That’s going to require new models for every single addon, yes? I mean you couldn’t use a default MS building in a third party add-on if I’m understanding what you mean correctly?
Look at the latest update of the Freedomfox where the developer mentions a couple of times that an update was needed to fix something that was changed/broken due to WUX.
My assumption is that this should not be necessary or other way around: I as a 3rd party developer would be really mad if I had to do work on my product every time MS/Asobo does an SU or WU. If no changes it still means I at least would have to test is with every such update.
And that’s my point, not expecting them to hand craft every airport in the world… but for those created with AI they could look way more realistic with some additional variations say like 20 different terminal building looks / different jet bridges. For example the default terminal building doesn’t have transparent glass, it’s like this horrible dark blue colour. There is also no airport clutter that gives that realists feel and the height of terminals are ridiculous.
AI airports don’t have to match the real world one like a handcrafted airport does, but they still should / could look ultra realistic.
Anyone who wants to know what we mean, go look at the default Los Vegas airport… it’s dreadful.
(Please don’t recommend a fix as “buy the handcrafted version” as that’s not the point to this thread.)
3 Likes
I just want the taxiways to be labeled right; I literally do not care what the buildings look like. 
1 Like
Somewhere the developer behind Pilot2ATC, one person, got a hold of much more realistic taxiway data. I feel that MSFS missed the boat getting similar data and plugging it into their AI airport generator to give us more precise taxiways. But maybe they tried and it just did’t work right for the MSFS environment.
Hopefully the scenery gateway will help resolve this issue.
Also I will pay good money for a nicely done KAGC if any dev’s are reading this. It’s got a great, and recently renovated, Art Deco terminal building. OK enough thread derailing.
1 Like
Exactly. I’d only care about taxiway signs and parking numbering. Buildings can stay generic. Asobo cannot do that, users can. We strongly need the Gateway like XPlane.
2 Likes
Default airports are not my biggest concern with the sim but if I had to add any wish list items to this topic, it would be ramp lighting (I know there is a free addon but it gets messy when it mixes with other airport addons), taxiway sign accuracy, and the terrain unevenness at some of the airfields.
Again, I have other issues Id rather see fixed before we introduce more bugs trying to fix these
1 Like
Default airports look very bad indeed.
As soon as i leave the airport, the scene is beautiful. So i think asobo can make them look better somehow. Some face-lift to the generic buildings, more realistic runway and apron textures, runway surrounding textures can be improved.
They also make a classification systems for major airports like
A class hand made
B class face lifted semi pro
C default etc.
3 Likes
It may be unrealistic to expect Microsoft/Asobo to improve default airports en masse, but maybe one area that needs looking at is major airports which have expanded significantly since the data was originally gathered for MSFS.
For example, one of my projects is to visit as many of the busiest airports in the world as part of a world tour. I am currently visiting a number of airports in China which feature in the Wikipedia busiest airports list. Many of these have new runways which don’t exist at all in MSFS, although they do in the latest Navigraph AIRAC cycles. This can lead to a situation where you plan and execute an entire flight only to find that the runway you were planning to land on is a mass of trees alongside the existing runway. Also in one case (sorry I can’t remember which one) the airport has no taxiways or buildings at all. As these are all amongst the 50 busiest airports in the world I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to have them reasonably up to date, even if the detail level is still basic.
3rd party Gateway system is in the works, this will help default.
3 Likes
I am with the op. We should not need add-ons for a airport to look like we’ll an airport. They should not have giant 10 story builds with jetways attached.
1 Like
I hope so. The multistory buildings are aweful
I totally agree. I want lampposts. Plus more variety in the buildings. Everything looks same, I went to Default Geneva and it is just awful. I cannot buy all the airports. We need more variety.
1 Like
Remember the scenery gateway we were supposed to get, where the users fix airports? We need to keep pushing for that. Asobo can’t take on the whole world, but needs to focus more on outsourcing and crowdsourcing development of this sim. We need to be able to check in scenery edits made in Developer mode so they can be streamed to all users.
1 Like
According to the last SDK Q&A they‘re currently looking for alpha testers for the „WorldHub“ portal, which is similar to XPlane’s Scenery Gateway. This will no doubt improve the default airports in the future. I personally like the concept as it‘s community driven so Asobo can focus on core issues and new stuff.
Well never mind on the above post lol. I hadn’t seen the latest Q&A and last I heard it was shelved. Having potentially thousands of people working on the scenery will be the single greatest advancement this sim can make in my opinion.
If any and all users can fix up the scenery in their local area, the entire sim could be radically improved.
1 Like
Unfortunately the WorldHub as planned won’t improve the awful look of default airports, just fixing the “airport logic” and related items. That’s an improvement, I suppose, but a big missed opportunity to fix horrible looking default airports. That won’t happen anytime in the near future sadly.
2 Likes