I have just checked my Community Library in MSFS 2020, and I have only four addon airport products that have an installed size greater than 5GB....

• ORBx ESSB Stockholm Bromma - 10.8GB (this is a slightly older version that still has the 3D landmark models in Stockholm)
• FlyTampa EHAM Amsterdam Schiphol - 7.25GB
• IniBuilds LOWI Innsbruck - 5.32GB
• Sim Pixel LIBD Bari - 5.06GB

Most of them are between 1 and 4GB. All of my UK2000 airports are between 100-240MB (the UK2000 Common Library is an additional 450MB).

Bearing this in mind, an install size of 12GB is excessive. I certainly would not want all of my airports taking up that much disk space, as it is clearly not required in the vast majority of cases.

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by Christopher Low

It would be nice if you could selectively disable some of the features like extensive interior modeling. The only time I ever see the interior of an airport is when I actually have to fly somewhere.

How many GB ae used modelling the airport interiors (which I rarely even look at).  Not sure how many others really don't care that much about interiors.

I think some developers allow you the option to turn these off along with a few other things if your system is having problems coping (I wish all devs would do this).

 

Edit, you must of posted whilst I was typing Tamba 🙂

 

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by cianpars

18 minutes ago, cianpars said:

(which I rarely even look at).  Not sure how many others really don't care that much about interiors.

I don't think it matters what you or simmers look at is speaks mostly to what @Rocky_53 was saying. Imagine all this time you couldn't really recreate airports due to graphical limitations, game engine limitations etc. and MSFS comes around with a modern graphical engine and you can do that. for a modeller with a passion this must be amazing to fully realize an airport to details previous sims couldn't dream of. 

 

20 minutes ago, cianpars said:

How many GB ae used modelling the airport interiors

It's not the modelling per say but the texturing especially if its uncompressed and as I've seen more recently even sound, I've seen really high-fidelity airports have loads of sounds, which can further increase the size of a scenery.

Optimizing addons, whether its an aircraft or a scenery, quite literally takes up the other half of development when done properly.

I hope many scenery developers may update soon their add ons from 2020 to 2024, I have many for 2020 and want those updated for 2024, even if I need to pay a small fee. The idea of saving so much space on SSD is great by just stream those from the cloud.

As an example of how much extra disk space complex internal modelling takes, consider Pyreegue EGPH Edinburgh v2. Some absolutely beautiful terminal interior modelling and texture detail, and yet the airport takes up just 3.39GB when installed.

In other words, I do not see that much of a problem.

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

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. 

Per the "cheap" OPs signature ... 😉 

9800x3D (Strix x870e-E) - 64GB RAM (DDR5 6000, CL 30), RTX 5090  -  Windows 11 Pro (1TB M.2) - MSFS 2024 (MS Store, 4TB M.2).

I see no valid reason to reduce airport texture sizes/details because someone (or a few) "elect" to not improve their financial situation (which based on the OPs signature, money and/or his financial situation isn't a problem)?  It's not like one is buying a BMW, Porsche, Ferrari ... it's just persistent storage.  So rather than penalize everyone, perhaps ask the scenery developers to provide "lite" version or a version that doesn't have all the details many of us do like and will pay for and are willing to buy the necessary storage.

This IS entertainment after all.

 

43 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Optimizing addons, whether its an aircraft or a scenery, quite literally takes up the other half of development when done properly.

And the "suggestion" (if one wants it to look right and minimize object culling but not remove it entirely) to have 3-5 LODs will also increase the scenery size considerably ... that's MSFS 2024 recommendation.

16 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

because someone (or a few) "elect" to not improve their financial situation

Seriously?

I'm lost for words. Like "improving one's financial situation" is as easy as flicking a switch.

That is honestly the most distasteful thing I've ever read in 20 years on AVSIM.

I don't know why you changed your identity on AVSIM.  Posts like this are as divisive and elitist as they ever were in the past. What was the point in the change?   Don't feel the need to answer on my behalf.   I'm exercising the wonderful 'ignore user' feature at this point, as I find your attitude deeply off-putting.

YMMV.

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by JYW

3 minutes ago, JYW said:

Like "improving one's financial situation" is as easy as flicking a switch.

No, it takes planning, lots of work, education (very important), training and most important motivation ... it's called life and no it's not easy.  Did you even look at the OPs hardware signature?

But again, to put this into perspective, "entertainment software" ... this is not food, not utilities, not medical, not a home ... it's entertainment.  Like someone complaining their Ferrari is not fuel efficient.

 

I'm curious how many if any of these very developed airport interiors allow one to walk into the airport and explore.  Lately I've been enjoying launching the Fenix 320 w/ GSX, only to be able to walk into the cabin via airstair, then open the door to the cockpit and walk in and sit down to start my preflight routine.  I like the idea of the digital twin not just Earth, but everything which ultimately means the palette is vast to develop for, a true virtual world with an awesome flight component, but as the years role on, much more.  Imagine arriving at an airport and picking up a rental car then driving around the city and surrounding environs, only to end up at a world class golf course, then playing 18 holes there.  Or driving to the track and entering a race, etc etc.  Or doing the bush flight, then heading out to go moose hunting or what have you.  I do some of this already, it's just not all connected...yet!

Edited December 5, 2025Dec 5 by Noel

Just to clarify: I wasn’t really complaining about the file size itself. I can easily afford the storage space, so it’s not a practical problem for me. My point was simply to ask whether a footprint of almost 12 GB is truly necessary for a single airport, or if this has just become “normal” with the way some scenery is being made nowadays. I’m genuinely curious about the reasoning and optimization behind it, rather than upset about the actual size.

I suspect this is trending towards normal as users demand increased fidelity, and I also suspect our next steps will see 3d-modelled people shopping in 3d-modelled stores that contain high-resolution product labels. 

Overall this is simply the march of technical progress through time. I think a similar thread could be made back in the FS2002 and FS2004 era, lamenting file sizes and details like support wires around airport signs, modeled nuts and bolts, etc etc. 

7 hours ago, Tom Wright said:

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

Only MS MarketPlace purchases stream.

5 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Only MS MarketPlace purchases stream.

Really?  Steam purchases only support full install?  If so, that must only apply to 3rd party content?