Jon Clarke Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Besides needing the New Severn Bridge to be added, the roads either side of the old Severn Bridge are not aligned to the bridge at he ends. This results in road traffic falling off cliffs and therefore not passing over the bridge. 2 shots, one from each end of the bridge to highlight the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilofoxtrotalpha Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Several months have passed, and there is still no improvement in the state of the two Severn Bridges. But there’s more! Take a look at what Orbx did to the iconic, world-famous Bristol Suspension Bridge; what an awful mess. Isambard Kingdom Brunel would be spinning in his grave. For Orbx to tag this bug as Active and unresolved since October really isn't good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Hello, the update is well along the road. I think you overestimate the size of the team and underestimate the amount of work that is required to produce an update of the scale that is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilofoxtrotalpha Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 In real flight, Bristol has only one obviously iconic item of scenery, and that is Brunel's Avon suspension bridge. To overlook this at Orbx's first attempt at GB South could be dismissed as an accident. To also mess up the original Severn Bridge and misrepresent the second one looks like carelessness. Bringing the first edition of this software up to an acceptable standard may involve great effort, but that is - and I say this with great respect - not the buyer's problem. The responsibility for fixing the many shortcomings in GB South belongs to Orbx. It is poor business practice to sell something, then expect the buyer to sympathise with Orbx's so-called human resource difficulties in fixing shortcomings that should never have been in the original package. These scenery packages are expensive, and users' expectations of them must naturally reflect the cost. There appears to be no human resource problem in producing additional Orbx products. Following GB South, Orbx has subsequently produced and is promoting sales of XP add-on airports such as Shoreham and Stapleford etc - which generated further user complaints or adverse reviews (Stapleford is reported as being based on ancient data) - as well as other UK scenery which is also generating reports of alleged errors. I regularly receive emails from Orbx inviting me to buy its latest addition for XP. And I would be delighted to buy more. But not until its initial offering to XP users, GB South, is fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 3 hours ago, Kilofoxtrotalpha said: Bringing the first edition of this software up to an acceptable standard may involve great effort, but that is - and I say this with great respect - not the buyer's problem. The responsibility for fixing the many shortcomings in GB South belongs to Orbx. It is poor business practice to sell something, then expect the buyer to sympathise with Orbx's so-called human resource difficulties in fixing shortcomings that should never have been in the original package. These scenery packages are expensive, and users' expectations of them must naturally reflect the cost. I beg to differ on your assessment of these products as expensive. Considering the millions and millions of relatively accurate scenery objects in each of the releases, the scenery is in fact dirt cheap. And it is dirt cheap for a reason, to build a future for Orbx into the future. If you look across the entire scenery and count the number of scenery items that are reasonably or well modelled vs the number that come up short, I suspect you would find the scenery is well over 99% accurate. To make it 100% accurate would result in the scenery costing thousands of pounds. The reason it can be offered at the price point of 30 pounds or so is because ways have been found to automate the creation process and as a result deficiencies will occur. You are welcome too suggest items for inclusion into the next service pack such as the bridge that you mentioned, and if it's deemed to be a problem that should be fixed it will be, but to suggest that the TE sceneries are deficient or should be better for the cost, for a very very small percentage of errors, is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Clarke Posted February 8, 2019 Author Share Posted February 8, 2019 There are a couple of points raised by the poster that I tend to empathise with if not totally agree with. South was the first major XP Orbx product and was going to be sold to XP users initially and then subsequently to new XP users based on the response and workmanship shown in South. It has definitely increased interest in XP to a fair number of people. That said, from a product quality point of view there were some glaring oversights which should have been spotted and rectified prior to release, or at least the oversights listed and acknowledged as being in the process of forming a SP at the time of release. The buildings on buildings (exclusions) was a glaring oversight which should have been spotted during Beta testing. POI's are a different matter as everyone wants to input a POI that they see as missing but may not be as well known about to all and sundry. A hospital in Somerset for example would be of a totally regional interest, whereas Clifton Suspension Bridge is a national icon representing Brunel's engineering prowess and a similar point could be said about the 2 Severn suspension bridges. My point being that if you are going to release a product to a brand new market and it is your first venture into that market, then you need to make sure it is of the highest standard. The main selling point of South was it's photoscenery, colour matching, accurately placed and GB typical autogen, accurate and hand placed millions of trees and some POIs. The POIs should have just been the iconic ones including major bridges. The rest of the POIs like stately homes and the like could have been saved for a SP and advising customers of that intention. XP users are different to P3D users ( I am both) in that they already have experience of some FREE high quality, high ZL orthophoto and some high quality Overlay availability, and therefore naturally will make comparisons with that experience versus a new but similar payware product. Personally I find the TEGB range a very superior product and am thoroughly enjoying them and appreciate the hard work and accuracy (in most instances) that is evident in the product. The price is fine by me and I think it is like it's subsidised by Orbx in relation to it's true cost. What XP users must appreciate is that generally speaking XP payware addons are very expensive. You would get an airport only for the price of a TEGB. So many quality addons are available in XP for free that sometimes when a developer asks for payment for a product of high quality it can produce a sometimes negative or critical response. Anyway...I Love 'em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilofoxtrotalpha Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 If you add up the costs of all Orbx UK scenery packages, and add in just half a dozen of its airports, you’re looking at an investment far in excess of X-Plane itself. The per unit cost is reasonable, but a sale carries some supplier responsibility. The goods have to be fit for purpose. I accept and respect the opinions expressed above, and make these observations: The cleverness employed in adding millions of trees etc is admirable; however, a pilot in real life (and I was one in the UK but now fly in New Zealand) will not be examining vegetation in detail, or even housing estates. He will notice landmarks, of which the bridges we mentioned earlier are significant and memorable. In a simulator, their misrepresentation or absence will be irritating. Is it too much to expect the authors of this impressive product to pay much closer attention to the more obviously iconic examples of British construction? These days, I fly realtime in New Zealand, a land not noted for architectural excellence, or indeed any ancient building history. It does, on the other hand, have scenery unmatched by any equivalent land mass in the world, and free, high quality ortho scenery was produced for it in XP. This had, for me, to be one of the benchmarks for comparison with Orbx TEGB. The Orbx product measures up very well, but I feel it is rather let down by shoddy (but important) objects, carelessly introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Hello, The cost of addons versus the cost of the simulator argument is simply invalid. It is pefectly possible to exceed that cost with a single addon aircraft. The product does indeed need some improvement and it is not news that there is a service pack promised but there is also a very great deal of work involved in producing it. I am sure that you would be among the first to condemn a service pack that did not address all the issues raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilofoxtrotalpha Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Since I haven't actually condemned anything so far (just robustly pointed out bad shortcomings which ought not to have been in the original), I see no reason to start now. Looking forward to the service pack, hopefully in time for the northern Spring. Flying around the gloomy UK in winter is depressing. It's much nicer down here, down under. -) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wroblewski Posted May 4, 2020 Share Posted May 4, 2020 Issue resolved in SP2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.