Is EU Great Britain South for MSFS still being made, or has MSFS 2024 announcement delayed it?

[Kjaye]

Nick posted back in May that the Great Britain South landmark pack for MSFS was in a queue behind a couple other projects and then would be released, but we are now almost in September and there's been no news of an update. Is this still happening, and is there any ETA?

 

It seems to be a feature generally, that Orbx keep very quiet on all their projects, unlike most other developers who engage more witht their customers on what they are doing?

 

A 2023 roadmap like you used to do would be great!

[wolfko]

17 hours ago, Kjaye said:

Nick posted back in May that the Great Britain South landmark pack for MSFS was in a queue behind a couple other projects and then would be released, but we are now almost in September and there's been no news of an update. Is this still happening, and is there any ETA?

 

It seems to be a feature generally, that Orbx keep very quiet on all their projects, unlike most other developers who engage more witht their customers on what they are doing?

 

A 2023 roadmap like you used to do would be great!

 

I think roadmaps will eventually only lead to posts/questions like yours above.

[Kjaye]

16 hours ago, wolfko said:

 

I think roadmaps will eventually only lead to posts/questions like yours above.

Is that a bad thing? Asobo do a weekly roadmap update, with regular livestream Q & A's. My favourite scenery developer, Burning Blue Design actively post up preview pics of what they are working and engage daily with their customers on Discord. Most other developers do.

 

Orbx stand alone in being pretty much detached from their userbase, given them a rather faceless, coorporate feel rather than that of aviation and flight sim lovers.

 

Orbx has a very loyal fanbase who love their products, but they just don't engage with their community online at all.

 

It's almost like they don't want to promote their products or have people get excited about them.

[Matt McGee]

I don't speak for Orbx, I just beta test, so this is just my personal view.

 

I can think of several reasons that a company, or individual developer, may not talk much about what they are working on.

- Once a project is announced, a competing developer may try to beat them to a release of the same scenery.

- Some people will continually ask for progress updates.  Responding takes time away from developing.

- Some people will complain when something is taking longer than initially projected, as if an estimated date was some sort of promise to them.

- If a project is dropped for some reason (technical issues, developer's personal life, change in financial viability....), some people will complain as if they had some right to that product being developed.

 

Again, just my thoughts on some of the cons of a public road map or advertising products in development.

 

I understand that people get excited to hear that a particular scenery of interest to them is in development. 

However, wouldn't they be just as excited (or even more) to just hear that the product was about to be released?

 

Personally, I think that waiting until a product is almost ready for release before announcing it has fewer cons.

[DaveR]

Agreed - but it would be good to know that GB South is still on the cards .....  or is it being lined up for an early release under MSFS2024??  Whatever, I await with patience.

[John Dow]

Another point that might be relevant, Orbx is mostly still based on the original business model of a collection of independent developers who are mostly responsible for choosing and developing products that they are interested in, using the resources of Orbx shared resources and knowledge base. There are some products that are commissioned but I believe this is still the exception rather than the norm. 

 

As a result, development is unlike other companies, and over many years, the roadmap model has caused more trouble than it's worth, despite the best intentions. 

[andy1252]

On 8/21/2023 at 2:32 PM, Kjaye said:

A 2023 roadmap like you used to do would be great!

Don't hold your breath. Orbx has become the least communicative company in this whole environment. I no longer expect to hear anything about their products or plans from them. And I no longer bother with this forum - but saw a post elsewhere that Orbx was apparently down so I just popped over to see what had happened, spotted this post, and thought I'd check in the unlikely event of anybody from Orbx having responded.

 

Used to be great, now just a great shame.

[Badl4ndz]

I don't believe it's a good look for a question such as this to be officially just ignored. 

 

If a customer is patient and polite when asking if a product that has been mentioned some time back is still planned, or in progress (not demanding any aspect or timeframe). They'll be content and understand If someone who can provide an answer takes the trouble to respond even if it is to advise that it's no longer viable or possible...

 

This post got me thinking of what ever happened to Honolulu or was it the whole island of Oahu? Can't remember if I asked this question last year or the year before. The image of Diamond Head is even used for the default background for forthcoming products.

[carlosqr]

I'd like to comment on these if you don't mind

 

- Once a project is announced, a competing developer may try to beat them to a release of the same scenery.
 

