Jump to content

mburkhard

Members
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mburkhard

  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flightsimlabs.com

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

mburkhard's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/6)

107

Reputation

  1. Uhm we all know that Mathijs loves to talk about a lot of things Aerosoft being a distribution partner for MSFS obviously is not the same as a small developer like FT when it comes to sales conditions. Or are you seriously suggesting that FT's income would be the same whether they'd sell in their OWN store vs. one that makes money from selling other products?! Yes I have knowledge about certain terms and conditions but that doesn't matter, since whatever knowledge I have is not meant for the public to hear. If Microsoft takes 35%, then you can kind of extrapolate how much Orbx would be taking, and no it's not 5%, otherwise every developer would obviously sell here immediately. Amazing how one gets grilled here trying to defend a small developer's decision to not sell all their stuff in foreign market places if they have their own store. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what Orbx is doing, I'm buying from their store too, obviously! I just hate seeing people trying to force developers to sell through Orbx by shouting "I only buy your stuff if you sell at Orbx" all over social media. If some devs don't want to sell at Orbx, or the Marketplace, they usually have very good reasons for not doing so. If you guys want to punish those developers by ignoring them, sure, go ahead and miss a lot of fantastic stuff.
  2. This one is rather simple, isn't it. FT has its own sales infrastructure. Orbx taking away a big chunk of the sales price, why would you want to sell all your stuff at Orbx and decrease your income? While offering FT scenery at Orbx might increase the product's visibility and generate additional sales, other people will also buy there just for convenience, even though they already know FT products and where else to get them, thus severely decreasing FT's income. OBRX Central, while convenient, is not the centre of the universe. People saying "oh I will only buy things if they are on Orbx Central!", I find that rather silly, and lazy. If you like the product or the developer, then support that developers business decision and buy at their own store, how hard could it be.
  3. No, not currently. This needs to be provided by Matteo. I too would like to disable static aircraft. But at the very least they should be given better quality textures, the current ones are rather low res with compression artefacts all over them. Not a pleasant sight when taxiing by.
  4. With all due respect John, your reply does not make sense at all. It is well known that complex airport sceneries (or cities for that matter) lacking any LOD in their models can cause severe performance issues. It is therefore a sensible working standard for MSFS scenery design to add LODs to the 3D models injected in the sim. So the developer of KNVY has indeed acknowledged the issue and already promised an update leading to performance improvements: Unfortunately, that promise was made back in July 2021. Further cementing the reputation that if one encounters issues with Orbx sceneries, you have absolutely no guarantee that those will be fixed. In any case, it doesn't help if you then post that other add-ons would be to blame for performance issues. Yes those CAN cause issues, but if a complex add-on scenery lacks any LODs, why should I suspect my other add-ons? There are more than enough sceneries out there featuring more models at similar detailing level and showing better performance (because they are fitted with LODs). This is known, so an update was promised, but it never arrived.
  5. Not blaming Orbx! I'm saying Terrainy is aware of this issue of messed up RWY textures at Samos (it appeared with the release of SU6), so either Terrainy is slow in fixing it or it is an issue that needs to be resolved by Asobo. Either way, new customers do not know and buy something that may very likely not work as intended.
  6. It's a bit disappointing to realise that this issue has been known to Terrainy for several months, since the end of October to be precise. And they don't seem to be close to resolving the issue, yet they happily continue to sell the scenery without warning their customers beforehand that the product is not usable at its current state. Not good business practice at all.
  7. Check out this topic, might be related: It is suggested that, at least for KVNY, the developer neglected to equip its 3D models with LODs, and it was therefore promised to be added in an update. It looks as if the issue has not been resolved as of yet, which would explain that you're seeing this too.
  8. Hi there, my KSBA shows a pretty severe issue with buildings all around the airport. There are various patches of terrain where only trees are visible in 3D, but all buildings remain flat with no autogen and/or photogrammetry. See attached screenshots. Dev. mode disabled, no other add-on for the area installed. Latest version of World Update for the US. As you can see there's no issue with other parts of terrain surrounding the airport. It's just certain spots where buildings are all flat. Hope this can be fixed as it is quite a bit immersion killing to have large chunks of flat buildings in MSFS. All the best, Markus
  9. To me this was rather clear from the beginning. When they say tens of thousands of routes I figured they would probably not have modelled and textured tens of thousands unique ships. And then I realised they didn't say how many models it would contain, so I figured probably not many... And now I learn that it's five(!) models in the Global Shipping add-on. That will result in a LOT of repetition judging by the data they base it from. So yes I would agree that for 5 models it IS overpriced.
  10. @Tony Wroblewski I'm in the process of equipping my MSFS with airports suitable for VFR flying, preparing the sim for the time when A2A arrives on the platform I noticed on the product screenshots of your EGCK scenery that the signal square's landing T seems to be a static object, not changing with wind. And after seeing on another UK developer's add-on airfield how the landing T was made dynamic to swap it's direction depending on the simulator wind, I was wondering if you would consider doing the same for EGCK?
  11. Thanks for that update, I feared it would never happen! Unfortunately the scenery still does not deliver on what is advertised: It is said to blend in with EU Scotland, and it does not. There's no snow texture for the hard winter season and half of the Spring season the airport's ground texture is not matching its surroundings either. Could you please look into this as well? After all, the product page still says "Designed to blend in with EU Scotland". I'd really appreciate it if you could make the airport compatible with your own region product. Better late than never, right?
  12. @romair If the developer does not include a GSX config file for the add-on, then you need to adjust all parking stands yourself. So it looks like ENTO was not configured for GSX, meaning placement is all default and needs adjusting by the user.
  13. Don't count on it, Gaya has given up on EGPH. The scenery does still not integrate into FTX Scotland regarding seasonal ground textures, as is promised on the product website. However, Gaya stated in a Facebook post that they have no intention of fixing open issues, their excuse, as stated in that post, is that the scenery has been produced according to Orbx's specifications and that they think it's been done perfectly fine. So we have 2 issues here. One, the scenery is not compatible with P3Dv5, evidenced by the dynamic lighting issue. And two, the scenery is not blending in with EU Scotland region, evidenced by wrong seasonal textures. So what should be done is for Orbx to remove both compatibility claims on the product page and offer a refund to affected customers. But it is continued to be sold with false advertising, and my request for a refund a few months ago via ticket had been ignored.
  14. No. I tried getting a refund, but I didn't even get a reply to my ticket saying no. Neither Orbx nor Gaya is doing anything to resolve the situation
  15. Adam, your point of view is of course valid, you want the sim to show what you see when you go to the real airport, you want it to depict reality as much as possible. This is perfectly understandable and valid. However 99% of those users flying to Newcastle do not know those facts. They simply fly in there, they love to fly heavies to every nice add-on they own, and so they want to park their big metal at a suitable gate when they arrive or depart. So having stand 30 as standard is perfect for those people. The thing with the overlap if all 3 stands are available is a pain indeed, but it's not Orbx' fault. I can understand that they want to avoid overlaps, it looks extremely silly when it happens and you taxi by and observe it. This one is up to Lockheed Martin to change the AI system to something more intelligent. Unfortunately, AI hasn't been touched in any meaningful way since they bought ESP. It is way overdue, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for them. If you really want all 3 stands available, you can do that with little effort fortunately. You can use ADE to add the other two in your sim.
×
×
  • Create New...