SimWings EDDM v2 - A lot of improvements

MatthiasKNU · July 2

Dear SimWings team,

first of all I would like to say thank you - thank you for not losing sight of MUC, and for this update - even free of charge! That is not a matter of course, so thank you for that!

I had already noted some inconsistencies in the P3D version, which I have now found again in the "new" version, and a few more points. I would like to share these with you in the hope that the MUC will be improved again.

Many who don't know the MUC in real life might say that you can't see these little things. But that is not the case. If little things are missing on the land side, then you can overlook them.
But in some places - especially on the airside, which you see any time you're flying in and out of MUC - there are big mistakes.

I already have a whole list, so I would now like to try to list everything in a more structured way:

Starting in the East, Terminal 2 and also Terminal 2 Satellite:

1. Unfortunately, the colour of the glass surfaces at Terminal 2 is still not right. The glass surfaces are very characteristically greenish. It depends on the incidence of light, but they ALWAYS have a greenish shimmer.
With the P3D, I was tempted to say that the P3D couldn't display it properly at all. But the MSFS should be able to do that.

Here's how it looks like:

Please login to display this image.

... and what it should look like in different light conditions:

Please login to display this image.

2. The O2-Advertisments on the Jetways are gone since a few months:

Please login to display this image.

3. Even if it's not quite trivial: the jetways also have the stand number on them, which is completely missing!

Please login to display this image.

vs. Real:

Please login to display this image.

4. North of stand 213 the exhaust air stacks are completely missing!

Please login to display this image.

5. The sunshades are shown as a white grid in the scenery, but in reality they are grey and not a simple grid.

Please login to display this image.

6. Terminal 2 itself lacks many, many details such as doors, windows, rolling doors, entrances, etc.

Please login to display this image.

7. Many small details such as canopies are completely missing.

Please login to display this image.

8. With the many "M" on the facade, the "/" stroke slowly but steadily changes colour.
In the scenery it is simply shown in white, which doesn't really fit at all. Either coloured, or the colour changes through.

Please login to display this image.

9. In my opinion, the biggest mistake in the scenery: The south and north sides of Terminal 2 have NOTHING to do with reality.

Please login to display this image.

10. The connectors between jetway and terminal should be made of glass

Please login to display this image.

11. There are no pillars on the jetways, which are mounted on Terminal 2 without a connector.

Please login to display this image.

That's the big things about T2 for now.

Let's Continue...
Terminal 1 (i.e. the "old" part) is also missing several details, as can be seen here:

Please login to display this image.

The jetways that are "built into" the scenery at Terminal 1 have unfortunately not existed for many years. At least the O2-Advertisments are ok, but the front part of the jetway is much more angular and a "M" with the stand number is on it.

Please login to display this image.

The glass surfaces at Terminal 1 also have a slight green sheen, but this is nowhere near as prominent as at Terminal 2:

Please login to display this image.

Inside the Airport:
The Advertisment in the Munich Airport Center (The one with the A380...) is already since 5 years replaced with a different one (To be honest, I was in the MAC just last week, but I can't tell off the top of my head which advertisements are on it at the moment).

In general: Even if it is not that important to me personally, it has become standard for sceneries in this price range that the interior is modelled properly. MUC is such a beautiful airport - also from the inside - it would be a pity if there were no improvements.

Please login to display this image.

To stay in the MAC:
The MAC as a whole seems very, very loveless. On the west side, the buildings are also much, much, much too far apart. In real life, they are much closer together:

Please login to display this image.

Coming to the Tower:

The tower is also missing many details, especially the ladders in the north:

Please login to display this image.

Also, what doesn't fit at the Tower either: At night, only "individual windows" are illuminated - not entire "rings".

Please login to display this image.

Unfortunately, the main fire station also lacks a lot of detail, even though you always taxi past it with the plane.

Please login to display this image.

Hangar area:
The Audi driving training area is clearly separated from the apron by barriers with AUDI advertising and fences. These are completely missing.

Please login to display this image.

Even though it's nice to have some cargo standing around at the cargo terminal - there could be a lot more, and not so neatly lined up. It looks very sterile.

Please login to display this image.

Well, unfortunately there is a lot missing at the fuel depot.
Ladders at the tanks, distribution system, station, overhead lines, in real life there is ALWAYS a tanker train on the tracks, in the background there is a large truck car park... Everything is simply missing here.

Please login to display this image.

Around both runways you will find trees and large bushes everywhere that don't belong there!
This has become a real no-go.

Please login to display this image.

In the last picture you can also see how one measuring station is completely missing!

While we're at it: The lamp posts on the Turnpads are orange and white striped!

Please login to display this image.

In general, it would be nice if de-icing vehicles were also parked at the pads in winter!

The topic of taxiways:
The taxiway edge lights only pop up in the dark when rolling onto a taxiway bridge. This should be corrected.

In places the taxiways are not displayed correctly:

Please login to display this image.