Personally I think that is the most silly thing to do. Competitors should invest in creating products others have not created to have more chances to sell

On the other hand, compete against Orbx, really?

Name and fame also weights. So it would have to be really daring and risky to do such thing

 

 

- Some people will continually ask for progress updates.  Responding takes time away from developing.

 

I would say this is part of the whole thing, and instead of seeing it as a bad thing it should stimulate the developer, make him happier for people being interested in his product. Be thankful.  Replying once a week won't harm anybody, specially if you advise you'll do so.

 

- Some people will complain when something is taking longer than initially projected, as if an estimated date was some sort of promise to them.

 

In every company a project has a deadline, it is a compromise, an estimated delivery time is similar to a given word or promise as you said. It is not good at all to propose making Bodo, Invercargil, Cairo, and other cities, Asia land class and so many others, and simply vanish. That is the worst thing to do, create expectation and then smoke. It's kind of disrespectful. Everybody is capable to understand delays, or even cancellations if they are explained, communicated. But asking and being ignored...that has no name.

For example Fly Tampa, they openly said, we cancelled Montreal for obvious reasons. There were some disenchanted but no more waiting, no more speculation, no more hope.

So if a project is proposed and can't be done for whatever reason it needs to be communicated , there no harm in doing so.  

 

- If a project is dropped for some reason (technical issues, developer's personal life, change in financial viability....), some people will complain as if they had some right to that product being developed.

 

That is just human nature, in every aspect of life, and it is due to the same, expectation. If you got excited, happy because you'll get in time a product you wanted for long and then you're told, forget about it, it is very human to react bad to that, it is always a rant, and won't last long. At the end if a reason is given and it is well explained, everybody will understand.

But the perspective, "if they had some right to that product being developed"..... what is the reason for developing a product? and for whom? Should people then just be indifferent to whatever is announced? To the time invested in the creation, in the taking of the shots and the posting here? Should we just be cold as stones, not reacting to the proposals like if the developer was dead and would not have the right to receive motivation for his work? because the project could be dropped... Should we just do like we saw nothing, that cold? and if in time, something we like is released, then we simply purchase it and that's it... Because, does the developer have right to receive compliments, or that we buy the product just because he decided to develop it? 

 

From my perspective I am always thankful with the developer, and when I use a product I check it with a magnifying glass and explore every detail, I always wonder how long it took him to finish it, how he achieved this and that, see this and that detail, texture, color, animation, location, etc and dream, wish, it would have been me who made it. And my way to say thanks is investing hours taking pictures, sometimes up to 50 of the same spot with different weather, day time, angle etc and then select among my 19,475 the ones that best describes my experience using his product, and then tuning the colors uploading and then posting. I hope with that to show I'm thankful and happy with the product, that I recognize the effort and hard work hoping to encourage a new product. It's like a ping -pong, product created, product enjoyed and thanked.

 

So when we ask feedback for the status of a product and there is nothing else than silence..... the ping-pong ball falls, and the sensation might lead to moving you away, which is not wise at all now a days, when there is such a heavy competition and some developers improving madly the quality of their products.

 

I am sure you are aware my reply is just 1% for you. And as you said it is just my way to see things, and I might be wrong, but I love the ping-pong game, it's warmer and creates rapport.

 

Well it's 1 am good night

 

Thanks

Carlos

[Kjaye]

Thanks, Carlos, that really sums up how I feel. Flight simming is an escape for me. It's something I look forward to and get enthusiastic about. I love talking about MSFS on the official forum with other fans of the genre, on Discord with various developers, and its nice to share the passion for the hobby.

 

Compared to other developers, Orbx has just become really sterile, as if they are above mixing with their customer base. I don't understand. If I was a developer working on a passion project, I'd be in the forums, engaging with my customers and thrilled that there were people interested in what I was doing. I'd be trying to actively create a following, and build my reputation. Even for purely economic and commercial reasons it makes sense, to say nothing about job satisfaction.

[Kjaye]

On 8/23/2023 at 4:32 AM, Matt McGee said:

I don't speak for Orbx, I just beta test, so this is just my personal view.

 

I can think of several reasons that a company, or individual developer, may not talk much about what they are working on.

