ANSWERED Where is the McLaren Production Centre building in EGTF Fairoaks?

[raymar99]

I was looking at the 7cm enchanced scenery part of the EU EGTF and it was very noticable that the McLaren Production Centre building has either disappeared or was never added to the scenery. I have always been told that one thing you can count on is that any 'Orbx Airport Area enhanced as a retail add on will be as realistic and as real world as possible'. I guess that is not the case here - an entire, huge building is totally missing, along with the associcated parking area.

This is so close to the EGTF runway that it will be difficult not to notice the empty field should have a very large rectangular building in it.

Maybe it is coming with the SP1?

Regards,

Ray

[raymar99]

March 2012. Beautiful complex isn't it?

Regards,

Ray

[Tim Harris]

Hi Ray,

 

Do you actually have the airport installed? puzzled why your screenshot has a grid pattern..., the circular building is most certainly included, if you mean the squarish building then no, the imagery Heiko used is older than that building

[raymar99]

Hello Tim,

Thanks for the response.

No it cannot be installed in P3dv2.3 without a triple installer (I am told). The 7cm area image is from the User Guide. The Production Center opened in 2011 so Heiko must have used some of that really old imagery. I think I remember seeing site work/construcion photos back in 2009, maybe earlier. I thought I read that 'Fiftysix' took onsite real world photos for this one? Surely he didn't miss a 34,500 Sq Metre building. Just kidding.

It is just so close there has to be a reason for not having it included.

Regards,

Ray

[Iain Emms]

I have it .

 

 

Its already in there.

cheers

Iain

[raymar99]

I have it .

 

Its already in there.

cheers

Iain

Thanks Iain, but I fail to see it in your screenshot. I see the round Technology Center but not the rectangular Production Center where much of the work takes place. Google says the recangular building is 35,500 square metres. That is rather large even for an English Countryside building, don't you think?

Cheers,

Ray

[raymar99]

This building is a bit of a technological marvel in itself. It is practically underground for energy efficiency and other reasons. Take a look at this mid 2010 construction photo.

Here is the type of work going on here.

Cheers,

Ray

[Tim Harris]

Like I said before http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/84193-where-is-the-mclaren-production-centre-building-in-egtf-fairoaks/?p=770187 the imagery used by Heiko is from before that building existed, the circular one is there, but the newer squarish one is not, all Orbx airports are a snapshot in time, this snapshot is from when there was only 1 building there

 

You can determine this clearly from the screenshots on the webpage https://www.fullterrain.com/product/egtf , so its not exactly a surprise

 

Cheers

Tim

[raymar99]

Like I said before http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/84193-where-is-the-mclaren-production-centre-building-in-egtf-fairoaks/?p=770187 the imagery used by Heiko is from before that building existed, the circular one is there, but the newer squarish one is not, all Orbx airports are a snapshot in time, this snapshot is from when there was only 1 building there

 

You can determine this clearly from the screenshots on the webpage https://www.fullterrain.com/product/egtf , so its not exactly a surprise

 

Cheers

Tim

Thanks Tim,

I am not sure what can be 'clearly detemined from the screenshots on the webpage' other than the building in question in not present. I do understand all Orbx airports are a snapshot in time, but this one clearly seems to be a little 'time warped'. I remember a thread when Concrete, 3W5 was in work, this was the second Orbx airport outside AU and he was determined that nothing would be added or left out that exists at the site in question.

This begs the question of how the team could use up-to-date data for practically all of the scenery area and yet use data at least 4 or maybe 5 year old imagery for this particular part. Just seems odd to me and flies in the face of John's previous statements. It is not like it is a tree or a house or something minor or that is in a remote area of the scenery.

Anyway, it sounds like the decision was made somewhere along the way not to include the McLaren Production Centre in the scenery. My simple personal opinion is this is a disservice for the lack of a better word. I would put it on the same scale of leaving an existing runway or terminal out a package with no explantation other than it wasn't there once upon a time.

Thanks again for looking into this.

Regards,

Ray

[John Dow]

This begs the question of how the team could use up-to-date data for practically all of the scenery area and yet use data at least 4 or maybe 5 year old imagery for this particular part. 

 

The imagery mirrors what Google Earth displays from 2009. That indicates that the imagery sourced from the supplier was taken about then.  ORBX is not in a position to dictate what imagery it can license and use, it has to rely on what is readily available.  I would say that this was the best and most up-to-date when the project was commenced.

 

 

About the only suggestion I can make here is that you approach one of the free scenery forums on the web and learn how to model the missing building and add it to the scenery, or possibly get someone to make it for you.

