If you feel offended by critique, please stop reading right here - continue only if you're interested in why viewers might not be as excited as you'd hope.
The video shows an airliner approach in FG with minimal rendering quality settings and a very noisy soundtrack. Ask yourself - would you yourself want to watch videos of this kind? Or- what kind of video would you actually like to watch?
Movies aren't made by pressing the record button on a camera and showing the result in a movie theater - for good reason. A video needs editing and post-processing - and first and foremost a story.
What is the story you're trying to tell here? An airliner landing as such doesn't make much of a story. So perhaps you want to highlight Bergen and the beauty of the scenery? But then 2d clouds and the simple classic renderer serve you little - this is the visual quality we officially show for FG on the project website
if I had some idea of FG from the website, I'd be wondering why your video stays so much behind this.
There's a single camera perspective drawn out across two minutes - that's boooring. Watch any of your favourite movies, see how the camera perspective changes every 10 seconds or so - in action-sequences even within seconds. That makes for a more exciting viewing experience. Use camera movement - at least pan and zoom - for more dynamics.
Sound is really important - you could easily insert ATC communication for instance to make it more lively, or insert a conversation between pilot and co-pilot.
But I think the all-important thing is - get a story, then align all other elements (cutting, camera movement, post-processing, sound editing,...) to support that story.