Next airport. Which void to fill? *BIG*

[gabrielbasco]

I'm the type that flies consistent with real-world airline and airport relation (and I'm pretty sure a lot of others are too). Which void airline-wise domestically is lacking?

Seattle (FlyTampa): Delta/NWA, Alaska, Horizon
Portland (Flight1): Alaska, Horizon
San Francisco (FlyTampa): United, Virgin America
San Jose (Imagine): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Los Angeles (FSDT/Cloud9): United, American, Alaska, Horizon
San Diego (FlyTampa): No hub, mostly Southwest though.
Honolulu (FSDT): No hub, major domestic and international (mostly Pacific) airlines covered.
Las Vegas (FSDT): Southwest, Allegiant
Denver (Imagine): United, Frontier
Dallas-Fort Worth (FSDT): American
Minneapolis-St. Paul (Blueprint): Delta
Kansas City (Imagine): Southwest(?)
New Orleans (Imagine): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Milwaukee (Dreamscenery): AirTran, Frontier
Chicago O'Hare (FSDT): United, American
Chicago Midway (FlyTampa): Southwest
Indianapolis (Dreamscenery): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Detroit (Imagine): Delta
Cincinnati (Imagine): Delta
Atlanta (Imagine): Delta, AirTran
Toronto (Di Franco?): Air Canada
Buffalo (FlyTampa): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Boston (FlyTampa): JetBlue
Providence (Flight1): no hub, major domestic airlines covered.
New York La Guardia (Imagine): Delta
New York JFK (FSDT): American, Delta, JetBlue
Newark (Imagine): Continental
*Philadelphia (SunSkyJet): US Airways
Washington D.C. National (FSDT/Cloud9): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Washington D.C. Dulles (Imagine): United
Charlotte (Imagine): US Airways
Tampa (FlyTampa): No hub, major dometic airlines covered.
Fort Lauderdale (FSDT): No hub, dominated by low-cost carriers, major domestic airlines covered.
Miami (FlyTampa): American

*Obviously, PHL is not out yet but very much anticipated worthiness.

For me, domestic airports on my wishlist would involve low-cost carrier type cities. JetBlue is well-represented on the east coast but Long Beach would be nice. All of the Southwest Airlines type airports would be good for variety. Buffalo is in that range I'm talking about. Reno is one I would like to see done at FlyTampa level of quality. Those US domestic airports that Mach-1 Design Group covered would be good choices. I, being from the San Francisco Bay Area, would like to see Oakland and Sacramento better represented than what M1DG did. The SimFlyers sceneries were good (and frame-rate-killing) at their time but with the quality we're seeing now, Houston (IAH) and Orlando (MCO) need a better representation (for FS2004, I know FSDT/Cloud9 has an FSX Orlando). Phoenix too needs a better representation for the US Airways fans. I guess those Dreamscenery sceneries could be better. Oh! The Blueprint sceneries I left out. They totally need to be done better. Any Delta fans out there? I'm totally waiting for a Salt Lake City. I was so hopeful for that one on FSDEVELOPER.com but it doesn't look like it's coming out... at least any time soon.

The low-cost carrier type airports also meaning those more regional airports... the ones that have "International" in the name and you wonder, "Where do flights go internationally from here?". Like Grand Rapids KGRR. Also, airports categorized as "relievers".

Most major flag carrier airlines outside of the US have their hub airport. Aerosoft, in general, covering most of Europe. Aerosoft covers Germany. FSDT/Cloud9 has Schiphol. FISD has Finland. UK2000 has UK. Simwings covers Spain and France. EIRESIM has Ireland. FSQuality has Slovenia and Croatia. GAP has Greece (HSP should have Athens but I can't find it). ISD Project has Italy. Aerosoft, FlyTampa, Johannes Kimla, and Klaus Puerstinger have Austria. Aerosoft and TropicalSim have Portugal. FSDT and Aerosoft have Switzerland. LatinVFR, TropicalSim, Imagine, MexSim, and FlyTampa all contribute to the Central America, Carribean, and South America areas. FlyTampa, OryxSim, MSK, and David Rosenfeld have 1 Middle-East airport each. Overland exclusively covered Japan. IGFly, FTDS, TolmachevoTeam, and VSS have Russia. Imagine and FlyTampa have new and old Hong Kong. ARMI and ThaiFlight have Thailand. Budi Santoso has Indonesia. Imagine just released Singapore.