- Once a project is announced, a competing developer may try to beat them to a release of the same scenery.

 

 

I think they actually have created the opposite problem, scrambling recently to reveal they had been working for months on London City Airport in secret, when UK2000 announced they were about to release their version. Orbx had consistently said they weren't going to update it, which might well have been why Gary spent time doing his own. Probably annoying for him to find out a week before the launch that Orbx had done a version 2 after and were just about to drop, cannibalising his sales.

[Matt McGee]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:04 AM, carlosqr said:

So if a project is proposed and can't be done for whatever reason it needs to be communicated , there no harm in doing so.

I agree.  If a product has been announced, but then cancelled, I think that customers should be informed.

I also think that if a product has been announced with a particular release date and is then delayed, some sort of update is warranted.

But these are exactly the sort of issues that are completely avoided by not announcing product plans.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind hearing what developers are working on.  Screenshots and progress reports are great, if a developer wants to provide them. 

However, in my opinion, this opens a potential can of worms for the developer.

If products are not advertised until they are about to be released, customers won't have built up any expectations or feelings of entitlement, and therefore won't be disappointed by a delay or cancellation.  There is also no demand for progress updates.

 

I respectfully disagree with your view that there is "no harm" in communicating that a previously announced project is cancelled. 

Again, if it was announced, I think people should be informed of cancellations.  But even if promptly informed, I expect that many will still have some negative feelings toward the developer or Orbx for failing to deliver on a product they were excited about.

 

I also think you are underestimating some people's feelings of entitlement.  How hard is a quarterly update?  Why not monthly?  Weekly?  It isn't that hard to post an update at the end of each day, it only takes a few minutes, right?

There are comments in this very thread from people who seem to feel they are entitled to Orbx's plans and updates, even though Orbx has a pretty well established history of not talking much about future developments or providing progress reports.

 

I agree that announcing future developments may potentially generate excitement about a product, though I have no idea if that actually affects sales in the end.

For instance,

- I would be excited to hear KNUW was being developed. 

- I would be disappointed to hear it was delayed (or cancelled).  Being delayed would also cause a desire for ongoing progress updates.

- Excitement (impatience?) while waiting for release.

- If it was just released without warning, I would just be excited. 

- Whether I had been waiting or just found out, I would buy it when it was released.

 

So is "excited - disappointed - it's about time - purchase" a better customer experience than "excited - purchase"?  

Are actual sales affected either way?

 

A potential positive for advertising a product in development is that if I knew Orbx was developing an airport and a competitor released a version first, I might wait for the Orbx version.  I'm not sure I see much else which is entirely positive about advertising development or releasing road maps.  Again, just my opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt McGee]

12 minutes ago, Kjaye said:

Compared to other developers, Orbx has just become really sterile, as if they are above mixing with their customer base. I don't understand. If I was a developer working on a passion project, I'd be in the forums, engaging with my customers and thrilled that there were people interested in what I was doing. I'd be trying to actively create a following, and build my reputation.

I have been an Orbx customer and regularly on the forums for over a decade. 

In my opinion, Orbx has always been pretty tight lipped about what was being worked on.  It isn't anything new.

There have been some road maps released in the past, but also complaining from users when something was delayed or cancelled. 

Perhaps that has affected their sharing of information?  I have no inside knowledge of Orbx's customer engagement strategies.

 

The Preview Announcements forum does have plans and progress from some developers who choose to reveal what they are working on, but I don't fault devs who are focused on production more than engagement.  Personally, I am more interested in the quality of the scenery actually being released than I am in projected plans.

 

I assume development strategies are complex.  Like what happens when a developer is considering, or already working on, an airport and hears a competitor is developing the same one.  Does he or she skip or stop development, or do they race to be first to market?  Not a clue about EGLC v2 decisions.

 

I do know that Orbx has many independent developers who choose that they want to work on based on their own desires or interests.  

 

Regarding your original question about EU Great Britain - South for MSFS, I am unable to comment on any scenery which I might be beta testing.  

 

[Kjaye]

9 minutes ago, Matt McGee said:

Regarding your original question about EU Great Britain - South for MSFS, I am unable to comment on any scenery which I might be beta testing.  

