F737MAX

Bumping this topic as I'm in the same situation as the OP. Will the Orbs store collection be expanded / rotated? AFAIA, there hasn't been anything new for MSFS for several months at least, despite newer Orbx products coming online a number of months ago.

While I see the marketing on the product page has now been updated, the original marketing for GB South led people to believe that it was more feature rich than it currently is. On the Wayback Machine archive, you can see the list of features to prompt people to buy on that basis, when it in fact did not. Immersive tours and missions for many churches, castles and historic landmarks. Custom animated animals across many fields and farms. Helipads across a range of select landmarks. Fully compatible with World Update 3 […] These features (some of them novel to an Orbx created product) were likely to encourage greater sales. I find it unacceptable that it was marketed as having these features included, only to remove them from the sales blurb after initial purchases were made. Additionally, given the large geographic spread of the POIs in each GB region, all 3 products really should have an official list and map of the included models available to view. This has been asked for previously and would make your customers happy. Only through the goodwill of one of the product testers has an unofficial map of GB South been created. Orbx may want to rethink how the company deals with its retail customers through the customer journey.

Thanks. Appreciate the description of how compatibility between WU3, London Landmarks, Orbx EGLC and the new GB South scenery is maintained. I prefer the KML/KMZ files as I find them easier to use when flying in the sim. One that highlights all the London Landmarks POIs would be great. There's only one small issue at the moment, however. Pyreegue's East Midlands airport scenery includes a rendition of Ratcliffe Power Station, as does GB South. Would you kindly consider creating an option to exclude your version of it, please? That aside, this add-on has justified my decision to buy it without hesitation.

Thanks for these. By any chance do you have the file(s) for GB Central? Also, I see that there are dupilcates of the POIs that were in WU3 (e.g. Windsor Castle, the Eden Project) and some buildings already covered by Orbx's Landmarks London City pack, but no 'Configure' button on the product page in Orbx Central. Could you or one of the development team please let us know, what actions (if any) are required if WU3, Landmarks London City and now GB South are all installed (and photogrammetry is turned off), please?

Even if the only benefit is underlying trees not displaying themselves on the airfield, that would be enough for me.

Appreciate the quick fix, Marcus. I am concerned that we need to turn on photogrammetry to have the fix function, however. Please note that some us consider PG as not fit for purpose. It often presents buildings with a 'melted' look, shows both buildings and fauna as strange geometric shapes until their resolution increases as you approach them and gives the wrong colour to trees (if using a seasons texture add-on like AccuSeason or Bijan Seasons pack). Could you reconsider creating a separate fix for those of us using Bing Data World Graphics, but not PG, please? Thanks.

Well done to Sascha and the rest of the team for a return to form for Orbx. Thoroughly enjoying the YMML and Landmarks Melbourne City Pack combination.

After yesterday's seminar from Jorg and Seb, I don't know how people can continue to believe it's "about the Xbox gamers." MS has updated their FAQ regarding several points of contention and concern surrounding MSFS2024. A few key points from a much larger post, relevant to many hardcore flight simmers (my emphasis below) : Source: https://www.flightsimulator.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-faq/ I know this is marketing, however following clarifications and dispelling of gossip, I'm now cautiously optimistic about what the new sim will bring for both flight simmers and 'Xbox gamers'.

^^This is arguably the second most important point behind access to good source material (as you already highlighted). I think it's obvious when a dev has an affinity to the project they are working on (be it scenery, aircraft, utility), the quality shines through. By the looks of things, I'd say that Arlanda is a favourite of yours. 👌

First off, great job on ESSA! I think you (and Jetstream Designs) got the balance right between fabulous visuals and brilliant performance. Secondly, how about a large airport away from Scandinavia? RJTT, MMMX, HECA, OMAA, KMIA, KDFW, VABB, LIMC are all crying out for a good developer to take them on. Yes, they may be default handcrafted or released by another dev, yet there is a market—just ask iniBuilds.

+1

Same here. The new parallel taxiway and new parking stands extended into the Dock are sufficiently significant to deserve a new version. They completely change airside operations. If not, then I suppose EGNM or EGGW would be my next preferred options.

There has been no significant improvement in the base sim for the replay function (still a clunky experimental feature), nor any sound enhancement (actually a camera shake/movement and sound enhancement add-on, if I'm guessing the OP correctly). The number of new mid- to high-quality payware add-ons releasing has noticeably dropped to a dribble. Improvements to already released add-ons has also fallen—some notable promised updates have not arrived as soon™ as had been envisaged. Rather than believe the market isn't big enough, I would instead say that that the MSFS Aircraft & Avionics Update (AAU1) is slowing some nearly finished aircraft releases and SU12, by bringing WASM to Xbox (among other upgrades), is further delaying add-ons coming to market. I can only hope that things improve soon.

Have to agree. As it stands, Orbs is a good idea, terribly executed. Orbx can make MSFS products require more Orbs to purchase, offsetting 'the cost of giving away' newer MSFS products. (It's not 'giving away' if you retain my loyalty for future purchases). The current system has no appeal whatsoever and Central has been copied rather well by other stores/developers. I might as well use other stores who give greater value to my custom.

Appreciate the candid update. Personally, I think for large glass-fronted terminals like T5A at EGLL, T2 at EDDK, the main terminal at EICK and the B and C terminals at KDCA, then it's well worth the developer's time and effort to fully model an interior as it makes such a big impact. You park on stand looking directly into the terminal building, where much of the interior is visible. For airports whose terminals provide only some of the interior to view e.g. KMIA or KBOS, then parallax could make more sense. A major problem is you can run into arguments from people who feel short-changed that their home airport isn't 'up-to-standard'. You're right in that the market has shifted. It's more demanding of what a passenger would see and experience rather than a flight crew (e.g. devs returning to their soundpacks to match the tone and volume of engine sounds in the cockpit to how they would sound to pax in the cabin in payware airliners). Completely agree. There's so much to look forward to in your work here and you have to design something you also enjoy. As long as you give people the option to turn on/off static airliners, service vehicles, ground equipment, extra clutter, parked cars, etc. to personalise for personal preference and for performance, I feel something as high a quality of scenery you appear to be delivering will have lots of demand.