rockliffe

DIRTY WEATHER

Hmm, well, I'm not going to name names, but I bought a small GA airport the other week and noticed some really low resolution models. When I viewed the pics on the product page, those same models were conveniently blurry.

I'm pleased it's not just me Pete!

I'm sure for many this little gripe of mine will have gone unnoticed, or perhaps disregarded, but for others who share my observation, I can say I find it extremely irritating. I'm talking about devs who release a video of their new airport, which may be a great video, but the producer has used an overly used technique of using a shallow depth of field on many of the shots. This seems to be very fashionable, but from my perspective I find it very distracting. I don't know what others feel, but I want to see the airport in all it's glory, I don't want to see aspects which are clearly out of focus, I want to view the surrounding scenery and all the details such as the cars, the signs and things. Call me pedantic (it wouldn't be the first time ) but this technique IMO is not needed and seems to fulfil the desires of the video maker rather than the scenery developer.

Sounds like you could have conflicting assignments as a possibility (?)

No problem, I'll sort it. Cheers.

....

Departing PAKT...

Indeed it is Gerold

That was in fact P3dV4.

The iconic NGX departing PAKT

From what I remember Iain, Central Rockies I think.

Indeed Iain, Yellowstone from what I remember and of course A2A's B-17

Another screenie from my archive collection of pics...

....

I haven't posted a screenshot for ages...

Thanks

Hi John, I take on board everything you say and appreciate your support, but my point has nothing to do with the effort put into developing the scenery or the integrity of everyone involved, but the fact that after three weeks I have not received an acknowledgement of any kind from the developer.

This reflects well on you Nick, but IMO shines a poor light on the dev team. Many thanks.

Indeed John, thanks for taking the time to jump in and offer some feedback. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the developer to give some similar explanation to a customer/customers who have bought their product, when there is an obvious issue, and not just ignore them. I have been perfectly polite in my posts by simply explaining the situation. If I knew the airport was sub par before purchasing, I would not have done so. I see it is still being sold on Orbx Central.....?

Hey Wolfco, how does the AI density slider work withAI traffic turned on. Should it be set at 100%?

Hi Nick, I seem to be getting nowhere with this, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me or anyone else to be getting a little frustrated. I submitted a support request via the official channels and was told to pursue the issue on this thread. I am disappointed at the lack of information regarding this. I have been away from simming for a while and only recently started getting back into things. I remember when a support request was often answered by Orbx within a 24 hour period at most. This has been three weeks. I realise this is not down to you personally Nick, but the dev really should have replied to this ages ago, don't you agree? I look forward to receiving some information regarding this. Many thanks, Nick.

I've had a reply from Patrick, the developer. Apparently this is how it is Not exactly manicured runways! Anyhow, he says it is a constraint within MSFS but is going to look at the possibility of doing something in an update. I hope so, because it shouldn't be advertised as having manicured runways if it clearly hasn't. Fingers crossed it can be addressed soon.

Thanks Doug, appreciated.