, the taxiways are pretty rough. I'm waiting for a bank angle warning on some of the taxiways, hahaha. Seriously, I know they say it's an Asobo issue but they also mentioned that it could possibly be addressed. The dev mentioned the following on Discord, "temporary solution would be to add an invisible surface where the aircraft will go above and you do not feel the bumps. Is not an easy task, you have to add this surface by attempts since you cant import msfs terrain inside 3d model program". It seems like this is what MKStudios did at KFLL for all the slopes and elevations, especially around runway 10R/28L and Xcoder KDEN has working elevations.

5. Gate Signs - They are missing on all the gates. The Dev said, "For the jetways, i will investigate if is possible to add number on top of them. It could be complicated because you would need to have unique jetway for each gate and it might be impossible since there are too many gates. I agree that would be a cool detail to have. If possible will be added in a future update". I get that Atlanta has the most gates in the world with 193+ but we have the numbers signs at KDFW w/168, KORD w/190+, KDEN w/169. It seems simple to point to Asobo for everything related to Atlanta. Again, not arguing. I just see them at other airports in the sim.

Atlanta is my home town airport when I was growing up and I want it to be the best it can be. I have high hopes for it and wish them the best and hope some of thse items can be addresed in a future update.

My only problem quality wise is the freeway underpass over runway 28. The quality freeway near the orbx scenery is way way worse than the default. But other then that area, the scenery is amazing.

Any chance the International terminal will get an interior in later update?

To suck more VRAM? Thank you!

A more detailed look.