15 minutes ago, JYW said:

But I'd suggest there is quite a large proportion of people who really don't care about airport interiors - and the resource, performance and pricing costs that they bring with them.

If this was true, we would see many more devs making airports with more basic interiors as that is much much easier, far less work, less art needed and so on.
 

Given that we see the opposite - more devs are becoming ever more detailed - I would say that the market clearly wants more detail. 
 

I guess nothing is stopping a new dev from creating airports like this and under cutting the more expensive ports.. but I suspect the optimal pricing strategy is to go high end and sell fewer units with higher profits rather than a volume play. 
 

all this is just guessing of course, in good fun. 

20 minutes ago, JYW said:

But I'd suggest there is quite a large proportion of people who really don't care about airport interiors

same goes for sceneries, airports, aircraft etc. devs should ONLY develop Boeings because quite a large proportion of people don't really care about general aviation or business jets. variety is the spice .....

2 hours ago, JonathanC said:

Given that we see the opposite - more devs are becoming ever more detailed - I would say that the market clearly wants more detail. 

This.  Most of these folks really do understand the market they're selling to.  If people didn't vote (with their $$), the devs wouldn't put the features in there.

Full disclosure, I'm a BIG airport junky.  I love a good airport IRL and in the sim.  They're the treat I get to enjoy at the start of each flight, and what I have to look forward to at the end, so I value the details - assuming reasonable performance of course.  And while interiors aren't top of my personal list I sure don't mind them, especially when they can be easily seen from the ramp through windows and such.

 

Scott

Another one for the detailed interiors here.  As I mentioned I think LGAV was the first one (at least I remember) to have a detailed terminal interior and moving passengers. 

The Uproar that caused until it was explained numerous times that the MSFS LOD model should allow for detailed interiors without performance impacts...  Holy Grail.

Now I couldn't imagine going back to those opaque windows with baked in reflections we grew to love for all those years 🙂 

So quick scan of airport prices … larger airports cost about $10 more on my sample set … but they’re larger as in more runways, more jetways, more buildings … if I were to hazard a guess $3-$5 extra for interior.  So basically a cup of normal coffee.

I would just add that a detailed interior shouldn't be a substitute for or an excuse for not getting the tarmac details right!!  That means not placing objects randomly, correct taxiways, realistic parking etc etc...

It shouldn't be either/or but put that same level of detail into the WHOLE airport... 

And that's all I have to say about that. 

Just saying but on the RW Profiles EGNT you can configure how detailed the interior is to save frame rates - you can turn loads of stuff off from cars in the car park to the shops in the terminal... 

I personally don't mind the frame rate hit if it looks good as I'm arriving to a gate, it's not like I'm doing anything that requires control inputs so I barely notice any frame rate drop unless I'm watching the counter.

17 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

Just saying but on the RW Profiles EGNT you can configure how detailed the interior is to save frame rates - you can turn loads of stuff off from cars in the car park to the shops in the terminal... 

I personally don't mind the frame rate hit if it looks good as I'm arriving to a gate, it's not like I'm doing anything that requires control inputs so I barely notice any frame rate drop unless I'm watching the counter.

Especially with FrameGen, G-Sync, FreeSync, FSR, Lossless Scaling etc...  When a large number of people are getting that level of detail with 60-120 FPS after some method of what I mentioned earlier the case against becomes a tough one to argue ESPECIALLY if the details are configurable like you mentioned at EGNT.  I wish more dev's gave us config options it seems a lost less scenery that I install in 2020/24 have a config tool. 

Edited November 16, 2025Nov 16 by psolk

15 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Where and how did you come up with this as being the only option?  Why can’t more than one airport be accurately presented both inside and outside?  

That’s sorta like saying why do aircraft external model if you’re only ever in the cockpit … and then adding wouldn’t you rather have 2 aircraft cockpits represented accurately.

So my answer would be no, and neither is mutually exclusive.

 

Simple economics. Developers time costs money. Hey each to their own and if you get a buzz out of aimlessly wandering around airport interiors, then good on. IRL I hate wandering around terminal interiors so I couldn’t think of anything worse in a sim. 
There is a difference between super rendered interiors and representative ones (especially when viewed from the exterior)? 
What seems to have been lost in the noise is that developers time could be used to produce either a super accurate exterior or maybe 2 airports modelled (with reasonable exterior representation). This would increase the available add on stock. I certainly know what I’d rather have, and with frequent gripes about default airports, there are many others too.

3 minutes ago, cowpatz said:

buzz out of aimlessly wandering around airport interiors

Almost as much as I do flying around the world aimlessly 😉 

As pointed out, detailed interiors sell, developers know their market.

35 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Almost as much as I do flying around the world aimlessly 😉 

As pointed out, detailed interiors sell, developers know their market.

Unfortunately we don’t have a choice. If we want an add on with a good airside representation then we have to put up with the “sim city” inside. When I see those promos I think to myself that if they have put that much effort into the interior then the exterior must be top notch. Yes eye candy sells sure, but we pay for it. But my FS funds are not endless. If we had an option of a reduced price for a minimal interior (looks good from airside) then that would be great. We could have more of the world covered. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether one views the title as a game or a simulation.

 

13 hours ago, cowpatz said:

.....I suppose it ultimately depends on whether one views the title as a game or a simulation.

Can of worms opened. Bucket of popcorn purchased. Comfortable seat acquired. Let the carnage commence.....

Edited November 17, 2025Nov 17 by Christopher Low

15 hours ago, cowpatz said:

I suppose it ultimately depends on whether one views the title as a game or a simulation.

Thing is, "game versus simulation" isn't black and white, it's a continuum. And almost no one is on the "pure simulation" end of the continuum.

If this were only about the simulation, there wouldn't be any need for oil stains or tyre marks on the apron. There wouldn't be any need for textured airport terminals. Heck, there wouldn't be any need for terminals, period. Just give me accurate stand markings and a VDGS and I'm good to go, right? But not a whole lot of people would buy that of course.

Almost all of us want a certain level of "eye candy" - we just differ in what eye candy we want. The eye candy we don't want we call "fps-killing gimmicks"; the eye candy we do want we call "immersion".

7 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

Almost all of us want a certain level of "eye candy" - we just differ in what eye candy we want. The eye candy we don't want we call "fps-killing gimmicks"; the eye candy we do want we call "immersion".

Well stated.  The old, binary "I'm a serious simmer, and if you disagree with me that xxx is 'unneccessary eye candy', you're a gamer" position is as tired and fallacious an argument as you'll ever find in this hobby. 

 

Scott

33 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

Almost all of us want a certain level of "eye candy" - we just differ in what eye candy we want. The eye candy we don't want we call "fps-killing gimmicks"; the eye candy we do want we call "immersion".

This comment should be pinned to the notice board in the Flight Simulation Hall of Fame.