A New Record - LPMA Madeira Airport.

[happytraveller]

A new record today....first time ever that I have installed and also uninstalled an add-on in the same day.   After initial problems to install the new Madeira airport (LPMA) which I purchased yesterday, I discovered that the quality of this add-on is unbelievable low.    At first I thought that the developers might have ported over a FSX version of the airport, but now that I have tried it out more then it looks more like FS2004 (remember that ?).  Building textures are terrible and there are so many mistakes around the airport, such as large patch of trees and plants on one end of the apron.  Not only that but the buildings immediately outside the airport (near to the runway) look terrible, and concrete walls on the side of the runway are way out of proportion.

 

I find it hard to accept that a developer can release an add-on of this low quality for MSFS 2020.    We know that FAR better quality is possible, not this cartoon-looking rendering which has just been released.  If you are used to the high quality of developers like Orbx then this new add on for Madeira Airport from AMSim will come as a shock.   And not a good one either.

 

Definitely NOT 'as real as it gets'.   Deleted it already as a bad purchase.

 

Jerry

Edited March 13, 2022 by happytraveller
spelling mistake

[horacer]

Hi Jerry,

 

I did exactly the same today... instant regret. I wish there could be a refund. I feel mocked tbh... I was expecting some sort of quality standard when distributed with Orbx.

 

The default Asobo is even better. At least the terrain is more accurate.

 

Hendrik

[horacer]

1 minute ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

Hi Jerry

 

I think you will need to just turn on your Bing Data as shown in the below image, for the airport to display properly.

 

 

Hi Doug,

 

Thanks for jumping in. It's set to on. I'm literally shocked  I'll check back later / tomorrow.

 

Have a great day

[Doug Sawatzky]

Hi

 

You guy's could also contact the developer.

 

Developer

This product has been produced by AmSim. For AmSim product support, please to go https://www.amsim.am/

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

one thing to make sure of before condemning this airport is to remove the Asobo enhanced version first.

If you have not, please do so and you will find that the AmSim model looks very different without the Asobo version on top of it.

 

This is with the Asobo version:

Click to enlarge

 

and this is without the Asobo version:

Click to enlarge

[Davit403]

I have to agree with all who don't like what they see,and wish I had saved my money. This scenery does not in any way represent LPMA.

However on a positive note the representation of the Terminal and apron with all it's eye .candy is good.

Having visited Madeira every year bar 2 over the last 20years I can tell the developer that the mesh is all wrong. Asobo got it right except the taxiways which should be flat.     1. No embankment to the left of 05 and no security fence.

2. No hump in the runway near to 23 taxiway

3. Semicircular concrete walls by 23 taxiway do not exist in reality   

4. Trees other than a few decorative palms in the Terminal concourse?car parks do not exist and trees along the shoreline don't exist in reality.

5. Pillars supporting the runway extension are unrealistic.

I suggest  it would be a good idea if the developer watches some videos on You tube   and looks at pictures of the airport of which there are many on the web.

Shame on you Orbx for for allowing such a poor rendition to be released.

Aerosoft many years ago released a near perfect version for FSX.

When do we get a refund and when will there be a proper LPMA for MSFS?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

as my colleague Doug has already posted, you can contact the developers here:

https://www.amsim.am/ and share your views with them, should you wish to do so.

Otherwise you can apply for your refund using a support ticket.

 

In an effort to maintain some balance, having compared the product to images on the internet,

your statement "This scenery does not in any way represent LPMA."

does not conform to my own experience of it.

In fact, it appears to the eye of someone who has, in the last 69 years, never visited it, a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. 

This is not to dispute your assertion about the details known to a regular visitor.

[Davit403]

Thanks for your reply Nick, I have sent comments to AMSIM and offered my services as a tester if and when they are updating the scenery.

Best wishes

David

P.S. If I was younger (now 79) I would feel able to accept the challenge of learning to make my own scenery.

 

[jimsef]

I must echo the previous comments, while the terminal looks great the surrounding area looks horrific. On the default scenery the slope across from the runway is there, in this airport it is just flat and there are roads on the same level as the runway. In reality the slope is VERY big and a feature of the airport. How they can miss this out is completely bonkers.

[jimsef]

Just to add, there is no excuse for not knowing about this, you can see the runway in full from Google Street view on the road over the other side of the runway (on top of the big slope that is flat in the scenery pack). You can clearly see those curved walls are not there too. I have logged a support ticket for a refund. I will consider purchasing again once it is up to standard (if it even gets improved)

[Britjet]

While you’re all in Madeira, you might like to try the free Madeira fix at Flightsim.to. It’s very good.

Offshore terrain issues with the Amsim version are fixed, as well as removing all those ridiculous shiny rivers and streams that cover the default island.

Britjet

 

[Hermann]

I have the problem that the yellow stairs move around by themselves.
This is the only scenery with this appearance!

