[Aerosoft] - EDDF Frankfurt Airport

OK, hiding that bgl and rebooting the sim allows access to internals. Which if I’m honest I can see why they are hiding. They are a bit rudimentary by 2024 standards. I must go toggle their ‘basic interiors’ and see how much more basic they can get. There’s a relatively nice entrance way to the terminal, which looks like most of the effort went there. Other than that there are empty gates everywhere and just a small token amount of animated (why bother?) passengers in very few locations.
Many modeled internal areas are just devoid of people entirely.
So many buildings at EDDF are just empty shells, really only the gates and entrance hallway are modeled at all.

Here are some of the internals.


This about the only people I can find


The nicer terminal entrance/hallway


1 Like

Ahh… will visit it before doing anything…

To be fair, I don’t think the internals look “that” bad. Of course, everything looks good when you have a little glaucoma. :grin:

1 Like

I was just going by other recent releases. There have been some really good ones. MK Studios KLGA springs to mind. I just think that EDDF isn’t as “mega” as it should be. Even EBBR is way better, and it was released maybe 2 yrs ago.
Ps. Sorry to hear about your glaucoma.

I think we’re perhaps missing the point that an airport the size of EDDF was never going to be as detailed as the likes of EBBR and ENGM, which are significantly smaller. Ini’s EGLL, as an example, looks less detailed overall than the new EDDF.

The sim and the hardware we run it on don’t yet allow for the kind of detail we’ve become accustomed to appearing in world hubs such as EDDF and LFPG. Going back to EGLL, it is actually a very compact airport, given its status — certainly covering an area far smaller than EDDF, LEMD, EHAM and LFPG.

I’ve not got this new EDDF but it seems to feature no less detail than other comparably-sized hubs such as KJFK, KLAX, EHAM, etc.

4 Likes

Externals yes, internals no. Ini is way better at Terminals IMO. T5 EGLL for example. KLAX too is very detailed and quite large. Mk’s KLGA is amazing with a lot modelled. EDDF is 90% externals unless I’m missing something. I’m going to try some of the installer switches tomorrow to see what they do. The moving train is quite nice. Still there is some basic satellite imagery landside some of which covered by empty shell buildings. Not all devs leave things like that. Like I say it’s not bad, it’s just not mega in an epic kind of way.
You are correct about FT’s EHAM that does similar, with repeated internals /gates only & FTs KSFO which is similar. However you can at least see through the glass into the gates at both of those airports including at night time. With EDDF you can’t so much.

1 Like

Lifesaver brother! Now can someone tell me what is the point of creating this file in the first place?

1 Like

its a crashbox. a invisible box so msfs does know theres a wall. So you cant drive into the terminal with your plane, or if you do, MSFS will recognise this as “the plane has crashed”. But it also prevents you from moving the camera inside the terminals, obviously.

I bought EDDF yesterday and am very satisfied. I think that with this size, compromises have to be made somewhere. Yes, the interiors of KLAX and KJFK are somewhat more detailed (although not at the highest level). However, the building textures have a much lower resolution and look more unrealistic. Aerosoft has placed more emphasis on the external appearance. And they have succeeded very well. I don’t know of any large mega airport that manages completely without visual restrictions. In my opinion, Oslo or Edinburgh are the maximum size to run smoothly with the highest level of detail on today’s PC hardware.

And by the way, I can’t quite understand why the rudimentary interiors are not also criticized at Flytampa or Flightbeam. Apart from KSFO, none of the larger airports have a detailed interior. And yet these airports seem to be the non plus ultra for many people. Don’t get me wrong. I’m also a big fan of their airports because they look so realistic from the airside. I just don’t think Aerosoft’s EDDF is bad just because it doesn’t have more detailed interior because of the size.

15-20 with those specs sounds sub-optimal, even at ultra. Are you running DLSS?

You consider Terrain LOD 50 on the ground a high LOD? Can´t go much lower than that on the msfs settings. The fact that the GPU is 6 years old doesnt mean nothing as it is equivalent to an RTX 4060 from the current gen as nvidia hasnt done much in this performance tear over the years. It would be the exact same on that gpu. I agree though I will be getting a new GPU soon so I give you that. But that does not change the fact that I do not have any issues in sceneries like Inibuilds JFK, LAX etc. It is only the Aerosoft EDDF and only using the fenix. Otherwise it runs great. Not complaining though, I´ll get it sorted out sooner or later

no.