Internationally, the major Middle-Eastern cities would be nice to fly to and from. More of the central to southern African countries are a void to be filled. Australia for sure is not represented well. India isn't well represented also. For Canada, I have read of the new Vancouver in progress and that was one I was waiting for. Maybe some major Chinese mainland city airports, if good refrences could be found... Beijing would be nice.

So yeah, this college-sized essay was just pointing out certain voids that I would like to see filled. Type about which aspect you're thinking of.

[newmanix]

WTF??

[yankeesji]

WTF??

I know. I read this and have no idea what to say.

[gabrielbasco]

So you guys read it and had nothing to say but articulated a statement of confusion with no question? You don't know what to say? Then why say anything, right?

So yeah, it might have been overkill typing all that but if you read it for real, then you could have still picked out these points:
1) There could be a void airline-wise as in hub representation.
2) There could be a void region-wise as in domestically, Alaska and mid-continent. Internationally, Australia and Middle-East.
3) There could be an airport size void such as airports that serve low-cost carriers such as Southwest, JetBlue, Allegiant, or even the "Express" sub-airlines of major airlines.

Instead of everybody suggesting an airport that might have been done a couple years ago or hasn't changed that much since it's last attempt, or just throwing out HUGE airports in general, why not help George out with suggesting airports that fill a void. Buffalo is a great example of what I would like to see more of from FlyTampa which would cover point 3. Flying from the big airports is cool but I think they get too many requests... especially if some other designer groups already did it. That's just a bit too demanding. I mean shit, you want more scenery in less time? How about a smaller airport then a megahub? Smaller airports mean a release in relatively quicker time. Those other points about hub representation and international hubs are voids but they are secondary to me understanding the time demands involved in getting those resources. So yeah, understand now? Next time, use your words you Websters to articulate a good question instead of a cop out "Wtf" or "I read it but their was just... too... much!"

[yankeesji]

So you guys read it and had nothing to say but articulated a statement of confusion with no question? You don't know what to say? Then why say anything, right?

So yeah, it might have been overkill typing all that but if you read it for real, then you could have still picked out these points:
1) There could be a void airline-wise as in hub representation.
2) There could be a void region-wise as in domestically, Alaska and mid-continent. Internationally, Australia and Middle-East.
3) There could be an airport size void such as airports that serve low-cost carriers such as Southwest, JetBlue, Allegiant, or even the "Express" sub-airlines of major airlines.

Instead of everybody suggesting an airport that might have been done a couple years ago or hasn't changed that much since it's last attempt, or just throwing out HUGE airports in general, why not help George out with suggesting airports that fill a void. Buffalo is a great example of what I would like to see more of from FlyTampa which would cover point 3. Flying from the big airports is cool but I think they get too many requests... especially if some other designer groups already did it. That's just a bit too demanding. I mean shit, you want more scenery in less time? How about a smaller airport then a megahub? Smaller airports mean a release in relatively quicker time. Those other points about hub representation and international hubs are voids but they are secondary to me understanding the time demands involved in getting those resources. So yeah, understand now? Next time, use your words you Websters to articulate a good question instead of a cop out "Wtf" or "I read it but their was just... too... much!"

Did you read the lists of airports people suggested? Most were smaller airports because George said he wanted to do smaller airports. I think your use of "void" is what's confusing in the book you wrote. Don't be sensitive to what we said, it wasn't meant to offend you.

[gabrielbasco]

Well then logically, we're in concurrence and... that's the end of that. I was just kinda bouncing back and forth between FSDT and here and I saw the redundancy of big airports. Apparently I was posting my original post while others were saying the same thing in another post. I guess I didn't want to just be another ICAO code blurt of a post. A little more substance behind my suggestion but whatever. Yeah, mid-size airports - go for it!