 

👀

Out of interest, when a developer sends out a product for beta testing, that's usually meaning a release is imminent right? Just in general I mean, not asking you to comment on any specific product...👂

Edited August 26, 2023 by Kjaye

[Matt McGee]

4 hours ago, Kjaye said:

Out of interest, when a developer sends out a product for beta testing, that's usually meaning a release is imminent right?

Honestly, the time between seeing a product's initial beta and its release can vary by quite a bit.

I've seen some betas with virtually nothing wrong with them.  Testing went quickly and they were released in a mater of days.

I've also seen betas that were in earlier stages of development.  We'd test what was there, knowing that other elements and features were still being worked on.  We would look at subsequent builds until all the elements had been added.  These can take weeks or even months to progress from beta to release.

 

Here are some of the things that can affect the speed at which a scenery goes from beta to release:  

- Size of the scenery.  It is a lot faster to test a small airport like W16 First Air, than a large one like YMML Melbourne.

- How quickly the testers get their testing done and reports in.  And how many of us are available to test each day.

- How many issues the testers find.  Sometimes there is virtually nothing wrong.  Other times, there might be a bunch of issues.

- The time it takes to fix each issue.  Some things are easy to fix, other times there may be some weird bug that is hard to fix.  

- The amount of time per day the developer (or developers) can devote to fixing any issues the testers have identified.

 

Out of curiosity I took a look at the timeline for EU Great Britain - North.

I helped test Beta 1 and then two subsequent release candidates.  It took 33 days from seeing the Beta 1 until it was released on Orbx Central.

I am not trying to hint at anything, just showing an example of how long something covering as much area and with as many points of interest as Great Britain - North took to test and release.  A similar product might take less time, or it might take more.  I really does vary from scenery to scenery.

  

[wain71]

here's my thinking, as an Alpha/ BETA tester for Just Flight I see lots of stuff come through, some stuff is really quick and other stuff can and has taken longer than 12 months, and is always ongoing even after release....JF announce projects, it's there on their website and it does create interest, it does get a few people on forums asking the inevitable 'are we there yet', but I don't think it's nothing to much....we also recently had the news that 2 projects were cancelled for P3D, initially there was an amount of moaning on social media etc but it soon died down, also they said these will at some point come to MSFS, I personally see this as a good thing and communicating with their customers was good, they were on different forum explaining their choices/actions and answering questions....

 

I fully understand that people/devs don't want to be tied to dates, that's understandable and I fully agree with that, but honestly this silence from Orbx seems like arrogance and shows a slight disrespect towards their customers, don't get me wrong I have loved so much of the huge amount I have bought from Orbx over the years for FSX/P3D/XPLANE & MSFS and I will continue to buy and support them going forward but please just listen and occasionally maybe answer some questions in an official capacity instead of leaving it to the moderators because all due respect to them but they sometimes are as much in the dark as we are...

 

Just my thoughts, I see it from both sides, as a tester and a customer and honestly back in the days when Iain would post his 'final shots' post just before release of a product we knew about were posts I always enjoyed....

[John Dow]

OK there's been movement at the station.

 

But don't hold your breath it's just  the preliminary files, but to answer the above questions... yes it is in development as we speak.

[DaveR]

Great news John - I will continue to wait patiently and with eager anticipation.

[Kjaye]

Still patiently waiting. Long beta test process for this one. Hope it's worth the wait!

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,
yes, the beta testing is still in progress.

 

[carlosqr]

Hi Nick

Is there going to be a London landmarks update in this package?

Or is it going to be excluded as London exists as an apart package?

I asked because I'd like to know if there are more buildings added, if some buildings morphing textures are fixed and if they have managed to remove some photogrammetry issues off the scene...

Thanks

Carlos

[John Dow]

2 hours ago, carlosqr said:

Hi Nick

Is there going to be a London landmarks update in this package?

Or is it going to be excluded as London exists as an apart package?

I asked because I'd like to know if there are more buildings added, if some buildings morphing textures are fixed and if they have managed to remove some photogrammetry issues off the scene...

Thanks

Carlos

I don't think London is being included, however, if you have any specific issues with any of the buildings in London, let us know what you are seeing and we can test the product and if there are any problems that aren't MSFS related (not all LOD problems are fixable especially when photogrammetry is involved) I'm sure the team will be open to having a look at a fix sometime when resources are available. 