In general about the runway/taxiway/apron textures:

The textures don't look quite right. Both colour and structure just don't seem right.
Unfortunately, it's just very difficult to describe, it's just the impression when you know the airport and see the scenery in comparison. It just doesn't seem right.

Please login to display this image.

To the grassy areas: The "grass colours" look very, very dry and desaturated. This may be appropriate in September - but most of the year the grass looks completely different.

Either more yellow/brownish in winter, or really rich green in spring/summer. Even if it's not quite easy, would it be possible to implement 2/3 seasons here?

The last item on my list for now: Could the parking codes in AFCAD be adapted? It makes your toenails curl when Emirates, Condor or Air France park at Terminal 2 and Lufthansa planes at Terminal 1.

So much for now - but there may be more to come.

As I said at the beginning - it is not my intention to make the scenery look bad, but to constructively help to make the scenery look better, so that it looks more like MUC, and not like a European airport thrown together.

I know that the scenery is based on MisterX's models for the XPlane, then converted for P3D and now brought into the MSFS, so it is quite limited.

But at the same time it has to be said that for a scenery in this price range (24,95 €) you can expect the best quality in MSFS. Unfortunately, this does not quite fit together yet.

I myself have been a plane spotter at MUC for many years and have many thousands of photos on my PC (well, of the planes of course, but you can also see something of MUC in the background...).

If you need pictures, please contact me! If necessary, I can also go to the airport to take pictures.

I wish you all another beautiful Sunday!

Aerosoft Team · July 3

Thanks for the comments!

Flying_Timm · July 5

I am not sure if this is the current/newest version of the logo but this should be round.
Is it not possible to give it a bit more polygons?

image.png?width=1609&height=905

Aerosoft Team · July 6

Of course, that is possible, but that easily triples the amount of polygons and resource use. For a smallish object like this, not a problem, but that just leaves the next object that could use a few more polygons open to discussion.

A good modeler (and this project is done by one!) will decrease the level of detail the further you get from a normal viewpoint. The image you show is a view that is simply not where an aircraft crew would ever see it. When I look at it from a closeby stand, it is not something that stands out in my opinion. If I would be the modeler, I would not add more polygons to this object. If I had some to spare, I would always use them to make a very close more detailed object.

MatthiasKNU · July 7

vor 20 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:

Of course, that is possible, but that easily triples the amount of polygons and resource use. For a smallish object like this, not a problem, but that just leaves the next object that could use a few more polygons open to discussion.

A good modeler (and this project is done by one!) will decrease the level of detail the further you get from a normal viewpoint. The image you show is a view that is simply not where an aircraft crew would ever see it. When I look at it from a closeby stand, it is not something that stands out in my opinion. If I would be the modeler, I would not add more polygons to this object. If I had some to spare, I would always use them to make a very close more detailed object.

You are absolutely right, a good scenery is also characterised by saving polygons in unimportant areas and also using LODs.
The Lufthansa logos are also directly on the stands - i.e. really in the viewing area from the cockpit, and even there you can see the corners very clearly. Therefore - yes, it really stands out.

Please login to display this image.

However, I have to agree with Timm here:
A few more polygons definitely wouldn't have hurt - but it's simply due to the fact that the models were originally created for XP, then some polygons were (probably) removed and the whole thing was adapted to P3D.
As we all know, MSFS can handle many, many, many more polygons as P3D. Since the scenery was only transferred to MSFS, unfortunately no more adjustments were made to these models here, although MSFS would have had many more possibilities.

Aerosoft Team · July 7

I am 100% sure the devs have read this and will take the comment as consideration.

Flying_Timm · July 9

One thing I also noted in the last few days: is it not possible to have all gates available for Aerosoft VDGS? There are sometimes 3 versions of the stand but only one is available for Aerosoft VDGS.

mopperle · July 9

As you have already been told in the German forum, it is unfortunately a limitation by the sim.

Maha · July 10

Please login to display this image.

I created a hotfix that makes the interfering trees and bushes invisible. More on FSNews24:

https://flightnews24.de/2023/07/10/sim-wings-muenchen-2-0-baeume-wo-sie-nicht-hingehoeren/

NO original airport files were used and nothing was changed. It is only an extension that makes the trees and bushes invisible!

Please login to display this image.

Gronk · July 12

Regarding the glass front between position 215A and 214, instead of that low resolution texture you're using there presently can you please consider using glass materials like you did with the rest of the terminal? As it is now you can almost count every single pixel if you're parked right next to it.

Please login to display this image.

Flying_Timm · August 2

Am 10.7.2023 um 20:17 schrieb Maha:

Please login to display this image.

I created a hotfix that makes the interfering trees and bushes invisible. More on FSNews24:

https://flightnews24.de/2023/07/10/sim-wings-muenchen-2-0-baeume-wo-sie-nicht-hingehoeren/

NO original airport files were used and nothing was changed. It is only an extension that makes the trees and bushes invisible!

Please login to display this image.

Incredible work!

Maha · August 8

Am 2.8.2023 um 23:42 schrieb Flying_Timm:

Unglaubliche Arbeit!