[CSTT-KLAS]

It gives a good idea what airport that is not yet devoleper !

thanks

[MidgeyMidget2]

I'm the type that flies consistent with real-world airline and airport relation (and I'm pretty sure a lot of others are too). Which void airline-wise domestically is lacking?

Seattle (FlyTampa): Delta/NWA, Alaska, Horizon
Portland (Flight1): Alaska, Horizon
San Francisco (FlyTampa): United, Virgin America
San Jose (Imagine): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Los Angeles (FSDT/Cloud9): United, American, Alaska, Horizon
San Diego (FlyTampa): No hub, mostly Southwest though.
Honolulu (FSDT): No hub, major domestic and international (mostly Pacific) airlines covered.
Las Vegas (FSDT): Southwest, Allegiant
Denver (Imagine): United, Frontier
Dallas-Fort Worth (FSDT): American
Minneapolis-St. Paul (Blueprint): Delta
Kansas City (Imagine): Southwest(?)
New Orleans (Imagine): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Milwaukee (Dreamscenery): AirTran, Frontier
Chicago O'Hare (FSDT): United, American
Chicago Midway (FlyTampa): Southwest
Indianapolis (Dreamscenery): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Detroit (Imagine): Delta
Cincinnati (Imagine): Delta
Atlanta (Imagine): Delta, AirTran
Toronto (Di Franco?): Air Canada
Buffalo (FlyTampa): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Boston (FlyTampa): JetBlue
Providence (Flight1): no hub, major domestic airlines covered.
New York La Guardia (Imagine): Delta
New York JFK (FSDT): American, Delta, JetBlue
Newark (Imagine): Continental
*Philadelphia (SunSkyJet): US Airways
Washington D.C. National (FSDT/Cloud9): No hub, major domestic airlines covered.
Washington D.C. Dulles (Imagine): United
Charlotte (Imagine): US Airways
Tampa (FlyTampa): No hub, major dometic airlines covered.
Fort Lauderdale (FSDT): No hub, dominated by low-cost carriers, major domestic airlines covered.
Miami (FlyTampa): American

*Obviously, PHL is not out yet but very much anticipated worthiness.

For me, domestic airports on my wishlist would involve low-cost carrier type cities. JetBlue is well-represented on the east coast but Long Beach would be nice. All of the Southwest Airlines type airports would be good for variety. Buffalo is in that range I'm talking about. Reno is one I would like to see done at FlyTampa level of quality. Those US domestic airports that Mach-1 Design Group covered would be good choices. I, being from the San Francisco Bay Area, would like to see Oakland and Sacramento better represented than what M1DG did. The SimFlyers sceneries were good (and frame-rate-killing) at their time but with the quality we're seeing now, Houston (IAH) and Orlando (MCO) need a better representation (for FS2004, I know FSDT/Cloud9 has an FSX Orlando). Phoenix too needs a better representation for the US Airways fans. I guess those Dreamscenery sceneries could be better. Oh! The Blueprint sceneries I left out. They totally need to be done better. Any Delta fans out there? I'm totally waiting for a Salt Lake City. I was so hopeful for that one on FSDEVELOPER.com but it doesn't look like it's coming out... at least any time soon.

The low-cost carrier type airports also meaning those more regional airports... the ones that have "International" in the name and you wonder, "Where do flights go internationally from here?". Like Grand Rapids KGRR. Also, airports categorized as "relievers".

