Word of warning: Dont buy London landmarks (orbx)!

[B777ER 2,475]

55 minutes ago, Carts85 said:

From the Orbx forums which the topic is now locked as a known issue and is to be fixed:

 

 To that end we will take feedback on some the most highly sought after Landmarks and create higher definition models as a free upgrade, taking into account the sim performance at the same time

Translation - we got called out for shilling garbage and now I guess we will have to fix it.

Their clowns for mod's will now vigorously close and issue warnings that all future posts will be moderated to anyone that posts about it. Typical of that outfit.

Edited August 19, 2020 by B777ER

[Farlis 2,277]

ORBX already stated that they will remove their versions of landmarks that already existed in the sim, because Asobo's look better.

[ca_metal 2,015]

2 minutes ago, Farlis said:

ORBX already stated that they will remove their versions of landmarks that already existed in the sim, because Asobo's look better.

Good! But they were supposed to not be there in the first place. It looks like a rushed port, in my opinion. Any QA team should have reported that prior to the release.

Edited August 19, 2020 by ca_metal

[RamonB 449]

18 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

But a more realistic rendition of London from 3,000'? Also absolutely.

It looks even better at 30,000 ft. 😀 <sorry>

But, seriously this is NOT the ORBX we are used to.
They raised the bar way high before, it should stay up.
 

[Skywolf 992]

ouch

At the same time Orbx was involved heavily in building of the sim.  Things happen.  I am still a Orbx fandude (if I put boy next to it - the word gets banned what gives avsim).  Yep, next update will remove their versions of default poi's.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Skywolf

[Stoopy 1,571]

They're probably thinking they could sell it to me and get away with it, 
because I've never been to London
But I really like the Beatles

And I won't need to buy any North American scenery, 
because I tried flying out to Las Vegas
and I've only got to Needles 

 

[Carts85 1,203]

2 minutes ago, B777ER said:

Translation - we got called out for shilling garbage and now I guess we will have to do fix it.

Their clowns for mod's will now vigorously close and issue warnings that all future posts will be moderated to anyone that posts about it. Typical of that outfit.

Exactly, everyone needs to up there level of expectations. I think it’s something in the genetics of a simmer (not all) to be grateful for any shiny new piece of tinfoil.

[DPSimulation 235]

5 minutes ago, Farlis said:

ORBX already stated that they will remove their versions of landmarks that already existed in the sim, because Asobo's look better.

They have, but only after being called out on it and their initial replies weren't really showing much interest in rectifying it. I believe that thread and replies have now been removed from view as well.

[2reds2whites 827]

I appreciate that some of the models very low rent - and the textures low resolution, but lots of his issues are presented from literally metres from the object itself, as in on the road next to the building.

What do they look like from any reasonable flying altitude over London?

[frankla 44]

19 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Their airports look fine IMO, it's just the landmarks.

I agree, though the London City Airport in default has a dip (undulation) and in Orbx it does not. 

[Carts85 1,203]

1 minute ago, 2reds2whites said:

I appreciate that some of the models very low rent - and the textures low resolution, but lots of his issues are presented from literally metres from the object itself, as in on the road next to the building.

What do they look like from any reasonable flying altitude over London?

Being further enough away where it looks passable isn’t exactly the mindset any of us should take if your keen on moving the third party developers in the same direction as Asobo.

Set the standard high now or will be forever paying for mediocre products that offer minor improvements.

[2reds2whites 827]

1 minute ago, Carts85 said:

Being further enough away where it looks passable isn’t exactly the mindset any of us should take if your keen on moving the third party developers in the same direction as Asobo.

Set the standard high now or will be forever paying for mediocre products that offer minor improvements.

But does it offer a mediocre improvement for £7? 

This is a flight simulator - in the act of flight at any reasonable altitude, how does it look? I don't have it so I can't answer the question. And it might look awful, but I suspect it'll look pretty good from a reasonable height, say 2000ft?

[FishBowlMan 56]

8 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

I appreciate that some of the models very low rent - and the textures low resolution, but lots of his issues are presented from literally metres from the object itself, as in on the road next to the building.

What do they look like from any reasonable flying altitude over London?

Apparently the night lighting and the time that it activates is a bit out of whack with the default city, but I'd imagine their add-on buildings look reasonable and blend in well from a distance. Had they not overwritten existing buildings with ones of a lower quality (which apparently they are now removing from the package) there probably wouldn't have been such a backlash.

Edited August 19, 2020 by FishBowlMan
clarity

[2reds2whites 827]

Just now, FishBowlMan said:

Apparently the night lighting and the time that it activates is a bit out of whack with the default city, but I'd imagine it looks reasonable and blends in well from a distance. Had they not overwritten existing buildings with ones of a lower quality (which apparently they are now removing from the package) there probably wouldn't have been such a backlash.

Yeah, that was an odd choice - no idea why they did that. 

[cwburnett 1,809]

13 minutes ago, Carts85 said:

You’re making the assumption that more POI’s means we must settle for lower resolution? Why?

I'm not making that assumption. It is just reality today. You can add POIs or not, totally up to you. Do you think I don't want higher res everything? Of course I do, but unless I'm mistaken, I have two choices today: default with 3 nice buildings and the rest of the city inaccurate, or 50 (estimate) accurately placed and sized buildings that don't look great up close. I chose to go with the second, but many may choose the first. I'm not trying to sell anyone anything, but I also think it is appropriate to present a fair and rational assessment if we're going to have a thread about a product.

I just can't understand the conspiracy theories and the desire to assume the worst in people...doesn't make sense...this is supposed to be fun...

I hope they update this product with higher resolution models, fix some of the weird mesh issues along the river and fix the night lighting. It was a miss to replace the default models that were of higher quality, obviously. They said they would be enhancing the product and they have a track record of doing that across their product line. In the meantime, I appreciate that they took the time to port their existing landmarks over to improve the overall look and feel of London and make it available to us for a low cost. I don't think we need to get our pitchforks out because they made a mistake...

Why all the hyperbole and hate this week?