I do not, I don’t only focus on D-F planes, especially at smaller airports, I actually enjoy seeing smaller planes like Dash 8’s and ATR’s flying around. And at most airports they’re crucial to the operations
plus I DO NOT use my own fleet. I only focus on contracts which explains our difference in opinions over the scheduling system
Yeah, for a generic airport to work - that is to pass as a certain location - it needs to have the same building and taxiway/runway layout at the least.
The looks can be different, dare I say generic, but the rl layout I feel is a minimum requirement.
I think the development team’s approach to creating generic airports is problematic because of this. This basically amounts to creating a fictional airport, and then attaching a label to it based on the closest-looking airport - in this case, Kannur.
The few things the real airport shares with the in-game fictional airport is the singular runway, the parallel taxiway, some taxiway exits (not in any order), and a passenger terminal adjacent to an apron. Using this logic, we can make the fictional airport we have and also call it “Thiruvananthapuram (TRV)” or “Thiruchirappalli (TRZ)” - both of them share the same features and operating modes and can be “represented” using this fictional airport.
Let me be clear: the layout should be the BARE MINIMUM. The point of generic airports is to speed up the airport creation process, and hence the time-consuming parts, which are modelling the surrounding buildings accurately, or detailing the stand layout lines, should be skipped. The textures do not need to be very accurate as well; focusing on the textures on the runway and the taxiways would defeat the point, once again. Skipping out on those details allows most of the development time to be focused on taxiing logic, which as the developers said, is the most time-consuming part of making an airport.
However, to blindly make a fictional airport and then associate it with a real life location is just not the way to do it in my opinion. The layout of an airport is fundamental to its identity; the positioning of the runway(s) and taxiways define the airport itself - almost no airports in real life are identical because of this, and you can always tell airports apart based on its shape.
I understand also that CNN is used to test winds, and to also test new features at future generic airports; the same could be achieved if the airport was modelled accurate to its real layout in the beginning. After all, they are operationally similar, and do use similar positions of exits when landing.
Fixing the layout would be a relatively difficult task because of this; the layout cannot be changed without spending massive amounts of time changing the taxiing logic. I therefore suggest the development team to do a location-based approach instead of a feature-based approach: pick a relatively high-demand, but under-represented location, and model the airport based on the location chosen. Even though the models are not going to be accurate, this approach still allows a good depiction of the chosen airport.
I used to be E+ heavy focus only. But, now, like you D, I really have embraced and enjoyed the mix of all sizes. GRU changed me with the shared stands. Kinda love it when a B pulls up in what’s usually an F stand since the 3.0 update. ESP at LHR. I too sell all “my planes” I get and focus purely on real contracts
I hope they will…. but as some people already mentioned, it will be a lot of work to do that to existing airports, espcially at the big ones (LHR, BKK…) because of the taxiing logic… i think devs have to ceate a completely new taxiing layout and thats like building a new airport im afraid. But hey, lets hope for the best 
I agree in theory, but again the whole point is it fits the name and is generic. It doesn’t have to be anything like the actual airport like if they ever did a generic Amsterdam or Frankfurt, I doubt they’d use the same runway setup, likely two runways each side of the terminal building which itself will have been expanded to have 2 sides and be elongated. If it satisfies calls from players for certain airports in-game which the devs aren’t ready to do or are focusing on another one or the airport people are calling for is next door to one in-game, why not a generic airport? I love it and think if it helps the devs hit the players demanded targets quicker then big up.
Thanks!
Keep in mind this airport is nearly a complete misrepresentation of the airport: as I said, the layout is very important when it comes to giving an airport its identity. There is always need to abstract things to a very low level to speed up development time, but the problem is the misapplication of abstraction. The airport should be simplified down to its layout, not to its operating mode. Beyond that boundary is what makes the airport no longer itself.
This is a rather massive issue in quality and realism, even though generic airports are not meant to be realistic and not meant to have a high quality. Despite this, they should at the very least retain the layout of the airport while creating the model for it. When other players unlock the airport and see nearly nothing resembles the real airport, that bare minimum of quality which has not been reached is going to be called into question by a lot of people, especially for a game revolved around airports - that being it’s namesake. A decent portion of players would question the play-pretend we are doing with this fictional airport and the actual Kannur airport.
