JamesJimlb From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1023 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 18 hours ago) and read 9624 times:
when i looked at a REAL picture of SXM i realized how much smaller fsx and fs2004 made it. in fs2004 there is a tiny teminal and little parking space.
in fsx it is slightly better (i saw a 747-400) but it is still like fs2004's.
if you have an opinion,statement (etc.) please respond
The sky is no longer the limit, but the mere minimum
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9638 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (9 years 17 hours ago) and read 9611 times:
Most airports in FS9 and FSX are relatively basic. There are relatively few that provide greater accuracy, although there are supposed to be more in FSX. It's not a mistake, it's just a limitation of modelling tens of thousands of airports.
Phatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9420 times:
For FS2004's SXM, you can search for a modified AFCAD that will add additional parking space (particulary for heavies) to the west of the main yellow terminal. This was left out of the default, which is actually a construction site for the new terminal. I highly recommend this especially if you use Ultimate Traffic, otherwise parking will be quite tight at SXM.
Interesting that someone should mention this... I was flying around in FS2004 Thailand just last night, took off from Bangkok (the 'old' one) RWY21R, made a quick left turn to head towards Samui. After a couple of minutes, I noticed a rather large airport with no runways, etc, just terminal buildings. The buildings themselves seem to be the same shape as the new Bangkok airport (Suvarnabhumi), and yet I haven't added anything to the Bangkok area. Did MS plonk the buildings there when they made FS2004 and just not put a facility file with it???
Gunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9337 times:
Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 6): Just out of interest. MSFS has 20,000 airports, therefore 20K afcads. How long does it take to make all these and how many people are on the team?
Not really important. Even the the default AFCAD files for the more detailed airports aren't very good. Just about any extensive realism in MSFS is going to come from add-on developers. Personally, I'm fine with that...all I care about is Microsoft giving them a solid platform to work off of, which unfortunately, they haven't done with FSX.
Cessna057 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8926 times:
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 9): Not really important. Even the the default AFCAD files for the more detailed airports aren't very good. Just about any extensive realism in MSFS is going to come from add-on developers. Personally, I'm fine with that...all I care about is Microsoft giving them a solid platform to work off of, which unfortunately, they haven't done with FSX.
I agree. Another problem with making all of the airports totaly realistic is proformance. If every airport had an accurate representaion of that airport he file would be WAY to big. I think its better that we can just go on and add freeware / payware in order to make the airports which we fly at frequently better..
Hold it . . . Hold it . . . HOLD THE FREAKIN NOSE UP!!