When I started out with Microsoft Flight Simulator around 1988 at 12 years of age, I believe then it was called Flight Simulator 3 if memory serves me and what a joy it was to start a flight from then Meigs Field to Chicago O’hare or Midway. One had to really imagine and pretend much of what we take for granted today: GSX with passengers, other moving aircraft in your area and ATC. Much of these features of course still not perfect even today as we all know.
I believe it was in 2002 with the introduction of MSFS 2002 that AI traffic was first introduced. What a joy seeing other moving traffic around you taking off, land and fly routes. Being a bit of a perfectionist I dont know how many countless hours I spent to make default AI traffic at my frequently used airports just right. You see, back then there was a free tool for it called AIFP by Don Grovestine (RIP) where you could alter AI routes, callsigns etc. Very fun indeed, and what a reward sitting on the ramp seeing the end result! Sometimes even more so than actually flying I hate to admit
It was around this time, give or take an few years that I began to question the need for the static aircraft from airport developers. To me it really started to feel like a dinosaur, something that was left from a time when we did not have anything better. I started to ask airport developers “hey I would gladly purchase your lovely airfield but can you please make that annoying static aircraft optional first”. A few said yes especially when hearing I was not alone, others said absolutely not. My airport my choice! I could not argue with that logic of course but only with my wallet.
Jump forward to the day of Vatsim, IVAO, FSLTL, AIG, Say Intentions and BeyondATC. To me now it started to make even less sense for static “phony” aircraft just sitting there often taking valuable ramp space. By the time I noticed even more voices on forums and such for options to disable, or at least make these static aircraft optional and some developers listened. Today some airports have either a control panel where it can be deselected or at least a static aircraft file in the scenery folder that can be deactivated.
In conclusion. I ultimately understand that it is up to the airport developer to add whatever they want to their airport and its up to me to either like it or not. My question now in 2026 however is why not try to introduce a new standard in both payware and freeware. Why not let the user have a choice. New standards come (and go) all the time, one major one of course being airport interiors. To some ths has become such a crucial feature that its a Go or No go and airport developers had to listen.
I write this because I know many others share my view as well and I have seen endless discussions on forums over the years with very nice user suggestions trying to help fellow simmers (more power to all these helpful people). Often something along the line of “it might just work to do some modifications in the SDK”, exclusion rectangles and what have you… oh and yeah it might just break something else in th process. Well the intention is good and the will to help absolutely admirable but lets face it. Why should it have to be so complicated. Make static aircraft optional!
Static aircraft are the absolute bane of my existence. I honestly don’t understand the obsession developers have with baking “dead” planes into their sceneries -especially when there isn’t a painless way to turn them off.
For those of us flying online, these things are a nightmare. Half the time, I’m squinting at my screen trying to figure out if that’s an actual pilot or just another piece of low-res, ugly garbage cluttering up the ramp. It’s even worse at smaller GA airfields; you show up to a tiny ramp only to find every single parking spot occupied by a static model. What is the point? If I can’t move it and I can’t park there, it’s just a waste of space and performance.
Static aircraft need to go. Or, at the very least, developers need to give us a “delete” button that actually works.
When I develop an airport, I always create parking spots for a percentage of all the spots at a given airport. (I develop airports from dirt/grass strips to large airports up to the size of airports like KACK and KBED).
As far as Static aircraft models, if I add any, I’ll only add a couple of static aircraft like maybe a glider in an out of the way location at airports that gliders use. Maybe a helicopter here and there (but never on a pad that could be used), museum static aircraft, and maybe an aircraft in a hangar being repaired or parked. Very few though. I’d rather rely on MSFS’s static aircraft creator, which users can control how many show up in the options on parking spots.
I also edit all the aircraft I purchase to fix their options for whether they can be used as static aircraft or not. Barely any developers get those options correct to my liking. So many set it to “Any” so I end up with Piper Cubs at Gates. (Another reason I don’t purchase from the Marketplace, and I’m not a fan of streaming. It makes absolutely zero sense to me that Aircraft.cfg files (and now livery.cfg files) end up encrypted). There’s nothing more annoying than seeing your airport like KACK covered with Bleriot XI’s parked all over the place. Most I assign to combat slots if they’re warbirds, and I also set the options to reduce their ability to be used by the static aircraft generator.
I find your comments helpful to understand that POV, thank you.
In the freeware airports I am working on, I do include static aircraft, but only in very specific cases. Either as part of museum collections on the airport property, or very specific situations where there is a specific-purpose aircraft based on the field (like firefighting) or a derelict aircraft that never moves. These are implemented in a way where they don’t interfere with the available parking spaces.
Also to be frank, as a solo developer it is troublesome to provide different versions with options. The way the SDK is designed, it is a lot of extra work to bring things back when compiling a scenery after items have been deleted.
yeah would certainly agree with that. These usually do not take the useful ramp space and, in fact, add to the immersion. As an example of this, and a very nicely balanced inclusion of static models is KFFZ airport:
