Jump to content

XCLTM3

Members
  • Posts

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XCLTM3

  • Birthday February 28

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Oceania

Recent Profile Visitors

1,310 profile views

XCLTM3's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/6)

35

Reputation

  1. @John Dow @Anna Cicognani "Given our species' penchant for herd behaviour and jumping on bandwagons" - If I'm to understand that statement - you perceive that a group of customers who visit the forum over a span of time and communicate their disappointment with a newly released product and even provide specifics regarding the various issues - and this is regarded as "herd behaviour and jumping on bandwagons"? That's quite a thing to say out aloud to your customer base. Is that what the entire team all the way to the leadership at Orbx believes? If a group of customers raise valid concerns over a specific Orbx product over a period of any given time frame, that this is a form of mob mentality? Perhaps I might assist here - the reality is, that a newly released product purchased by a group of customers all of whom likely purchased the product within hours or days of each other - who then decide they're disappointed with the product and will take time out of their day to communicate this in the proper allocated forum (which is the appropriate protocol), is not a herd collective, nor is it jumping on bandwagons. I would also like to review this statement - "i suspect the temporary closure of the thread was put in place as a circuit breaker". If I may ask, at what point in time did any of the discussions clearly breach forum rules (and which specific rules) to constitute closure of any kind, let alone a "temporary" one? Where was the evidence pointing to "customer hysteria" that led to the circuit breaker being tripped? Might I add, the topic was closed without warning or a message from an Orbx staff member explaining why the topic was being closed - albeit temporarily.
  2. @John Dow not sure if what you stated ie: "many of the comments were hardly positive criticism" may have been including my criticism of YBBN, if so I'd really like to have it highlighted for me to peruse. Additionally, it's pleasing to see that "reported issues are being compiled and worked on", but unless I'm mistaken, I haven't seen any announcement regarding YBBN issues being addressed anywhere here on the forum other than your statement buried in this thread. And if I have searched thoroughly and indeed there is no announcement - can I request that Orbx place a stand-alone Statement/Topic for all to see (and locate in easier terms)? Nice to also have specifics regarding what actual items are being worked on. Many thanks.
  3. @ozzieblr Much obliged. I agree, but was hoping that I could avoid that path (of applied external pressure) by utilising reason & sound discussion based on evidentiary comparisons. That was my intention - for Orbx to take it onboard in a civil and constructive manner and respond with updates that reflect what the customer base is asking for and what the MSFS Ecosystem is perfectly capable of. I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who has identified this product as being sub-par in the MSFS eco-system. The bar has been raised several levels even since the latter part of P3D, let alone what we're seeing now in MSFS. This is not the time for complacency for any MSFS dev. The MSFS ecosystem is substantially larger than any of the previous FS iterations, and it will continue to grow exponentially with the introduction of X-Box. This is a new era and old business paradigms must adapt or fall to the sword so to speak.
  4. @Paul Ozzman Much obliged for the words.
  5. As a person who has fought the good fight for freedom my entire adult life, it was extremely disappointing to see this post locked yesterday a few short hours after it was initiated by me. Conversely, to now see it unlocked again is refreshing and gives me the hope that freedom of speech is not entirely dead (just yet).
  6. I respect your viewpoint. In reality, when any of us objectively look at YBBN and simply compare it to other new Aussie airports delivered in this new MSFS environment by new devs - YBBN fails on many levels. I note your reference to YBBN and cityscape and impact on resources - I've been using the Fly Tampa YSSY with the Orbx Sydney Cityscape and the resource usage on my rig is acceptable given that Fly Tampa's YSSY is vastly superior to YBBN across the board not withstanding the detail in Sydney Cityscape right nearby in proximity to YSSY. In addition to YSSY, the new release of YPAD and with the additional Adelaide scenery pack by Orbx also works well on my rig - and YPAD is exceptional in it's inclusion of details/features/textures in comparison to YBBN. I truly hope Orbx and Havant consider reworking YBBN and bringing it into this new MSFS environment with some more gusto. All anyone has to do is compare it to the products I already stated.
  7. I purchased YBBN for MSFS just yesterday and after careful examination (ie using the drone camera to transport myself around the entire airport) I must say I'm underwhelmed with this "new" rendition. There are several key areas where according to my experience with previous YBBN versions FSX & P3D, it seems that this latest rendition was ported over. The textures of buildings such as terminals, hangars, and other buildings including glass around the airport seem to be lacking PBR and new texturing in accordance with the new MSFS engine. Just by comparison, when viewing the new Aussie airports YPAD by Impulse Simulations and YMHB by NZA Simulations there is a stark contrast in the use of textures, materials and the introduction of more in-depth features containing immersive details and quality. Fly Tampa's rendition of YSSY is another good example of feature rich immersive detail and good use of textures and PBR. The lack of any interior terminal detailing in comparison to other devs (such as the aforementioned) is surprising and disappointing. In fact, the car parks at YBBN contain more detail & work than the terminal buildings. Jetways in this new iteration are not even lining up to appropriate aircraft eg Domestic Terminal. My A320 lined up correctly at the gate and the jetway couldn't extend and reach it. Was the product QA tested prior to release? Are the devs aware that many of us long time simmers are requesting more details and more graphic immersion? The bulk of new simmers are also requesting more detail. (Just check the MSFS forums and FB pages). After all, this is MSFS, not FSX or P3D. The ability to add more immersion and make airports feature rich is ripe within MSFS and as pointed out earlier, other devs are introducing these. I sincerely hope that any other major Aus airports that are being worked on or are being planned to be worked on all under the banner of Orbx will certainly present with marked improvements over the old FSX/P3D versions. Keeping in mind I have been an Orbx customer right from the very beginning. It gives me no pleasure to voice my concerns and disappointment with YBBN.
  8. @Nick Cooper Has this issue finally beeen resolved in this latest Patch - refer to this please
  9. The "18-33% improvement if it can be replicated when more demanding payware" is the operative here. At this stage, we can only hope there will be a significant increase. Without the real comparison of a 3rd party "frame hog" aircraft, what improvement if any is open to conjecture. But by simply observing the pure numbers on the screen - all one has to do is allow for let's say a PMDG aircraft into the mix, and that may very well absorb the increase differential. I observe this in V4.4 - if I load a default a/c at a specific location - look at external/internal views and observe frames. Then I load a PMDG aircraft - same location - external/internal views - and voila! A drop in frames of at least 10+ in comparison to the default. Hopefully there will be a substantive video produced soon, showing a PMDG aircraft in v4 as opposed to v5. Then, let's introduce True Earth into the mix - with a 3rd party airport that is known to be intensive - that will be the definitive moment for me - whether to purchase the upgrade - or not.
  10. Overall, unimpressed. An average of 8-10 frames improvement - despite reduced CPU usage and increased GPU usage. Visuals.......was there a stark improvement over v4? And need I say, how will the frames and smoothness pan out when "real" 3rd party aircraft are in the mix like PMDG, FSL, Aerosoft, etc?
  11. Good/valid point Rob. Can't wait to see your vids detailing these aircraft in v5 when available.
  12. The real question for me is....how well will v5 perform with aircraft add-ons like PMDG, FSL, etc? Since the vast majority of sim flyers arer flying in 3rd party payware aircraft - whether large liners or smaller props - they each chew frames up - ergo, I'd like to see Rob fly any of these 3rd parties a/c for a real substantive/meaningful comparison on video.
  13. @medx421 Many thanks, I've taken care of it via this
  14. @Sammy H Just to let you know (in the event you still haven't been able to resolve this issue), I went into Orbx central again and checked that I had SCA ticked. And as I already knew, it was selected. However, I unticked it and then ticked it again and pressed save. This solved the issue of duplicate buildings. Having said that, I still have the dupliacte Aircraft Carrier museum. I'll deal with that separately. Why on earth Orbx central displayed duplicate buildings despite the fact I already had SCA ticked is beyond the scope of my knowledge and experience. @Matteo Veneziani I already had SCA ticked in Orbx Central. I decided to untick it and tick it again and press save - that resolved the issue pertaining to duplicate buildings. PS: I hope you're doing ok at home in Italy. Stay well and safe.
×
×
  • Create New...