Less than 30 minutes...

LH D-AIDC · August 16

Oh man, should have checked out the forum before posting myself. Many thanks for your detailed review. The gravest mistake in my regard is stand 224 and its wrong fassade. All the other points are also quite important.

Great job!

Rydal123 · August 17

Great review with some solid points. For me „It makes your toenails curl when Emirates, Condor or Air France park at Terminal 2 and Lufthansa planes at Terminal 1“ is the main point by far!

I can’t quite make out how difficult it would be to change that… MK said it would be forwarded to the developer.

All the best

MatthiasKNU · September 8

Meanwhile more than 2 months have passed - are there any news from @Aerosoft Team or SimWings?

Patrick1246 · September 9

Simwings are known for paying little attention to detail. Also, there are hardly any updates for their scenery, and if there are, then they advertise a new version, where not even bugs from the first version are fixed. Unfortunately, Simwings scenerys are no longer top quality, and there are far better developers.

Stingrey · September 23

Am 3.7.2023 um 12:13 schrieb Aerosoft Team:

Thanks for the comments!

Honestly Aerosoft. It's really more than unfortunate how you deal with constructive feedback from the community. Someone writes very detailed what the obvious errors are in the extremely mediocre implemented EDDM Airport and you have nothing more to say about it than. Thank you. After that, there is no further comment, which suggests that you have really dealt with the content of the topics. Then you could have just written that you are not interested.

Regrettable and unfortunately does not bode well for your future products. Unfortunately, quality technology has been on the decline for quite some time. This is another indication of that.

salokin · October 2

I have only been to Munich once, so don't have the detailed knowledge of the previous contributors and don't notice all of these "errors" and find EDDM a decent base to operate from..

The thing that has been obvious to me, and I thought would be corrected in v2 along with the taxiway label change from O2 to E2, are the two strangely placed \W2/ tarmac labels either side of the 213A and B tarmac labels on W2: these need to be removed! A few seconds work??

MatthiasKNU · October 3

Hello all.

Yesterday I was briefly at MUC, and I noticed sooo many errors again... sorry.
I have now again photographed the most serious and put together here:

The south front of T2 - here you can see very nicely what doesn't fit here:

Please login to display this image.

The antennas on the T2 are also completely missing.

South Hill: What is that, please?

Please login to display this image.

This is what it should look like:

Please login to display this image.

This was already done better in the ancient version of the German Airports Team for FS9!

The water reservoir in the north is not flat - otherwise the water would run out.

Please login to display this image.

In the south, along the road, a wall was heaped up quite a long time ago:

Please login to display this image.

The part between the two parking garages is not only glass:

Please login to display this image.

The fact that the advertising is not correct, the contrast between glass surfaces and ceiling elements at the MAC, traffic signs are missing I will overlook now.

In the northeast, some taxisigns are missing from the turnpad:

Please login to display this image.

Very serious: trees! How could I have overlooked that until now!

The whole airport is green, no desert like in the SimWings variant!
Hundreds and thousands of trees are standing around at MUC, here only a small section:

Please login to display this image.

On the approach to 08R, there is a rather prominent farm directly in front of the airport area - this was even included in the P3D variant. In the MSFS version it is even missing completely.

Please login to display this image.

Dear @Aerosoft Team, dear SimWings-Team (@autopiloth) - By now this thread has more than 4500 views - more than almost any other post in this forum. This shows that there is really interest in a good MUC.
Please, please, please - Improve MUC.
Or maybe @Jo Erlend- one of the best developers there is - might take on MUC sometime in the future (after FRA...)? It would definitely be worth the wait.... I myself would - if it would help a little - hang for days on the fence and photograph every angle that can be seen from the outside.

SK10 · October 6

I used to like Simwings but that has changed in MSFS. I only use them if no other airport is available, it seems they still using old tech. ( at least I think its the case ) EDDM for example is the only airport in MSFS that has a significant FPS drop in VR when the lights go on, not seeing this elsewhere.

skylane182 · October 14

Thank you Matthias for your amazing work, what you do is really outstanding. Normally, that would be the task of the developer. I hope Aerosoft and SimWings listens to it.

MatthiasKNU · November 15

Dear @Aerosoft Team,

Now that almost half a year has passed and things are getting more and more concrete with Frankfurt:

Is there finally a commitment to a better MUC?

Sign In

SimWings EDDM v2 - A lot of improvements

Recommended Posts

MatthiasKNU 128

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Aerosoft Team 51556

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Flying_Timm 154

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Aerosoft Team 51556

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MatthiasKNU 128

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Aerosoft Team 51556

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Flying_Timm 154

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mopperle 4151

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Maha 7

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gronk 270

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Flying_Timm 154

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Maha 7

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LH D-AIDC 1

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rydal123 2

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MatthiasKNU 128

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Patrick1246 352

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stingrey 23

Link to comment

Share on other sites

salokin 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MatthiasKNU 128

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SK10 42

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skylane182 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MatthiasKNU 128

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information