This is a generic airport in the literal sense: it is a literal “generic” airport, but it is also a fictional one. Yet again, I don’t believe the developers should just make a fictional airport and label it with a real city. The term is not completely unsalvageable if they were to change the method of doing these airports; if they were to follow the real layout, then they can still use generic assets to make these airports.
That’s why I didn’t agree with the implementation of generic airports, one because there are many users complaining about the details and everything, for my part I’m calm with the developers Since a generic airport doesn’t need to be perfect. But they did better than I expected. I thank the developers for their time, their dedication, and all their effort. Apologies for some players and their complaints. I truly appreciate their effort and dedication and for making this game FREE.
Definitely different and I don’t focus just on them they land first once heart aircraft gone the smaller aircraft land , all about making Wollars and processing the levels, now lvl 55 at GRU but I haven’t gotten the premium pass this time so had to save up slowly for B744. Do you do one airport at time or rotation?
Well again, the runways and taxiways are generic too. If they were to make the layout not generic then that adds a lot more work to the airport producing. There are people out there who want their local airport or their country represented which is a massive field. Having a generic airport where the size is just doubled or whatever based upon the credentials of the airport will allow those players to have said airport available or said region represented. I think any player asking why their regional airport isn’t 1:1 should be given a stern look 
. If it allows the devs to put more time and effort into the new fully modelled airports and into adding new tech I’m all for it. They already said it’s not going to take away from their current airport production so I’m happy about that.
if they add AMS as generic and have a completely wrong runway layout, taxiway layout and terminals. Then how can you even call it AMS? thats just bs and even disrespectful to the airport imo. just making up an airport and putting an lable on it. ye no thx. like Geo said, the point is the airport operates in the same way but the minor details get left out. This means the airport should at least have the same runway layour, runway exits, taxiway layout and terminals etc. Like if the stands are not 100% accurate thats okay imo or some buildings missing. so ye im not supporting this current generic airport idea if this is what it will be.
Generics are only for smaller/unknown airports that woudnt make it into the game otherwise so AMS will definitely not be generic
im using it as example, like even for example look at BGO. if they add that but the whole taxiway layout and terminal is wrong. same point. AMS is just an example.
I used AMS as an example, I doubt they’d ever do a generic version. But the whole point of generic is the airports are built using generic parts. They build some taxiways, a terminal, some stands and a runway, then get some glue and stick it together. I never expected the generic airports to be close representations of irl airports as they’re a lot more complicated and it takes a lot of time to do. It’s a way of getting not as popular airports in underrepresented regions, out onto the stage for players to use if they wish. e.g. if someone wanted lets say Canberra in-game, it’s a hop away from SYD, you have the same aircraft basically operating there as you do SYD and the airport has 1 terminal with 2 runways intercrossing. A lot of work for the devs, so I don’t see the harm in chucking one out with 2 runways and a terminal to keep those players happy, whilst not taking resources away from something like FRA or HKG. I will admit AMS was a rubbish example but I used it for the fact it has 6 runways. If the Netherlands ever gets an airport it’ll be a real version of AMS.
If you have read my first message, I have said the developers could and SHOULD miss out on focusing on the details of the runways and taxiways. That is not to say, they should completely miss out on the runways and taxiways themselves - when I say layout, it means the positioning and connections of those taxiways. Even details like width and markings is not vital to the shape of an airport, and the exact position of the taxiways are not too important as long as it is at the rough position it should be.
Keep in mind the layout of CNN is not horribly hard to replicate; in fact, it has less taxiways than the fictional airport we are getting, and hence there would be less taxiway logic to be done as well. Following the layout of the airport and getting the rough positions correct is what should be done at the very least in my opinion; that small extra portion of time is not going to significantly hurt the time taken for the developers to test and implement new features into the game. It barely even is a compromise because the balance between airport time and new feature time has not shifted a lot.
Yeah but not the best example since it would never happen. If youre looking for a good example for the Netherlands it would maybe be Rotterdam or something
The fact your making a point about the example i chose while the guy i responded on literally talked about AMS and FRA and my message was a reaction on that. like he said AMS so i responded talking about AMS. Like your focusing on the wrong thing here.
Can see generic only being one runway ops, somewhere like LCY or Jerseyv as it save adding the environment. But they did say if a generic airports gets enough demand they redo it as high detailed one.
But what your saying is literally that its okay to make an airport that doesnt exist irl and put a lable on it from an airport that maybe looks 20/30% alike.