Jump to content

Ruby Tuesday

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Ruby Tuesday

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

400 profile views
  1. Well, both look fairly flat and washed out - so what's your point? RT.
  2. Didn't see John's post until mine had already gone out - crossed wires and a couple of distractions while I was writing that longish post. Good news about time scale. ORBX are doing a great job on these updates for zero income in the interest of good customer relations. But JV's news doesn't actually alter my argument and I stick to the principle of my earlier views. The release of non- O.F. freeware was, in my opinion, a litmus test of customer patience for a potential delay in the delivery full O.F. update - a contingency against possible delay. The consensus of views coming back through this debate is that most users would be happy to use non O.F downloads and wait patiently for the full update. That's fine and it looks like their patience will be soon rewarded. However, if a general release of full O.F. update was guaranteed be that imminent as of last week why, at that time, seek user feedback on accepting updates without O.F.? It looks like O.F. progress is coming through quicker and/or with more certainty than maybe ORBX were expecting a week ago,but that's just my speculation. Anyway it is good news but I'll remain a lone voice on my position that maybe in future we should be prepared to pay a little to keep these upgrades coming in a timely fashion if their development has to compete with ORBX's expansion into other areas. Maybe the big step is behind us with the move to 64 bit, but there will be a steady stream of changes and hotfixes coming from LM. and others and the burden on ORBX will continue. Some developers put a time limit on their software maintenance and after [in one case 3 years] the user pays a modest sum to keep [in this case] the aircraft compatible with the latest versions of the sims. We are currently fortunate indeed that ORBX don't see the need to do this but if in future they need to go down this path to avoid resource conflicts between current product updates and new developments that's fine by me. If anyone from ORBX wants to comment on this they no doubt will.. RT
  3. I'm perhaps going to be a lone dissenting voice on this topic. From my perspective I want to see the pressure kept on ORBX to rework object flow to 64bit compatibility. I note that ORBX are now developing product across a range of flight sim platforms; which is good, because it strengthens the company's product base, gives its customers a choice of flight-sim products and thereby helps, generally, to promote flight-sim development - so in the end we all win. But I believe that every existing P3D v4 / ORBX user who accepts a "halfway house" by using their paid-for airports without object flow may well be diminishing the imperative on ORBX to get object flow fixed; and may, quite understandably, lead ORBX to divert development resource to other emerging market opportunities. I wouldn't blame ORBX for doing this, after all their primarily purpose is to make money and grow their business and new product generates cash while fixing existing stuff doesn't. I see whole purpose of Mr. Correia "seeking feedback" as being to inform ORBX business decisions on how to shape their business plan and development priorities. And this is our opportunity to inform him. Now to make myself really popular. I have always been impressed not to say amazed by the effort invested by ORBX and other developers [e.g. VRS] to keep their add-on products compatible with functional software changes introduced by flight sim platform vendors, and to do so free of charge. In the past this may not have been especially burdensome, but since the advent of P3D and LM's regular beat of hotfixes and version upgrades this sense of fair-play to the customer must have become fairly costly. Now we have a step change in P3D with the issue of a 64 bit V4 which we, the users, have been keen to take-up; so keen in fact that we all paid another $60 [or whatever] for the privilege. But ORBX, bless 'em, have dug in to rework their product for 64bit compatibly without any mention of charging for their effort. While I greatly appreciate that, I don't see it as necessarily fair. I now find myself in the position of wanting my suite of ORBX airfields to work, properly, with all the object flow and seasonal dependant bits and pieces [call me picky but I don't find the prospect of a water base without a pier appealing] and I don't liked the thought of this desire being frustrated by perhaps avoidable slippage in the reworking of object flow. To come to the point, I, for one, am willing to pay ORBX a reasonable sum to help keep object flow at the top of their "to-do" list. That doesn't mean I want to buy all my airfields all over again, but I do think a reasonable and proportional upgrade charge would be fair. Whatever your priorities ORBX - thank you I do appreciate your efforts and your product. Once I get a full 64 bit ORBX world slipping beneath the wings of a VRS F18F/G [64bit pending] I'll be flying. All the best RT
×
×
  • Create New...