Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Treetops45

The Great Orbx Confusion

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RancidViper said:

If ORBX had actually used the term Required, then that is wrong, however who's to say it wasn't a mistake because I have never seen the word required before. Recommended? Yes. Not Required.

Seriously? Just head over to ORBX, it is still written "required" for each and every product. People not making this up...

  • Upvote 1

Greetings, Chris

Intel i7-8700K@5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz CL14 RAM, Gigabyte AORUS 1080Ti, Windows 10 Home 64bit, Prepar3D 4.5

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, RancidViper said:

Hmmm... Maybe it's just the fact that i've been using ORBX for years now and have a very clear understanding of what their products do, that I was able to understand that you can obviously install an airport on any scenery, but it will obviously blend better with ORBX stuff.

I mean seriously, do we not have this logical thinking ability?

If ORBX had actually used the term Required, then that is wrong, however who's to say it wasn't a mistake because I have never seen the word required before. Recommended? Yes. Not Required.

Watch the video, numerous examples and screen shots provided. Or go look yourself if they haven't changed it yet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bigt said:

Watch the video, numerous examples and screen shots provided. Or go look yourself if they haven't changed it yet.

Fair enough. That wording is definitely misleading for new customers.

I guess I never bother reading it because I already know how it works.

Cheers

  • Like 1

Intel Core i7-6700k CPU Overclocked to 4.50GHz - 16GB RAM, Nvidia Geforce GTX980ti 6GB, Windows 10 Home 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Sorry, but definitely no. Go over to Oxford dictionary and look "required" up. It is NOT Froogle's interpretation, the text how it is written in the product pages on ORBX clearly say's that for the use of the product, another product is mandatory (just another way to describe a required addition). The argumentation here is somehow rather ridiculous, sorry to say, but certainly not consistent. Just read throught the product pages, there you will also find sentences like:

"Microsoft .NET Framework 4.5 or above is required by FTX Central v3"

With your understanding of "required", this would equally mean FTXC runs without NET Framework 4.5. Does it? No.

Even more, it is written:

"To download and install this product you will need FTX Central v3"

Not "require", "Need". Again Oxford: "Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable." Funny, no? Oxford uses the word "require" to describe what "need" means.

So, no, I disagree. If you write the sentence on your product page that ORBX does:

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

clearly states without any room for interpretation that the following product(s) is/are MANDATORY.

And no, this is not "standard business practice". Just think a second about other comparable examples and you will realize that there you as well would go nuts.

+1 

Like it or not, this here from Chris is totally correct. Well said Chris. 

This is not about whether Orbx products are good or bad, this is all about correct communication to customers. This is not about what someone interprets or assumes, its about clear instruction or direction from a company about its products. There is no room for excuse in this case.

Many can say "no(t) (that) big (a) deal", but by saying this, that too is against Orbx, because no doubt Orbx missed (so many ,<tons of>) opportunities to sell products because of this. Imagine if tens of thousands more airports per year were purchased by simmers on a budget. It suddenly becomes more obvious not to belittle this topic. 

All around, no matter what the intention, or whether an error, and from every angle, this hurts all of us. 

   

  • Like 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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. Technically you could buy Microsoft Office and try to run it on WINE under Linux rather than on the required Windows, but don't expect much help or support from Microsoft about it when it doesn't look as expected. Same goes for websites that only work well in one particular browser etc....

The statement that the airports can be used without the regions is actually correct and they are aren't purposely crippled just to sell more regions. The developers who make these airports do so on top of an existing region, and so if people don't use the regions, well the airport then won't look like the developer had intended. But you are not forced to install the region to buy the airport, but in my definition, it is required. Again, just arguing semantics here 🙂.

You can use all my freeware airports and regions I've made without any X-Plane default scenery installed, it will work and you can land on waterworld quite nicely, but I would prefer to say that at least the default scenery is "required". 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, i'm amazed how many jump in to blindly defend ORBX, calling it a "non-issue" or "created drama", but completely ignoring the fact how cheaply ORBX handled the issue after it was brought up! 

Is it because people spent a fortune on ORBX products and now feel obliged to defend them? (i spent a lot of money on ORBX stuff too btw) Or is it  simply because they despise froogle and his channel?

For those who didnt bother to watch the video and went straight into defense mode, here's a screenshot from one of the ORBX product pages:

RQ1LlYn.png

 

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. 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Woozie said:

"Required" indicates that it wont work properly without the other product. 

Try it without NA Northern California installed. Your definition of "required" would be correct, it won't work properly as the developer had intended

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Try it without NA Northern California installed. Your definition of "required" would be correct, it won't work properly as the developer had intended

It is really impressive how stubborn you stick to the totally irrelevant fact whether or not the product actually works with or without the product listed as "required", I am amazed. It is NOT the duty of the customer to "test" this out, if it is clearly written that the other product is required. And I repeat myself: it is NOT about how people define "required" (that is defined by the english dictionary), it is about what the sentence from ORBX on the product page tells a potential customer and this is without any discussion that the other product is mandatory for it to work...

I really do not get the hassle here. ORBX does wonderful work, I own a lot of their products, as Froogle does. He is simply pointing to a misleading sentence that you can find on most of the ORBX airport products and he is absolutely right to do so. And again, no, this is not about how people Interpret this sentence. It is there and it is misleading. Of course, the utterly ridiculous bashing posts in regard of ORBX are not worth anything. I will also continue to buy products from ORBX, but it is correct to put the finger on this misleading text and hopefully ORBX will adjust it to a more suitable wording.