 

[Hermann]

From amsim:

 

We know about this issue, we already fix it in our project. The new update for LPMA will be coming soon 

 

[Fab10]

I haven’t entirely condemned this scenery, but I do echo two of the above points made by fellow users, specifically the lack of steep grassy bank and the protruding columns by the taxiway (at least that’s what I think they are).

I’d like to add that this scenery is not the most expensive, and as such a credible effort once the glaring issues are resolved. 
What I find disappointing is that having followed your [Orbx] advice of contacting the developers, I have heard nothing back; they’re either inundated by complaints, or customer services isn’t their forte. 
I have always felt that Orbx shows great ownership with respect to customer feedback, so this is an exception, and not reflective of Orbx. 
That said, I’d have expected all Orbx partners to follow a common charter.

Anyway, I am looking forward to receiving the updated LPMA scenery. 

 

[BAW9DV]

Hi,

 

Purchased this scenery yesterday and then flew in from Heathrow using the FlyByWire A320 NEO for BAVirtual.   Actually, I forgot to remove the Asobo version and the landing and look of the scenery seemed fine - but as many have said, there were serious bumps and dips in the taxiways and I nearly got a Sim crash while taxi-ing back to the Terminal!   But I managed to taxi to the stand and complete the flight.

 

I then reloaded the Sim and went in and removed the Asobo scenery and yes, it looks better - but, while repeating the taxi off the runway, while backtracking in to the Terminal and looking from the right side passenger view, the engine began slowly to descend into the tarmac, then disappeared - and at that point the Sim crashed!

 

Note that I have not visited the airport in real life but I have flown in here in the Sim a number of times (P3D and FSX) so I am familiar with it.   I will be posting the video of the landing which was recorded - and I will be reviewing the scenery product on my YouTube channel (virtualairlinepilot) next week.

 

I see there is a small update that has been released - I will be lookng again at the scenery today.

 

Personally, I am happy with the scenery and the price - but the issues clearly need to be fixed.   And, if such an agreement does not exist, I firmly believe that Orbx should institute a "Customer Charter" agreement to which they expect ALL their Partners to adhere to.   And any found to be not helping customers should have their partnership terminated as this clearly does not help the good name of Orbx.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Lee

[BAW9DV]

Ok,

 

[EDIT - on the above] -

I have discovered that because I landed with the Asobo version installed, the Flight Recorder used to reply the landing and taxi in, recognises the scenery and because there is a difference in the elevation between the Asobo version and the new payware one, running the reply uses the Asobo elevation - and thus, causes the aircraft to sink which results in a crash!   Removing the Asobo version and re-recording the taxi off and to the stand does not result in the crash.

 

Lee

[cyb4]

On 3/13/2022 at 4:57 PM, Doug Sawatzky said:

Hi

 

You guy's could also contact the developer.

 

Developer

This product has been produced by AmSim. For AmSim product support, please to go https://www.amsim.am/

I have done that, no reply. The terra forming is very bad, waiting for an update. Even the 10 years old Aerosoft Madeira Scenery was much better. That scenery isn't any Orbx standard

 

 

[Fab10]

Do you think we can politely press you [Orbx] on a release date for the update?

Considering that the developers solved the issue soon after this thread was posted, I have been holding out for an early release. 

[Ed Correia]

Three updates have been provided already and I'll enquire as to if any more is forthcoming.

 

 

[paulk]

On 3/13/2022 at 8:37 PM, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

as my colleague Doug has already posted, you can contact the developers here:

https://www.amsim.am/ and share your views with them, should you wish to do so.

Otherwise you can apply for your refund using a support ticket.

 

In an effort to maintain some balance, having compared the product to images on the internet,

your statement "This scenery does not in any way represent LPMA."

does not conform to my own experience of it.

In fact, it appears to the eye of someone who has, in the last 69 years, never visited it, a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. 

This is not to dispute your assertion about the details known to a regular visitor.

Quick question - ref your comment Nick above:

 

Otherwise you can apply for your refund using a support ticket.

 

Are we allowed refunds from a 3rd Party Developer?

 

I ask because after buying many, many Orbx and 3rd Party sceneries via Orbx Central I purchased one 3rd Party Scenery (will not mention which one) which I thought was of very poor quality and was refused a refund both by Orbx and the Developer. (Orbx told me to contact the 3rd Party for the refund) post raising a Support Ticket.

 

Again let me stress I am only asking and not re-raising the issue I had a why ago.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[Fab10]

The following image of the RW05 threshold shows the current version of AmSim Orbx LPMA, and there is no evidence of a steep grassy bank to the northside of the runway.

 

Also, the protruding concrete column ends by the taxiway are still present.

 

I would invite Orbx to comment, please, as I feel that this is not living up to expectations in terms of what the developers reported to you, insofar as they indicated that they have addressed this.