Most major flag carrier airlines outside of the US have their hub airport. Aerosoft, in general, covering most of Europe. Aerosoft covers Germany. FSDT/Cloud9 has Schiphol. FISD has Finland. UK2000 has UK. Simwings covers Spain and France. EIRESIM has Ireland. FSQuality has Slovenia and Croatia. GAP has Greece (HSP should have Athens but I can't find it). ISD Project has Italy. Aerosoft, FlyTampa, Johannes Kimla, and Klaus Puerstinger have Austria. Aerosoft and TropicalSim have Portugal. FSDT and Aerosoft have Switzerland. LatinVFR, TropicalSim, Imagine, MexSim, and FlyTampa all contribute to the Central America, Carribean, and South America areas. FlyTampa, OryxSim, MSK, and David Rosenfeld have 1 Middle-East airport each. Overland exclusively covered Japan. IGFly, FTDS, TolmachevoTeam, and VSS have Russia. Imagine and FlyTampa have new and old Hong Kong. ARMI and ThaiFlight have Thailand. Budi Santoso has Indonesia. Imagine just released Singapore.

Internationally, the major Middle-Eastern cities would be nice to fly to and from. More of the central to southern African countries are a void to be filled. Australia for sure is not represented well. India isn't well represented also. For Canada, I have read of the new Vancouver in progress and that was one I was waiting for. Maybe some major Chinese mainland city airports, if good refrences could be found... Beijing would be nice.

So yeah, this college-sized essay was just pointing out certain voids that I would like to see filled. Type about which aspect you're thinking of.

Wow, you must have been EXTREMELY bored that you thought this would be the best use of your time.

[gabrielbasco]

Wow... outstanding! Very conducive reply! You get a golden star for self-ego-boosting reply! Good job!

Bored? No, that assumption is wrong. Time? It wasn't a problem. I actually didn't spend that much time on it. Just because there's a lot typed doesn't mean I type slow and it doesn't mean all the knowledge I was something I had to look up. A bit geeky, maybe, but not a problem. I pride in myself in knowledge. I'm pretty sure a scenery designer appreciates my kind of input, maybe not in all of its huge, all-at-once, overwhelming glory like my initial post but if you were trying to run a business, demographics and customer targeting without being redundant is a key part of that. Being fresh, efficient, from conception to release.

But yeah, congratulations again on your gold star for your self-ego-boosting reply! Enjoy it!

[MidgeyMidget2]

Wow... outstanding! Very conducive reply! You get a golden star for self-ego-boosting reply! Good job!

Bored? No, that assumption is wrong. Time? It wasn't a problem. I actually didn't spend that much time on it. Just because there's a lot typed doesn't mean I type slow and it doesn't mean all the knowledge I was something I had to look up. A bit geeky, maybe, but not a problem. I pride in myself in knowledge. I'm pretty sure a scenery designer appreciates my kind of input, maybe not in all of its huge, all-at-once, overwhelming glory like my initial post but if you were trying to run a business, demographics and customer targeting without being redundant is a key part of that. Being fresh, efficient, from conception to release.

But yeah, congratulations again on your gold star for your self-ego-boosting reply! Enjoy it!

I will. You enjoy your I-can't-take-a-joke golden star.

But regardless, all your information just didn't seem necessary and it seemed to be just a bunch of rambling about airports and sceneries. Have you read what George is looking for in an airport to design?

[gabrielbasco]

I'm takin' these "jokes" pretty good for pretty drab "comedians". I guess you're wanting me to respond with all kinds of line by line narrative of when I'm chuckling at your jokes. It's a message board, typing context can only be taken so far.

But don't worry, I chuckled at all the emotional assumptions or whatever you were saying about jokes.

A couple posts, I mentioned my 3 points I was trying to get over with supported reasons. Also a couple posts ago, I was told that people were suggesting the same types of airports as I was wanting to see. The initial post was already commented on being overtyped, way too in depth, unnecessary information blah blah blah. I agreed...

And so to keep the relevancy - back to what I was wondering...

....what other aspects could be considered for which airports come next?

[MidgeyMidget2]

I'm takin' these "jokes" pretty good for pretty drab "comedians". I guess you're wanting me to respond with all kinds of line by line narrative of when I'm chuckling at your jokes. It's a message board, typing context can only be taken so far.

But don't worry, I chuckled at all the emotional assumptions or whatever you were saying about jokes.

Umm, if you are saying it was difficult to tell it was a joke, try taking a look at the use of the emoticon. I think that is usually a good indicator.

