Hello Gang!

The new KDFW by Inibuilds was just released.  Looks good but I have 2 immediate observations.

1. What is all that junk that appears between runways 36 L&R?  I flew into DFW yesterday evening and landed on 36L and none of that was present in real life.  What in the world?

2. The GSX profile needs work.  There's no reason why GA aircraft should be parked on Terminal B, and Frontier / UAL parked in the UPS ramp.  Terminal B needs work as most A/C parked are AA instead of Eagle.  No reason why Breeze should be parked on terminal A.  Finnair parked on gate D25.....what??  It's messy right now.

Performance is much better than Imaginesim though.  

Edited January 30Jan 30 by DMullert

Seems like there was construction in that area between 36L and R as recently as November 2025 so that's probably when the reference material was from:

Edited January 30Jan 30 by Stavros

41 minutes ago, DMullert said:

Looks good but I have 2 immediate observations.

1. What is all that junk that appears between runways 36 L&R?  I flew into DFW yesterday evening and landed on 36L and none of that was present in real life.  What in the world?

2. The GSX profile needs work.  There's no reason why GA aircraft should be parked on Terminal B, and Frontier / UAL parked in the UPS ramp.  Terminal B needs work as most A/C parked are AA instead of Eagle.  No reason why Breeze should be parked on terminal A.  Finnair parked on gate D25.....what??  It's messy right now.  

Hi. Thanks for the feedback! 
to point 1 - This is correct to the reference we had (late Nov.) and as its active construction we will never be up to the day, BUT, we do have some contacts at the airport and have a copy of the masterplan so you can expect some updates regarding layout in the future. 

to point 2 - What are you using for AI traffic? I suspect FSLTL which we've found tend to dance to the beat of its own drum and doesn't really respect gate/airline codes. With BATC/SI we saw much more realistic assignments but even then there is still a small margin of error 

Was going to say flew in from London in early Dec 2025 and that construction was ongoing at the time.

 

2 hours ago, DMullert said:

The GSX profile needs work.  There's no reason why GA aircraft should be parked on Terminal B, and Frontier / UAL parked in the UPS ramp.  Terminal B needs work as most A/C parked are AA instead of Eagle.  No reason why Breeze should be parked on terminal A.  Finnair parked on gate D25.....what??  It's messy right now.

The GSX profile has zero effect on where AI traffic parks, it's for user aircraft only.

I worked at DFW for US Airways\ American from 2003 to 2016 when I retired. I was a bag smasher so the ramp area is very familiar to me. It all looks pretty accurate and the performance seems to be good. I haven't had a chance to tour the entire airport yet but I will. I couldn't tell if I was getting the warm fuzzies or PTSD so that says something about the accuracy.

4 hours ago, DMullert said:

Hello Gang!

The new KDFW by Inibuilds was just released.  Looks good but I have 2 immediate observations.

1. What is all that junk that appears between runways 36 L&R?  I flew into DFW yesterday evening and landed on 36L and none of that was present in real life.  What in the world?

2. The GSX profile needs work.  There's no reason why GA aircraft should be parked on Terminal B, and Frontier / UAL parked in the UPS ramp.  Terminal B needs work as most A/C parked are AA instead of Eagle.  No reason why Breeze should be parked on terminal A.  Finnair parked on gate D25.....what??  It's messy right now.

Performance is much better than Imaginesim though.  

Uh I hate to defend Umberto, but the GSX profile does not dictate where Ai parks that’s the parking codes that come baked in with scenery. And it’s becoming the norm where scenery devs couldn’t care less about their Ai nodes. 

1 hour ago, UAL4life said:

Uh I hate to defend Umberto, but the GSX profile does not dictate where Ai parks that’s the parking codes that come baked in with scenery. And it’s becoming the norm where scenery devs couldn’t care less about their Ai nodes. 

It would be nice to have a way to easily set that ourselves, like we could in the past with ADE or before that, AFCAD.  

16 hours ago, DMullert said:

The GSX profile needs work.  There's no reason why GA aircraft should be parked on Terminal B, and Frontier / UAL parked in the UPS ramp.  Terminal B needs work as most A/C parked are AA instead of Eagle.  No reason why Breeze should be parked on terminal A.  Finnair parked on gate D25.....what??  It's messy right now.

