I’ve started wondering how far we’re going to push the size of individual airport add-ons. I recently installed Perth (YPPH) by ORBX, and the install size is almost 12 GB for this one airport. That feels extremely large. In comparison, many other payware airports of a similar size (and even bigger ones) usually sit in the 2–4 GB range. This makes me question what exactly is driving such a big footprint. Is this simply the price we pay now for ultra-high detail? Or is it more a matter of weak optimization on the asset side, with oversized textures, too many unique materials and models, or a lack of proper LODs and cleanup? At what point does “high fidelity” turn into unnecessary storage bloat?

I’m not trying to bash ORBX. But nearly 12 GB for a single airport does seem over the top, especially for those of us who have limited SSD space or maintain large libraries of add-ons. I’d be interested to hear how others see this. For those who own ORBX Perth: do you feel the size is justified by the visuals and features you get in return? And from a developer’s perspective: is there a strong technical reason an airport like this legitimately ends up around 12 GB, or is it mostly a question of how much effort is put into optimizing assets?

In short, I’m trying to figure out whether 12 GB for a single airport is the new normal we should get used to in MSFS 2024, or whether this is an example of mediocre (bloat) scenery design?

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by Nemo

The heaviest things are always the textures. People want 4k everywhere. Combine that with the fact that airport addons now often come with modelled interiors, with a 4k texture for each and every object inside, and there you have your 12 GB....

I thought it comes along with quiet some stuff around the airport including custom ground textures waaaay beyond airport boundaries etc. (at least the trailer implies it). 

But if SSD space is limited, you do something wrong. SSDs are getting more expensive as well currently, but a 1TB SATAIII SSD is still rather cheap (60-70€ in your country) and eliminates all space limitations for some time. 

The platform was built for streaming, where install sizes aren't a factor.

I regularly spot miles of 4k normal textures with one microscopic pimple of normal goodness. 

Great yawning stretches of the rest of the texture is blank.

Maybe it's machismo, maybe it's laziness, but most sceneries could be half to one quarter of the size and no one would notice.

I don't get why it isn't given more consideration. 

It absolutely turns me off buying something.

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

SSDs are getting more expensive as well currently, but a 1TB SATAIII SSD is still rather cheap (60-70€ in your country) and eliminates all space limitations for some time. 

Looking back to 2024 when I decided to increase my RAM to 64GB and my gaming SSD to a 2TB Samsung, seems it was a good call given the cycle we are in now. I would suggest anyone planning storage or RAM upgrades to take advantage of the holiday sales (and work bonuses/dividends) and do them now. Prices coming down won't happen before end of 26 or early 27 earliest if you follow the trends. 

Yes. When i saw the install size i said no thanks 

12 minutes ago, neucoas said:

Yes. When i saw the install size i said no thanks 

Yea, I check the install size before purchasing an airport and generally would not purchase a 12GB scenery, because in my experience airports that large are poorly optimized and may not run well on my system.

The big GB most likely will come from a custom aerial they may have included with the addon. 
 

Check the CGL folder if it has one, and check its size. If the current Microsoft sat image there isn’t good enough, they may have purchased satellite images elsewhere and included it with their addon. 

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by rick celik

I like the Axonos version of YPPH and it only takes 2.75 GB storage.  12  GB sounds ridiculous for just one airport.

I sometimes think it's more about scenery designers being too intent on showcasing their design ability, rather than producing a scenery that is logically produced and that performs well. A perfect example is the continuous development of terminal interiors. While I think I'm right in saying that most simmers like to view a terminal interior from the aircraft cockpit, with a few passengers in view, but for me that is more than adequate. Similarly, why do many devs put so much work into rendering the landside of an airport when most of the time it can't be seen, except from the cockpit on departure and approach, hardly a requirement for anything other than low textures. Why not use hi-res textures on the airside and lo-res textures on the landside. As I said, I think it's all about showcasing a developer's creativity and design ability, which in turn, is a consequence of market demand. I'm guessing there are lots of simmers who enjoy walking around airport terminals, and that's fine, but for me, I'd like to see devs release a lighter and more memory sensitive release of a scenery alongside it's grander sibling. 

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by Rocky_53

3 hours ago, Rocky_53 said:

I sometimes think it's more about scenery designers being too intent on showcasing their design ability, rather than producing a scenery that is logically produced and that performs well. A perfect example is the continuous development of terminal interiors. While I think I'm right in saying that most simmers like to view a terminal interior from the aircraft cockpit, with a few passengers in view, but for me that is more than adequate. Similarly, why do many devs put so much work into rendering the landside of an airport when most of the time it can't be seen, except from the cockpit on departure and approach, hardly a requirement for anything other than low textures. Why not use hi-res textures on the airside and lo-res textures on the landside. As I said, I think it's all about showcasing a developer's creativity and design ability, which in turn, is a consequence of market demand. I'm guessing there are lots of simmers who enjoy walking around airport terminals, and that's fine, but for me, I'd like to see devs release a lighter and more memory sensitive release of a scenery alongside it's grander sibling. 

Personally, I detest low resolution textures on anything. I would still prefer to see good quality textures (and that does not mean that they need to be 4K) on all buildings and objects, irrespective of where they are in the scenery. It is also worth pointing out that not all users of airport products (even large international airports) arrive and depart in airliners exclusively. I am betting that quite a few users love to explore these large airports via avatar mode/drone cam (this is what I use for beta testing UK2000 airports)/helicopters/microlights etc. All of these options can be used to explore airports (and anywhere else for that matter) in close up detail, and any use of low resolution textures or poor object models will almost certainly leave the user rather disappointed.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Low resolution textures have no place in a next generation flight simulator in 2025. Nobody wants to pull up to a sign (of any kind) and see a blurry mess. Many of us do not want to get close to a building, and see window textures that would not look out of place in the early 1990s. That is not what we pay good money for.

I have been running some seriously detailed airports in MSFS 2020 on my 2015 specification PC, and as long as I do not use complex weather or hundreds of AI planes, performance has been surprisingly good. If this PC can handle even the most visually impressive airports at decent detail levels (HIGH/DSR1.5x/SSAA/16xAF), then we really do not need low resolution textures anywhere.

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by Christopher Low

Honestly guys, I have a OS m.2 SSD with 0.5TB size and four SATA SSDs with 1-4TB in size, totalling something around 8TB SSD storage. Means 8000GB (!!!). How could I then potentially care about 12GB sceneries, filling each massive 0.15% of my total available storage? 

Same discussion was led 10y ago, just with MB instead of GB. And it will be repeated 10y from now with TB instead of GB. And so on...

46 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Honestly guys, I have a OS m.2 SSD with 0.5TB size and four SATA SSDs with 1-4TB in size, totalling something around 8TB SSD storage. Means 8000GB (!!!). How could I then potentially care about 12GB sceneries, filling each massive 0.15% of my total available storage? 

Same discussion was led 10y ago, just with MB instead of GB. And it will be repeated 10y from now with TB instead of GB. And so on...

Chris I think it's helpful if we don't assume the financial situations of everyone here. While it's great you can have a 4090 and a 9800X3D with a whopping 8TB of SSD storage, what might seem cheap to you, might be the difference between deciding on which addon/peripheral to buy for others. 

Have some grace

A 12GB Scenery is definitely up there in terms of size and takes up quite a chunk compared to the standard.

Well, it is not about the CPU or the GPU, correct? As mentioned, a single 1TB SATA SSD you can get at 70€ in Austria and on such a drive you have space for more than 80 comparable sceneries. If 70€ investment is an hassle, well, then it is really bad, for sure, but then the 20€ for the scenery might be better spent elsewhere as well, no?