 

Thanks,

Fabio

 

[Nick Cooper]

5 hours ago, paulk said:

Quick question - ref your comment Nick above:

 

Otherwise you can apply for your refund using a support ticket.

 

Are we allowed refunds from a 3rd Party Developer?

 

I ask because after buying many, many Orbx and 3rd Party sceneries via Orbx Central I purchased one 3rd Party Scenery (will not mention which one) which I thought was of very poor quality and was refused a refund both by Orbx and the Developer. (Orbx told me to contact the 3rd Party for the refund) post raising a Support Ticket.

 

Again let me stress I am only asking and not re-raising the issue I had a why ago.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Hello,

I have nothing to do with refunds, apart from forwarding customer requests for one.

This is why I am careful to write you can "apply" for one, rather than you can "obtain" one. 

I cannot comment on an individual case that I had nothing to do with, though I had understood,

perhaps incorrectly, that refunds would be issued by Orbx for purchases from Orbx Direct,

regardless of whether the product is by Orbx.

[paulk]

41 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

 

Hello,

I have nothing to do with refunds, apart from forwarding customer requests for one.

This is why I am careful to write you can "apply" for one, rather than you can "obtain" one. 

I cannot comment on an individual case that I had nothing to do with, though I had understood,

perhaps incorrectly, that refunds would be issued by Orbx for purchases from Orbx Direct,

regardless of whether the product is by Orbx.

Thanks Nick appreciate your reply.

 

I would welcome a comment from anyone who does deal with refunds from the Orbx Team, if they could clarify.

 

 

[Ed Correia]

Our refund policy is stated here https://orbxdirect.com/refunds

 

Change of mind is not a valid reason for a refund.

[paulk]

Thanks for the reply Ed.

 

Don’t want to make a big deal about this, but I don’t recall stating ‘Change of mind’ think earlier comments were due to poor quality (not fit for usual purchase would better fit the bill I think).

 

I my case I put it down to a bad purchase and noted said developer to be avoided in future  Same as buying a bottle of Australian wine from the shop and been disappointed can’t do anything about it but make sure to buy New Zealand next time.

Edited March 30, 2022 by paulk

[happytraveller]

I was surprised that AmSim never replied to the support ticket which I raised with them.  That says a lot to me.   Orbx on the other hand were very good with their replies and their help.   Now that people using MSFS 2020 are used to the quality levels of airports such as the newer ones from Orbx, then I guess a lot of people will be surprised and also very disappointed with the AmSim LPMA add-on.    It is just not in the same league as other MSFS 2020 airport add-ons.   Lots of information and photos on the internet but it appears that AmSim ignored a lot of the information out there.    There are even some freeware add-ons (not for LPMA)  which are streets ahead of this add-on from AmSim.  

 

This is one product that I hope gets pulled from the Orbx direct marketplace soon. 

 

Jerry

[Fab10]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:11 PM, Ed Correia said:

Change of mind is not a valid reason for a refund.

The trouble with that statement is that when buying scenery, we should experience realism and improvements above and beyond what is being replaced. In short, an upgrade.

Originally, I felt that this was a credible low cost effort, so I thought I’d wait for patched version, but this has not materialised as promised. All I’ve really got is better ground clutter, an unbelievable approach without steep grassy bank, and imaginary taxiway obstacles. 
The issue is that no-one can be certain of anything until they try it, which according to you is too late to do anything about it. 

Should my bottle of wine be off (read vinegar), I’d be sure to return it for the reason that I’d not want other customers to buy the same, plus I’d want the retailer to be aware.

There are clear issues with this product, and yet Orbx is telling valued customers to write it off whilst at the same time still selling it.

Why?

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

the trouble with taking a statement out of its context is that it then fails to refer to the context,

which was the purchase of a different product, by a different customer, at a different time

and who may have given a different reason for wanting a refund.

Orbx is not, therefore "telling valued customers to write it off whilst at the same time still selling it."

[Fab10]

Hi,

The element of context wasn’t clear to me in the above comment.

My reiteration of this is easily retracted should I stumble across the original statement to then find no similarities to this situation. 
TBH, I’m going to withdraw from this thread as I’ve no wish to be drawn deeper into a debate regarding product ethics, sales, and consumer rights. 

For the record, I may choose to write this one off whilst waiting for a service pack to address the issues.

It is my opinion that Orbx are quality company offering a range quality products.

This particular offering is an exception only because it is inferior to the default Asobo LPMA.

Thanks. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by FabFlyer

[Ed Correia]

As everyone has had the opportunity to command respond, I will close this thread. 
 

I have spoken with the developer who has informed me that he has had trouble with the current terrain profile tools to achieve a smooth runway profile plus the embankment on the edge. Regardless, he will continue to experiment with other methods. 
 

It’s also clear that customers have very different expectation levels for scenery. The product description and screenshots clearly reflect what is being offered and for many the price point represents value and they are content with their purchase.