Yes, but a 4060 isnt a great card nowadays for games such as MSFS.
Especially on the VRAM side its weak.

probalby a combination of all, FENIX, EDDF, older GPU and prolly older CPU aswell? Just very much to do for a bit outdated hardware.
I mean, it probably wont run great on my 7800X3D and 4070Ti OC either :rofl:
But im sure EDDF will get some optimisation with time.

1 Like

As I said I agree on the fact that I gotta get something new on the GPU side of things, in terms of CPU because you asked it is a Ryzen 5800X so yeah not the newest but still not bad in my opinion. I get between 60 to 120 fps using framegen depending on the situation, the only thing bothering me is really the vram. Hope msfs24 improves things and until then I might get newer hardware. I actually find EDDF runs great in terms of fps numbers as long as I stay away from that ■■■■ 320 lmao

1 Like

Yee the fenix is a bit more resourcehungry…
They gonna work on vram usage tho, they said. Also, try not to use 8k liveries!

1 Like

Some of those products are older, so expectations are less. On forum posts elsewhere I have pointed out +'s and -'s on many of the recent major releases that I have. I like what FT did on EHAM for example with animated passengers appearing just at the gate where your aircraft is parked. I like their photo realism, terraforming of ditches, their work on roads around the airport was exquisite.

With FB KSFO I critiqued that lack of an international terminal interior (which BMWorld & AmSim version did have), and having only the gates modeled, but at least you can see the through the glass at these airports at day or night adding to the immersion.

True, but there are very few “highest level of detail” interiors (by today’s standards) anywhere in EDDF. Other than maybe the superfluous (but can be switched off) peripheral train station, which does look like someone put a lot of effort into, but it’s an airport, so to me more visible/detailed/populated gates to me would have been a better choice here. Note: The less detailed toggle for the gates seems to just completely remove all the static elements like seats/notice boards/escalators etc.

Not that I care about it too much, but as another example EDDF has no control tower interiors modeled - just empty spaces. I can’t remember the last airport I came across that didn’t model the control tower to some extent.

I have to say though EDDF does looks superb externally, and it’s evident that this is where the majority of work has gone into. In the end of the day it’s up to everyone else to decide for themselves whether it should have been marketed with a ‘mega’ label or not.

1 Like

well, its MEGA in terms on big, has always been like that with Aerosoft Mega airport series. And when you do big airports, you have to make compromises to optimise performance.

FS24 seems to have some interesting features for that, i heard from rumors which are not yet confirmed. It does only render what you see in airport sceneries. So, if you dont look at the interior (for example cuz its behind a wall you dont see trough) it doesnt get rendered. Lets see…

no, TAA. Fshud plus Fstl have a huge impact on my system.

I have noticed quite a difference in performance between 4K and 8K liveries with the Fenix Airbuses. I have a very high-end machine so if 8K liveries are having a noticeable effect, perhaps the sim and the hardware on which it runs are not yet ready for them. To be honest, I really don’t know why anyone needs 8K currently.

Interesting point. I’ve long said that certain devs seem to have a fanbase that won’t accept any criticism of the product. With the exception of KSFO, Flightbeam’s interiors are pretty dire — and KMSP isn’t exactly what you’d call old. Same with FlyTampa, with EHAM having quite possibly the worst interior of 2023. So it is odd to see EDDF getting it in the neck when there are far worse examples escaping scrutiny.

3 Likes

8K liveries just fill up VRAM unnecessarily. And even some higher end card, especially Nvidia, are still lacking some VRAM. I have a 4070Ti OC, but 12GB ram is barely enough, especially on ultra and above 1080p resolutions. So saving a few GB by using 4K liveries makes sense. Theres almost no visual difference, if at all…

1 Like

Exactly. Hence my suggestion that 8K liveries are largely pointless. My GPU has 24gb VRAM and 8K liveries have a noticeable effect on performance.

Re Fenix, I have deleted every livery from the official manager (as they offer 8K only) and downloaded the otherwise identical 4K versions available at flightsim.to.

1 Like