[carlosqr]

37 minutes ago, John Dow said:

I don't think London is being included, however, if you have any specific issues with any of the buildings in London, let us know what you are seeing and we can test the product and if there are any problems that aren't MSFS related (not all LOD problems are fixable especially when photogrammetry is involved) I'm sure the team will be open to having a look at a fix sometime when resources are available. 

Thank you so much John

I'll do a flight in London again and will revert if I yet see the issue I had.

I appreciate the speedy reply and concern

Cheers

Carlos

[carlosqr]

Hi @John Dow

During my lunch break I did a flight in London, slow and low and the problem seemed to be gone!!

I'll post my shots shortly

I remembered this issue I mentioned also happened in Paris, so went there and it does happen in a pair of buildings

I guess that for being just two buildings it is something that cannot be fixed as it used to be worst.

Thanks!

Carlos

[Zangoose]

Great to see this has been released now. Is there a map of all of the landmarks? Think we may have had something similar to the previous ones. 

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,
these are what the testers were given at the outset.

 

 

[F737MAX]

45 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

these are what the testers were given at the outset.

 

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?

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,
the kml files are the ones given to the testers at the outset.
They will therefore not necessarily be a true reflection of the finished product.
I don't have any others.
As is supposed to happen, the beta testers have pointed out anomalies and the developers have fixed them.
There should not be any duplicates or conflicts in the simulator.

 

I attach the same for EU GB Central and it comes with the same caveat.

 

[Megadyptes]

 

Thanks for those. Bought this and using the KMZs to look around but it seems they must have removed some landmarks from the initial tests or maybe they were never there to begin with? Looking around my home city of Bristol and a few landmarks from the KMZs aren't showing for me: SS Great Britain, County Cricket Ground, BRI Chimney, Ikea and the Purdown BT Tower.

 

The lack of the BT Tower is what strikes me as the most odd as it's a tall distinctive tower atop a steepish hill that you can see from many miles around which makes it a perfect VFR landmark. I guess it could be a problem on my end but I'm seeing other POIs such as the footy stadiums and cathedrals fine. Got Brandon tower though which is a tiny tower mostly obscured by trees. Priorities eh?

 

Also the 'Hero' POIs are supposed to be the better modelled ones, right? The first Severn Bridge is marked as a 'Hero' yet looks pretty basic, the freeware one on flightsim.to is a lot better. And the 'Hero' Dower House model in Bristol is rotated around 180° from reality! lol.

 

Had a look at some other POIs near me. God knows why they bothered modelling the Berkley Pill Range Lights. You can barely see them unless you're rubbing your face along the ground as they're really quite small. Makes the lack of the Purdown Tower even more baffling. Zoomed over to Tintern Abbey as it's quite a remarkable landmark IRL but in the base sim is some really awful looking autogen. They've plopped down a basic model of the main Abbey building but seems like they couldn't be bothered to exclude the other autogen buildings in the adjacent ruins which kinda ruins the effect. You can exclude that autogen very easily with a polygon, takes seconds to do in the SDK. Very low effort. That just seems to be the running theme with these Great Britain landmark packs though. It's all just a bit meh.

 

Had another look further afield and there's no Birnbeck Pier at Weston nor the Burnham Pier and Hinkley Point is just autogen. Are all these actually missing or just not intended to be there at all and the KMZs are just out of date? Or an error with my install?

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,
the request was for kmz files, so I gave you what I had.
In the light of this criticism, I withdraw them until the developer has had time to produce 
files that accurately present what is included in this release.

[Megadyptes]

1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,
the request was for kmz files, so I gave you what I had.
In the light of this criticism, I withdraw them until the developer has had time to produce 
files that accurately present what is included in this release.

It weren't a criticism of you mate. Cheers for providing the files even if they're not representative. I guess the Orbx Central discover map will show the Landmarks whenever they get around to updating that. I do prefer KMZs though, shame the devs don't really bother with them anymore, or documention in general. Ah well, c'est la vie.

[Kjaye]

4 hours ago, Megadyptes said:

 

Had another look further afield and there's no Birnbeck Pier at Weston nor the Burnham Pier and Hinkley Point is just autogen. Are all these actually missing or just not intended to be there at all and the KMZs are just out of date? Or an error with my install?