Honestly, I do not understand how people can insist so much in defending ORBX. Do you get a product for free doing so? No? People should stop thinking like it is still year 2000 where most of the addons were freeware developed by Simming-Geeks in their freetime and criticism was almost like acting against a religion. Nowadays, selling addons is a business like any other and as such, criticism has to have its place. There is really no need or reason to defend huge addon selling studios such as ORBX in a way like they are still the small group of enthusiasts doing some good for the benefit of the simming community.

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 2

Greetings, Chris

Intel i7-8700K@5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz CL14 RAM, Gigabyte AORUS 1080Ti, Windows 10 Home 64bit, Prepar3D 4.5

Share this post


Link to post

As usual, many people don't think about the real costs. The most expensive part in all developments are the tests. I think when the first airports were made for use with the OrbX regions, there were already many alternative base textures and meshes available. It would have been totally impossible to test with all these products. In fact if I remember correctly the first OrbX airports were in fact free. So it was never a question if you would support them with other base products.

And then they simply reused this statement since you don't want to test them with other base systems and you don't really want to give support for other products, that you simply do not know. 

And now years later the question occurs in X-Plane. But X-Plane had an extremly complicated mesh, so there are very few products that wrote their own mesh. So the number of possible complications is much smaller. and suddenly people really look at this statement.

I think OrbX simply never tested their airports with other solutions so they can only guess, that the airports more or less should work with other solutions, but they simply don't know.

I think the real problem is, that many people only look at this argument as a marketing tool, while for OrbX and many developers it simply states we have tested this and it should work in such an environment. Companies always have to look at such statements very carefully since these words also say: Do we have to give the money back if a product doesn't work.

Edited by Longranger

Karsten Schubert

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Try it without NA Northern California installed. Your definition of "required" would be correct, it won't work properly as the developer had intended

 

4 minutes ago, Longranger said:

I think the real problem is, that many people only look at this argument as a marketing tool, while for OrbX and many developers it simply states we have tested this and it should work in such an environment. 

That's not what the ad said. It said you REQUIRE one of the following products to USE KHAF.

What's more, Froogle's reason for putting up this video is that in an earlier video in which he was actually recommending an ORBX airfield, he had incorrectly, because of the wording in ORBX's ad, told viewers that they needed such-and-such a region for this product to work. It seems reasonable to me that he's now letting his followers know that this was incorrect advice, so they can go ahead and buy this product even if they don't already have the REQUIRED region, and also letting them know how he (understandably in my opinion) came to get it wrong.

I personally believe the advert was careless rather than shady, and that it quite probably cost ORBX a number of sales because prospective buyers took the wording in the advert to mean what it said.

And by the way, like Froogle, I am enthusiastic user of ORBX products.

Dugald

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, AnkH said:

it is about what the sentence from ORBX on the product page tells a potential customer and this is without any discussion that the other product is mandatory for it to work...

but that's my point, it doesn't work correctly. You can still install it, but it doesn't work as per the product description. They'd get into more hassle if they wrote "For the best experience, we recommend you use....", because it would look pretty bad without their recommendation, and there would many more angry people than a few arguing on a forum about the meaning of a word. As a software developer, when I write programs (outside of simulation), I'll state what is required to run it smoothly and if users choose not to use it, then they're on their own in terms of support

16 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Honestly, I do not understand how people can insist so much in defending ORBX. Do you get a product for free doing so? No?

Happens all the time. Look at PMDG or FSLabs as an example. There are hundreds of users/fans who will defend it to the death. It's nothing new on the Internet. Before Froogle bought this up to get people flowing to his Youtube channel by causing a controversy it was really not an issue and just common-sense it was stated as required. Now suddenly ORBX are the next big evil company conning people out of their hard earned money because John said that they don't force people to have the regions installed.

8 minutes ago, Longranger said:

I think OrbX simply never tested their airports with other solutions so they can only guess, that the airports more or less should work with other solutions, but they simply don't know.

It's simple really in the case of EGHI and TrueEarth South. The developer working on EGHI worked with me before TrueEarth was even released to make sure it all worked together smoothly and blended nicely, and the beta testers all tested it as well. We know it absolutely works with this region and mesh because it's tested to do so and was designed that way, as will further airports for the region. It's such a simple airport in this case (being flat) that it will work with other stuff, like HD Mesh v4, but that's not what it has been tested on.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If it were really necessary to purchase ORBX regions in order to use a particular airport then that would be fine, however John Venema stated, in a reply to Froogle's original news video, that "I’m not being rude to anyone, merely stating fact (our airports work fine without our regions)" and "it’s not mandatory. It’s a recommendation because we design all our airports to sit on top of our regions. Always have done, always will do, we don’t make any excuses about it."

If it's genuinely only a recommendation then why not simply state that on each product page? I wouldn't have any problem with that. The issue is because ORBX are saying it's a requirement, not a recommendation. If it's not a requirement then ORBX need to change the wording on their website, because at the moment the website is misleading.

I too have purchased plenty of ORBX airports and regions, but I'm not impressed with how they are handling this current issue.

Matthew

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Matthew Spedding

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Orbx never said "required in order to be able to install"

Qf56hfv.png

"Required in order to be able to use" is pretty close to "Required in order to be able to install" don't you think?

By the way I also find it quite ironic how some of you were very quick to dismiss the problem by saying people are looking for drama and conspiracy theories, while at the same time calling out Froogle for making the video because of some grand scheme he had to get clicks for his youtube channel...

Edited by LB777
  • Like 6
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

This has probably been mentioned, but don't go crying to the ftx forums when the airport doesn't blend well with the surrounding area. I'm sure that this type of support is what ORBX was/has been trying to avoid. By saying that the region is required they avoid having to support the addon without the required region, even if they lose some sales. That the way it has to be stated, "REQUIRED!"

This is known since the first full version of FTX AU was released.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    22%
    $5,500.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...