The Great Orbx Confusion

[pracines 823]

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

I still don't understand the commotion here. The airports are built to work on a specific scenery and mesh, etc. That would make them "required" to me.

I totally agree with you on this Tony. The commotion begins with the official statement (disagreement with Froogle) from Orbx saying they are not required, just recommended. The new "recommended" stance throws a wrench into the mix, and I personally never bought an airport assuming it would work when Orbx specifically said that another product was required; yet some are saying that they knew this recommended stance, which makes no sense to me, unless they read an obscure forum post stating so, or like you are a developer for Orbx.

However the "semantics" argument cannot be properly applied in this specific case. We are talking about explicit words and instructions with explicit meanings. There is absolutely no way to confuse the words recommended and required, it's just not possible, unless one chooses to willfully blind themselves to the truth. 

  

[glider1 90]

"Recommended" is too weak and "Required" is too strong.

If Orbx would have thought this through the solution is to say:

"The product will not be supported unless installed with the region"

[CFIJose 5,485]

That where JV made the mistake. By now, he should know better. Why he decided to give into Frooglesim is beyond comprehension.

[AnkH 2,230]

After all it is somehow funny that JV actively comments the Frooglesim video containing the statement that you are required to buy TE South England to use Southhampton to be totally wrong while ORBX uses exactly the same statement for each and every airport scenery on their product pages. Obviously that is not the same to some of the folks here...

[pracines 823]

2 hours ago, Woozie said:

You see that last sentence?

"You require at least one of the following products to use KHAF Half Moon Bay Airport"

wouldn't it be much more transparent if it would have been worded like:

"For the best possible experience we recommend using KHAF with the following products"

I fell into that trap as well because i know the difference between "required" and "recommended". "Required" indicates that it wont work properly without the other product. 

There is nothing that says anything about "properly" in the requirements. 

You ruined or at the very least totally weakened your argument by thinking that "required" had to do with properly functioning. The bolded copy from the site says "to use". 

 

[katice 35]

4 hours ago, tonywob said:

ell, reading the product page for EGHI, I see "For the best experience, ORBX TrueEarth Great Britain South should be purchased and installed prior to using this airport.". But people seem to be taking it as some sort of big conspiracy to force people to spend more money and mislead them, and it isn't. Of course ORBX would like customers to spend more money and buy both (they're a business after all), but they're not forcing people to do so

Are you purposefully ignore ALL other products that state that their regions are REQUIRED and a PREREQUISITE?

Is your argument really is coming down to "well, but this one product does not use  this is wording!"? Because that's a bit sad. I know you now work with ORBX on X-Plane sceneries but I always had you in hard regard when it came to applying logic to your statements. ☹️

I agree with you though, this isn't a huge deal, however I don't know how biased or deluded one would have to be to deny the fact that current wording is *misleading* to say the least. If you don't agree just look at the youtube or reddit comments from users that weren't in fact aware that they are not REQUIRED but highly recommended. 

ORBX should just change wording to something along the lines that Froogle stated in his video and the whole issue would have been resolved. But no, now we have to have several page long thread becuase people like you don't understand what semantics is. 

Required and recommended aren't synonymous and you know this very well but choose to be willfully [apparently you can't even use that word around here] 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by katice

[JoeFackel 760]

A nominee for the 2018 Academy Award category "most absurd discussion". 🤪

[AnkH 2,230]

20 minutes ago, pracines said:

There is nothing that says anything about "properly" in the requirements. 

You ruined or at the very least totally weakened your argument by thinking that "required" had to do with properly functioning. The bolded copy from the site says "to use". 

He did not ruin anything, as "to use" is even more strict than "properly". Properly would at least mean that you can use it without the other product, but it is not working as intended. "to use" basically says what we discuss here: without the other product, the airport simply does not work. Not even not properly...

Let's try another one, because I basically agree that it might be already common knowledge regarding ORBX (which still does not make the product page more correct). Let's take the just recently announced product of Justflight, VFR Real Scenery NexGen 3D South England. Let's assume, they release an airport scenery in South England in two, three months and on the product page it is written: "You require at least one of the following products to use our novel airport scenery: VFR Real Scenery NexGen 3D South England".

What would you now do or think in such a situation? And why should it be different from ORBX? Think about it...

Or: if Aerosoft suddenly releases a A330 with a comparable text on the product page: "You require the A320 Professional for the use of the A330". What would that tell you? That you can easily go for the A330 without the A320 and that this is just a recommendation? Not really...

[simfan1983 185]

Some people commenting in this thread do not seem to have watched the relevant Froogle videos, but are happy to jump in without the necessary information.

FYI the bit under dispute is in Froogle's news video for 28 October from 2 minutes 12 seconds in.

Froogle is 100% correct IMO. His video baulked at the cost of the airport, due to ORBX's website saying that you are required to buy the region as well. ORBX then made an inaccurate comment below Froogle's video instead of correcting the wording on their website or defending the cost as justified by the amount of work.

I have been put off buying more ORBX airports because I thought the region was required, because that's what their website said. ORBX have shot themselves in the foot with this one and owe Froogle an apology.

Until they do that, I'll stay clear of buying more of their products. Honesty and good manners wouldn't cost them anything!

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by LEdwards

[Poppet 703]

Insulting comments towards the Avsim staff have been removed. 

Topic has gone south and was never going to go anywhere but to this point.   

Topic locked 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, AnkH said:

"You require at least one of the following products to use.."

I guess we disagree, I know what is says and I know what it doesn't say ... Froogle had made the assumption of "required to install" which was NOT said.  "Required to use" is IMHO accurate ... who wants to land on a runway or airport that's set 200 ft up in the air above the surrounding area so the airport looks like it's placed on top of a cliff?  Or as Tony pointed out, is out in the ocean when it should be on land near a shoreline?  So "required to use" is accurate ... if it said "required to install" then that would NOT be accurate, but it doesn't say that.

Cheers, Rob.