And what do you mean by "aspects to be considered?" George has already stated he is looking for airports that are medium/small in size and it has to interest him. Those are the aspects and that is really it.

Your rambling post basically reiterated what other have already said numerous times over.

[gabrielbasco]

And what do you mean by "aspects to be considered?" George has already stated he is looking for airports that are medium/small in size and it has to interest him. Those are the aspects and that is really it.

Your rambling post basically reiterated what other have already said numerous times over.

Holy shit... I'm trying to discuss future scenery! They have a current thing looking for small/medium airports. Again, I already went over that I know people have said that already. Fine. I'm just wondering what other things could be considered. Here's an example for you since you think I'm only talking to you:

Example: 2 people want to paint water. One wants to paint it because it's blue. The other wants to paint because it's a liquid form.

Example pertaining to what I'm wondering: 2 people want to create a scenery. One wants to create it because _____. The other wants to create it because _____.

Your equivalent statement to me: Somebody already decided the reason they were gonna paint water.

I KNOW! I wanted to discuss OTHER considerations.

Wow, I am trying to keep this thread relevant. This really wasn't intended to be a conversation with a self-placed representative of a "be all, end all" idea. I'm trying to open up a discussion on this "discussion" board about the scenery that FlyTampa makes and hear you are trying to restrict it down to you and... here's a profound thing... YOUR reasons FOR me; as in your reasons for me not to write so much, your reasons for me not to say things that others were saying already.

AGAIN my reason fro the info was that I wanted a good foundation so people could understand what kind of considerations I'm thinking and they could input as well to create, you know, a discussion.

Not the ONE way that's already happening.

Yet AGAIN, as I try and bring this post back to relevancy, and I guess I should add that this isn't directed at only MidgeyMidget2 (in fact, this is directed at anybody else who can progress a discussion about this), my reason: to open up a discussion about other things to consider about choosing an airport to create may it be technical elements in its creation, or categorical based... the things people think about when looking for a new airport to be made. Think about progressing the discussion forward

[MidgeyMidget2]

And what do you mean by "aspects to be considered?" George has already stated he is looking for airports that are medium/small in size and it has to interest him. Those are the aspects and that is really it.

Your rambling post basically reiterated what other have already said numerous times over.

Holy shit... I'm trying to discuss future scenery! They have a current thing looking for small/medium airports. Again, I already went over that I know people have said that already. Fine. I'm just wondering what other things could be considered. Here's an example for you since you think I'm only talking to you:

Example: 2 people want to paint water. One wants to paint it because it's blue. The other wants to paint because it's a liquid form.

Example pertaining to what I'm wondering: 2 people want to create a scenery. One wants to create it because _____. The other wants to create it because _____.

Your equivalent statement to me: Somebody already decided the reason they were gonna paint water.

I KNOW! I wanted to discuss OTHER considerations.

Wow, I am trying to keep this thread relevant. This really wasn't intended to be a conversation with a self-placed representative of a "be all, end all" idea. I'm trying to open up a discussion on this "discussion" board about the scenery that FlyTampa makes and hear you are trying to restrict it down to you and... here's a profound thing... YOUR reasons FOR me; as in your reasons for me not to write so much, your reasons for me not to say things that others were saying already.

AGAIN my reason fro the info was that I wanted a good foundation so people could understand what kind of considerations I'm thinking and they could input as well to create, you know, a discussion.

Not the ONE way that's already happening.

Yet AGAIN, as I try and bring this post back to relevancy, and I guess I should add that this isn't directed at only MidgeyMidget2 (in fact, this is directed at anybody else who can progress a discussion about this), my reason: to open up a discussion about other things to consider about choosing an airport to create may it be technical elements in its creation, or categorical based... the things people think about when looking for a new airport to be made. Think about progressing the discussion forward

Holy shit...I never once said it was all about me or you were only talking to me. You are just overly sensitive.

Sorry, but what is the point in discussing when "the reason to paint the water" (wacky analogy but I suppose it works) has already been decided? Us discussing does nothing at this point. Maybe well down the line but if it has already been decided, what is there to discuss?