Disappointed by Digital Design quality in MSFS

[guenseli 1,598]

Digital Design was formerly known as a high quality scenery developer in P3D.

I was very excited to get LOWS Salzburg shortly after the release of MSFS and wasn't very nitpicking about the obvisiously bugs in the scenery due to the possible issues of the new platform MSFS. But now, after more then a year after release, no update, nothing has changed, not the slightes attempt to improve things.

And I was really disappointed by the shortly released Leipzig EDDP: satellite images not edited, you can see satellite aircrafts on the apron. Texture tiling, bumps on the runway.

 

Here are some examples of LOWS

 

 

 

 

and not to say, that the textures and modelling of Hangar 7 is not state of the art nowadays. We even do not have a parking spot at Hangar 7 as it was in the P3D version.

 

So, all in all too sad, that a former quality developer seems not to catch the new techniques and simply tries to sell his old stuff.

[Sethos 4,443]

Seems to be the case with a handful of developers. Their conversions have felt completely phoned in, with little care or attention to detail. Luckily we still have some names who pride themselves in their work. 

[Reader 2,034]

What is the motive behind posting here, when one can speak directly to the developer,
the one who can do something about your observations, here:
Digital Design | Facebook

 

[F737MAX 5,696]

21 minutes ago, Reader said:

What is the motive behind posting here, when one can speak directly to the developer,

To point out to others who may be tempted to buy their MSFS products believing that they will get the same high standard we've been used to with their P3D stuff.

@guenseli Thanks for pointing this out.
 

Edited November 19, 2021 by F737NG

[guenseli 1,598]

21 minutes ago, Reader said:

What is the motive behind posting here,

 

That I don't post anything on Facebook?!

 

If the Dev yould have a forum (as most devs), I would post there

[Reader 2,034]

1 minute ago, F737NG said:

To point out to others who may be tempted to buy their MSFS products believing that they will get the same high standard we've been used to with their P3D stuff.

Is this a team effort? 
It seems to me that a more constructive way forward would be to visit the Facebook site, speak to the developer and ask for fixes to the things that are not deemed to be adequate.
Overall, the airport seems to resemble the real world and the duplicate windsocks can be fixed, as can the other details.
If the choice is not to visit facebook, then that is a personal approach and there is no need to issue a general warning.
It is little wonder that this site has the reputation that it has.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

28 minutes ago, Reader said:

What is the motive behind posting here, when one can speak directly to the developer,
the one who can do something about your observations, here:
Digital Design | Facebook

 

Was if one doesn't use Toxic(face)book? 

[Reader 2,034]

If one can stand the heat here, then a specific facebook page should not be a challenge.
It's a place where the developer can be spoken with, it's not Reddit where there is a free for all.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

2 minutes ago, Reader said:

If one can stand the heat here, then a specific facebook page should not be a challenge.
It's a place where the developer can be spoken with, it's not Reddit where there is a free for all.

Not really. Facebook is like the depths of depravity. This place has its moments, but it is a fresh of breath air in comparison. 

Anyways, that is an opinion and irrelevant; the point is, lots of people don't use facebook for various reasons, so, again, what if one does not use facebook? 

[Reader 2,034]

It seems obvious, one resorts to a pointless post expressing dissatisfaction with a product on a forum that the developer very likely does not visit.
I am not sure that I, my family, my friends and the millions of other facebook users really are in "depths of depravity.
The facebook experience is very much in the hands of the user and our experience seems to be different to yours, if indeed you even have one at all.

 

[Flying-Hare 218]

And I like their work. Various small things can be fixed in the update.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

12 minutes ago, Reader said:

It seems obvious, one resorts to a pointless post expressing dissatisfaction with a product on a forum that the developer very likely does not visit.

What is wrong with that? 
I wrote comments in the 911 group all the time, doesn’t mean porsche visit and read them….! 
 

And his post wasn’t pointless. He’s letting other people know, that may have been about to purchase it, that in his opinion, it is not ready. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Ianrivaldosmith

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

12 minutes ago, Reader said:

The facebook experience is very much in the hands of the user

That bit made me chuckle. Hahaha I’m still laughing now. 

[captain420 3,099]

Well obviously not all of us use toxic socialist media. So it's great to be able for a community member to share his experiences and opinion on a particular product so that we can be informed on if the product is worth it for us or not. C'mon, use some common sense. Or like they say these days, common sense isn't so common anymore. Had the OP not posted it here. I would've missed this important piece of information and wasted my time and money on purchasing subpar scenery that I may not be able to get a refund for. If you don't understand something as simple as that, then I feel sorry for you.

[guenseli 1,598]

Yes, my intention was not to give the dev some constructive hints what he could do better.

I'm very sure he has enough knowledge and for sure he had enough time to fix things. If you see the aerial airplane leftovers at EDDP you will know clearly that he has no interest to deliver better quality. Or if he can't it is pointless anyway.

So, if anyone is interested in one of these two sceneries he could decide before (however, regarding LOWS there's no choice currently as far as I know.)