[Christopher Low]

I think that you are being somewhat harsh, Ray. I assume that the developer purchased the most up to date aerial image that was available at the time, and that obviously did not include the more recent building at the McLaren Technology Centre. I agree that it would be nice to have this building as a 3D model, but it only makes sense if you have the photo base image to go with it.

[wedge1047]

I think that you are being somewhat harsh, Ray. I assume that the developer purchased the most up to date aerial image that was available at the time, and that obviously did not include the more recent building at the McLaren Technology Centre. I agree that it would be nice to have this building as a 3D model, but it only makes sense if you have the photo base image to go with it.

+1

[raymar99]

The imagery mirrors what Google Earth displays from 2009. That indicates that the imagery sourced from the supplier was taken about then.  ORBX is not in a position to dictate what imagery it can license and use, it has to rely on what is readily available.  I would say that this was the best and most up-to-date when the project was commenced.

 

Fairoaks1.jpg

 

About the only suggestion I can make here is that you approach one of the free scenery forums on the web and learn how to model the missing building and add it to the scenery, or possibly get someone to make it for you.

Thanks John,

Yes, that is a good suggestion to complete this scenery. There are obviously plenty of highly detailed drawings and photos freely available with a simple search. Most likely one of our freelance scenery wizards will pick this up as a contribution to the community.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards,

Ray

[Voyager]

But taking advantage of the debate, I think Orbx (that's a suggestion), when the real scenery will suffer such a visual change, could do a review of their sceneries - even if we have to pay for the update - reasonably, of course!

 

Cheers,

[raymar99]

I think that you are being somewhat harsh, Ray. I assume that the developer purchased the most up to date aerial image that was available at the time, and that obviously did not include the more recent building at the McLaren Technology Centre. I agree that it would be nice to have this building as a 3D model, but it only makes sense if you have the photo base image to go with it.

Christopher,

Hello, we haven't talked in a while. I hope all is well with you.

Yes, you are certainly correct, I must have been bored or maybe just needing a break from the research and writing. The images are readily available and have been for some time so using John's suggestion above, maybe one of our talented members will step up and bring the scenery up to date. Heck, we have time, the installer is not yet available for P3Dv2 anyway.

Cheers,

Ray

[raymar99]

But taking advantage of the debate, I think Orbx (that's a suggestion), when the real scenery will suffer such a visual change, could do a review of their sceneries - even if we have to pay for the update - reasonably, of course!

 

Cheers,

Voyager,

Yes, your suggestion could possibly be the best yet. It wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary, S45 had a release and then a follow up free update several months later for the early purchasers. The later purchasers never knew the difference other than it had an expanded coverage area to include the golf course at the North end of the runway.

Regards,

Ray

[raymar99]

I think that you are being somewhat harsh, Ray. I assume that the developer purchased the most up to date aerial image that was available at the time, and that obviously did not include the more recent building at the McLaren Technology Centre. I agree that it would be nice to have this building as a 3D model, but it only makes sense if you have the photo base image to go with it.

Christopher & Wedge1047,

I seriously doubt 2008/2009 was the latest aerial image available at the time, but I have no way of knowing for sure. EGTF was released in December 2013 and this huge building less than a mile from the runway and has been totally complete and occupied for several years. Besides, most developers don't build 3D structures from aerial images, do they? The earthwork and multiple construction cranes might have been a clue that something big was underway even 5 years ago.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Ray

[spud]

Hey,

there is a huge live oak tree in my yard that is not in ORBX scenery can we get someone to model it?

[Alex Goff]

You might actually be surprised how old of imagery we have to use from time to time. In Alaska and New Zealand there were several photoreal areas with the latest imagery from 2004-2006.

Given how limited and expensive imagery is in the UK, 2009 does not sound unreasonably old. It could even be possible that there is newer affordable imagery available but it is of a low resolution, obscured by clouds, taken at a bad time of day.

[raymar99]

You might actually be surprised how old of imagery we have to use from time to time. In Alaska and New Zealand there were several photoreal areas with the latest imagery from 2004-2006.

Given how limited and expensive imagery is in the UK, 2009 does not sound unreasonably old. It could even be possible that there is newer affordable imagery available but it is of a low resolution, obscured by clouds, taken at a bad time of day.

Hello Alex,

Interesting. I guess we are spoiled by the typical 2 year old super high resolution scenery in the high density areas in the U.S. If MSE v2 can sell every Terminal Area in the U.S. for $15 each today it must have to do with Location and a Density of demand.

Adding a building at 7cm resolution might just be the answer to this one.

Regards,

Ray

[John Venema]

Enough.

If Heiko sees fit to release an SP for the airport then you may get the building that detracts from the airport for you so much.

Locking this now, you've more than stated your point.