Yea that is over the top, I agree with you on that point. They can go too far when they are modelling toilets.
I’m exactly the same.
It’s as if these add-on devs think their scenery is the only one we’ll ever get. Ten of these internally-modelled sceneries together could end up taking up 30-40 gigs.
Surely it would make a lot of business sense to release “Lite” versions of these products.
I don’t think that every part of the interior needs to be done, especially at the cost of performance. But… portions of the interior that are visible from flight operations areas do add greatly to the immersion factor. All I ask that they keep the poly’s and textures to a minimum - just enough that they look good through the glass. And of course, interior night lighting is always a nice touch, since you’d certainly see inside the terminal from the flight deck when parked.
I agree that the devs should offer a 2nd version without interior or at least give me a way to get rid of it. I don’t want to tank my frames for some benches or flowerpots i will never look at.
The argument that hardware will get better so it’s ok to add interior is kinda weird. At the moment the economy is going down and peoples wallets will melt like chocolate in the sun. There won’t be much left over for big hardware upgrades.
I am perfectly fine with this. I really think that some developers now creating addons for nice videos and screenshots. Its no surprise they giving free of charge for streamers.
The MS Aces team actually said virtually the same thing when they first debuted FSX. They said outright that it would not perform well on any but the stoutest PC’s and that it was designed for future technology. Even the Alienware hardware they were using for the demonstration room could barely muster 25 FPS. This was at the 2006 AVSIM convention in Washington DC, September 2006.
The problem is that an airport is making the most sales right after release. People will forget about an airport if they need to wait months or years for a hardware upgrade.
If a second “no interior” version would add significant more work than i would understand the issue. I just think that compiling a 2nd lite version wouldn’t be a nightmare.
At least the flowerpots are true to form 
What I don’t understand is the desire to have the inside of large terminals modelled for “immersion”,… only for them to be complete Ghost-towns with little/no flow of people. Contradiction, much?
I remember the first time I downloaded an airport with a somewhat finished interior. I looked around and thought it was cool, but it didn’t look realistic because no passengers were there moving around. I understood why of course, but it just looked desolate.
But mark my words - when the AI tech gets good enough that developers can show people walking around, waiting in line, interacting with security, etc a lot of simmers are going to go nuts over it. I’d be one who would like to see it once, but after that, meh.
That is actually close to the current standard. There are several airports that have animated people. Fly Tampa KBOS immediately comes to mind, and it is great to pull up to the gate and see people moving around inside the airport. For me, I love the interior details and I won’t pay top dollar for an airport that doesn’t have them.
It’s an interesting one as from my use of a mix of quality airports I did find a fully detailed airport really adds to the experience. On PC It’s nice to pull into an actual hanger or if using a business jet (I don’t really fly airliners but the concord) then the jetway, then while I am off sorting my next flight or whatever I need I’ll park my camera in the terminal or the airports main viewing areas if outside just so can watch the beautiful scenery around me while faffing until next flight. Just seems more real HOWEVER on Xbox it can be the difference on if the sim crashes or not. It seems that memory is so tight that just a slightly to detailed a plane (say the Kodiak) and an airport that’s been modelled to the highest detail together can ruin a flight. Sometimes it’s full on crashes, other times it’s pains like the avionics just won’t load until flown a good 5-10m away from the area. I don’t mean this by all detailed airports on xbox = bad as that’s couldn’t be further from the truth but it is something with this talk of Xbox/Microsoft adding/unlocking more memory (I’m not to sure on this as saw a headline but was to tired at time to try and read it) these issues may soon be a thing of the past if done right.
I agree with the OP. I fly airliners and never see these details since i am airside only. Increases the cost and lowers the performance. If there was a cheaper “no internal” version i would buy it.
Its one of those things you look at once and say “cool!” and then not look at again i suspect.
Different time, different situation. And FSX had been dropped shortly after its release so statements like their‘s should be taken with a grain of salt. Simmers weren‘t happy with the FSX release and many remained at FS9 for that reason. FSX has by default never been a good sim but its fast death and long existance enabled 3rd party developers to find work arounds. MSFS is not such a niche product anymore (not that much at least) and MS follow an entirely new economical strategy. By this strategy addons that release now have to work fluently, no „gamer“ who‘s been lured into the sim will accept bad performance for more than a handful of attempts just because future hardware may make it better. This was a view of the hardcore niche simmers but won‘t work for casual hobby PC pilots.
I really enjoy seeing a very detailed interior (preferably with animated people) when I am sitting at the gate or pulling into it at the destination, just as I want realistic ground clutter. Arguing that a high level of such detail is not necessary for your immersion as a sim pilot logically would also mean that you don’t need a detailed plane exterior because you sit inside the cockpit (unless you actually do a walk around check every time, I guess). As for performance, it really depends how the developer does it. The picture below is of the multiple models of the same object that Pyreegue have at the new Belfast, each one drawing on a different LOD depending on viewing distance to ensure your PC is not overly taxed.
LOD’s are fine. However, you do need to remember that on the ground at the apron you pretty much on LOD 0.
Fair enough, but you are also not moving or very slowly. The main issue with badly designed high-detail airports would be stutters on approach, I reckon?
Unless you like stutters when panning around on the ground and on taxi… i would say that will break the immersion more than not being able to sit at Starbucks for a coffee with few AI’s…
I usually don’t experience those at the detailed airports I’ve bought (eg Athens, Wellington, Brussels), although the FPS may occasionally drop to below 30 in the Fenix - which is still fine for taxi. Anyway, just my perspective, as you wrote “It was important to me […] to get other people views about it”. Sounds like you have made your mind up on the issue, and I can appreciate where you are coming from.
That’s correct, I want to get other people view on that. At the same time I am sharing mine.
Not multiple versions, but an option to add or remove detail from the interior of a terminal.
Addon Linker would be the perfect tool to manage this.
Hopefully, marketplace will some day have some of the functionality of Addon Linker, in particular the ability to activate or deactivate specific sceneries (or parts of it) with a single mouse click…