What has that to do with the GSX Profile? GSX is not responsible for which airline parks where.

My issues are numerous as they always are with inibuilds airports.

1. They always do one terminal really detailed and then make all the other terminals have unrealistic silly looking paralax.

2. Dead windows.  They have a tendency to make these opaque windows but don't bother giving them a texture so they just look dead at night, in reality all of those windows have lights on inside.  They should have made all the skytrain stations 3D with proper interior night lighting.  Looks bad. 

3. Performance is pretty bad but not any worse than other sceneries by inibuilds, but still worse than default DFW. 

4. The current configuration of the airport and construction dates back to 2024.  Currently both terminal A and E extensions are built and windows have been installed.  I was expecting to see at least a shell or some beams in the shape of the terminal.  Terminal F has already been built also. Hopefully they will provide these as a free update and not try to pull some V2 pay us again bull. 

5. Some areas, espcially land side look absolutely terrible.  places where ramps dont match, pg bleeds through, unrealistic road/parking lot textures. 

It's better than ImagineSim over all, but I was a little dissapointed. Everything works, it just isn't on the level of Flightbeam, Fly Tampa or even MKs newer releases.  Inibuilds is solidly mid tier in my opinion.  

13 minutes ago, aniiran said:

 

It's better than ImagineSim over all, but I was a little dissapointed. Everything works, it just isn't on the level of Flightbeam, Fly Tampa or even MKs newer releases.  Inibuilds is solidly mid tier in my opinion.  

You have to compromise A LOT, when one developes such large hubs. We are blessed to have INI for EGLL/KJFK/KLAX and FSDT KORD. Yes, I realize shortcuts, but it's better than nothing.
 

That's why we haven't seen good KATL for 30 years. FlyTampa cancelled the project with understanding that quality will definitely suffer, 

27 minutes ago, aniiran said:

My issues are numerous as they always are with inibuilds airports.

1. They always do one terminal really detailed and then make all the other terminals have unrealistic silly looking paralax.

2. Dead windows.  They have a tendency to make these opaque windows but don't bother giving them a texture so they just look dead at night, in reality all of those windows have lights on inside.  They should have made all the skytrain stations 3D with proper interior night lighting.  Looks bad. 

3. Performance is pretty bad but not any worse than other sceneries by inibuilds, but still worse than default DFW. 

It's better than ImagineSim over all, but I was a little dissapointed. Everything works, it just isn't on the level of Flightbeam, Fly Tampa or even MKs newer releases.  Inibuilds is solidly mid tier in my opinion.  

So what you're saying is that you wish it was more detailed, but also that it performed better. Seems like a bit of a paradox? 

Performance wise it’s roughly on par with KLAX and a bit worse than their EGLL or KJFK for me.

I'm getting great performance at KDFW. Better then some of the old iniBuild sceneries. 

11 hours ago, Stavros said:

So what you're saying is that you wish it was more detailed, but also that it performed better. Seems like a bit of a paradox? 

No. Flightbeam KSFO and Flytampa Boston more detailed, just as large and have better performance with a fully modeled interior. Inibuilds LAX is my absolute worse performer follwed by EGLL, JFK and Honolulu.  None of them have fully modled interiors yet have worse perfromance. Inibuilds is solidly upper mid tier, they are not a top teir scenery developer. There is never a good reason they can't do 3d interiors for all terminals with the new SDK options that FS2024 provides.  A B C and E terminals look mostly the same so most of the same assets could have been used.  But just like LA the paralax they chose looks really bad.  Paralax should only be used on enclosed rooms like an aparment or hotel room or small office rooms, not open terminals.  Terminal 1 at LAX looks good.. until you see an actual picture of terminal 1 and you see it looks like absolute word not allowed.  Same with Terminal 2 and 3 and 5 and 6 and all the terminals except TBIT.  They omit so many details in these sceneries and get a lot of things blatantly wrong. If they can't hit perfomance numbers, scrap the TBIT interior and improve the modeling and details airside.  I'm starting to be convinced many in this forum never compare actual pictures to the scenery.