SDK Q&A: Scenery Editor Questions

Hi all,

We are excited to bring back the second SDK Q&A, this time answering any questions you have about the Scenery Editor!

Like the first one, the first 1/3rd of the stream will be a presentation from the SDK team on what is coming. As a heads up, we will be announcing the date AnswerHub will be live in this Thursday’s Development Update, so no need to ask that question.

Please post any questions you have below related to the Scenery Editor.


  1. Please only ask one question per post.
  2. If you see a question posted that you also want to ask, please “like” the post to show support.
  3. Duplicate questions will be deleted.
  4. This topic is for questions only, please do not add any discussion.
  5. Please do not link to your other posts or encourage other people to like your post.

We will announce the time and date of the stream soon!


Will we get the ability to create lights that are visible from a larger distance? Like sprite lights used for streetlamps.
The current system is quite useless when it comes to obstacle markings.


This question wasn’t asked at the last SDK Q&A so here it is again. I believe this question is also related to the scenery editor so it should fit in with the upcoming SDK Q&A. There is a problem where AI regular passenger vehicles (not AI airport vehicles) are running all over some 3rd party airports. The scenery creators of these airports have said that these AI regular passenger vehicles cannot be removed without a change to the SDK. Those AI regular passenger vehicles running all over the airport just ruin the immersion of some of the 3rd party airports.

Can Asobo provide airport scenery developers something in the SDK where they can remove the AI regular passenger vehicles from the airport?

Here is an example of AI regular passenger vehicle traffic running all over a 3rd party Kai Tak airport created by ali501 which can be downloaded from VHHX Hong Kong - Kai Tak • Microsoft Flight Simulator :


Recently there has been some confusion regarding which is the “correct” way to provide add-on mesh for the simulator. Third-party developers are arguing that BGL heightmaps is the documented Asobo way while CGL is a hack, but also vice versa. It would be great if the SDK team delved into this matter to provide a clear, definitive answer!


In the SU4 release notes, under scenery editor, it mentioned “Fixed the windsocks with wrong orientation”.

For those airport creators who have created project files where they have adjusted the orientation of the windsock by 180°, if they want to ever compile the airport into a new bgl from their existing project files, is there a necessity to once again modify the orientation of the windsock as a result of this fix?


Shortly after MSFS launch last August, I purchased KSBA from Orbx, then KTIW from Lvfr (I think), and KPDX from FlightBeam Studios. All three are missing this most useful feature present in nearly all default airports.

Here’s what the default airports will show if the airport in question has ILS:

What is really great about these working correctly is that you then can simply select and activate the correct ILS in-sim, w/o the need to find the ILS Freq outside of the sim, and manually enter them. I vowed to never buy another 3rd party airport that omits this. From working w/ developer Roman Designs & learning from FSDreamTeam, those two devs understand the workaround to get this feature in their own airports. CYVR from FSDT, and CYOW from Roman Design both include this nice feature.

Here’s from KSBA from Orbx–there are no ILS freq fields showing:

My sense is the problem is in the SDK they use that sets developers up to mess this up. PLEASE discover and address this–I’m not the only person who will avoid purchasing 3rd party airports without this feature retained. Thanks keep up the good work!


When adjusting terrain height, sometimes the result in developer mode is different than what you get in-game. Can we have a clear explanation on why this happens (if it´s not a bug) and a way to avoid it?


When will it be possible to exclude the ‘floating orbs’ (aka street lights), with the SDK, using the Exclusion Rectangle or any other method?


Will you be providing a way to edit autogenerated ambient traffic outside of airports.
Introducing location specific traffic perhaps (eg yellow taxis New York, red busses London etc) or other 3rd party created vehicle types. (A vehicle library?)
Road editing, eg where they spawn and paths they follow etc.


When will there be a proper tool in the SDK to exclude the AI taxiway lights and implement custom taxiway centreline and edge lights with proper ‘positioning and spacing’; because still 3rd party airports are released with the default taxiway lights which are quite random and neither properly positioned nor is the spacing between them proper.


Hi, I am working on Navi Mumbai airport, but there a lot of power poles across that area, which I cannot get removed. these really hurt my airport design. Ideally such objects should be removable via Scenery Editor.


Can it fix the Isle of Man which was obviously forgotten on the UK and Ireland update?

1 Like

Please add the ability to organize air traffic control parameters (ATC, COM, ILS) in a custom airport. It would be helpful to see tutorials from the direct developers on working with the SDK tools and creating minimal airport projects and air traffic control scenarios. I drew attention to the YouTube video, where individuals resort to editing * .xml files instead of a visual editor. Thank you.


It would be useful to see and have a tool for editing airport environment sounds with video tutorials, as well as editing aircraft environment sounds. For example, in S2S Pits inside the cockpit, you can hardly hear how the motor works, although the propeller in other aircraft models looks convincing and louder, because this is an aircraft engine, not an electric shaver🤭

My question about development of MSFS ground.

At the current stage of SDK all ground textures have to be “covered” by a default MSFS detail texture like asphalt, concrete, paint etc., but they cause blurriness of the underlying texture.

The question:

“Please modify scenery editor to keep original high resolution of grounf textures and fix blurry effect due to covering by the layer of default MSFS asphalt type detail texture”
In other words, would be perfect to use ground textures with high resolution without compression and with invisible default detail texture (to save water and snow effects) or without default detail texture (to apply custom winter textures with a condition for dates(after releasing the seasons feature).

Hope for the developers attention to this question.


You can already do this for the edge lights by using Light Row(s). The centerline is another story. What we need to have is the ability to specify the light color when using Light Rows. Then we will b able to customize the centerline.

1 Like

Will we get an easier option to remove the services at the small airports we create… I know, I’m lazy…

1 Like

Using the SDK without being able to unmount and mount the mod is VERY time consuming due to rising startup time. When will this be possible or why not?
From the initial version of MSFS until the present version 4 the initial load time has increased by 200-300%. 4 to 5 minutes with an I7, 32GB RAM, 2070 Super.


The inside the tag works and the seperate inside the doesn’t. So a better question is why is this a difference and can this be harmonized?