 

Glad to see this has finally released, looking forward to trying it over the weekend!

 

These missing POIs, are they just things you expected should be there but aren't or ones that were listed as being there in the kmz files?

 

I can't see a list of POIs on Orbx Central yet, but from memory, it took a few days to get one together for the Great Britain North pack as well.

 

So is there farm animals visible when flying over fields now? That sounds like a great addition.

 

I've been looking forward to this for three years, so delighted we finally have it! I love the other two, so even if there's a few ropey models here and there, and one or two ommissions, they are well worth the money for the hundreds of POIs they add.

 

I live in Devon so this pack is very welcome.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Kjaye

[Megadyptes]

8 minutes ago, Kjaye said:

These missing POIs, are they just things you expected should be there but aren't or ones that were listed as being there in the kmz files?

Yeah they were ones that were in the KMZ Nick posted but took down. I guess they didn't make the final cut! I kinda remember posting in a wishlist thread years ago for the FSX/P3D version requesting some of these landmarks. I guess they were put down in a list for future and then ended up on a KMZ but then were never made. Shame as I really do want the BT Tower, it's very distinctive. It's in the photogrammetry but the photogrammetry looks bloody awful and melted.

 

8 minutes ago, Kjaye said:

So is there farm animals visible when flying over fields now? That sounds like a great addition.

Hah didn't notice that on the features list. Will have to have a look for some when I get back on the sim.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Megadyptes

[John Burgess]

The kmz files are not a good guide to what is actually present.

Quite a lot of the things marked on the kmz are not in the scenery and never were.

They were only really intended as an aid for us when testing.

 

The POI's which would have conflicted with the Asobo POI's or our London Landmarks were removed as were any which conflicted with objects modelled in any addon airports available through Orbx.

Hopefully we didn't miss any.

 

All the best,

 

John

[Kjaye]

2 hours ago, John Burgess said:

The kmz files are not a good guide to what is actually present.

Quite a lot of the things marked on the kmz are not in the scenery and never were.

They were only really intended as an aid for us when testing.

 

The POI's which would have conflicted with the Asobo POI's or our London Landmarks were removed as were any which conflicted with objects modelled in any addon airports available through Orbx.

Hopefully we didn't miss any.

 

All the best,

 

John

 

I assume soon enough that the POI list will be added to the Orbx Central Discovery map anyway like with GB North and Central?

Would be nice to have an overview of the highlights, the advertisement page doesn't mention a single POI specifically and the trailer doesn't name anything. I think I see Well's Cathedral and maybe the Bodmin tower beacon in Cornwall, but these are complete guesses on my part.

[F737MAX]

3 hours ago, John Burgess said:

The kmz files are not a good guide to what is actually present.

Quite a lot of the things marked on the kmz are not in the scenery and never were.

They were only really intended as an aid for us when testing.

 

The POI's which would have conflicted with the Asobo POI's or our London Landmarks were removed as were any which conflicted with objects modelled in any addon airports available through Orbx.

Hopefully we didn't miss any.

 

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.

[John Burgess]

23 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

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?

 

I'm afraid I'm just a tester so that's not something I can do!

The issue has been reported.

 

All the best,

 

John

 

 

[Kjaye]

Just spent half hour nipping around with the drone cam. It's hard to explore when we don't have a list of POIs so I just flew to places I figured would be POIs.

 

It seems that Exeter Cathedral, Paignton Pier, Teignmouth Pier and Killerton House were not modelled. The first three I have models elswhere so not a big deal, but disappointed to see Killerton wasn't included.

 

I did see models for Totnes and Compton Castles, but Dartmouth castle is still autogen.

 

There are quite a few clashes with other sceneries. Most notably Seafront Simulation's Vessels UK South East. That has some beautiful ship models, such as Nelson's HMS Victory that now has a lower quality model enmeshed into it.

 

I also can't see any discovery flights or missions to do the church and castle tours, and I haven't found any fields with farm animals in yet. Anyone been able to find these features?

[wolfko]

I have to smile. Always the same moaning and nit picking is going on, when a GB scenery pack has been released. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Airtrooper]

This is what I see for Gloucester cathedral...

 

... and Bristol cathedral...