Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello Mr Low,

is this a request to have them removed or just an observation?

If it is a request, like the many other requests in this topic, then please say so.

The developer has just posted that all the items reported will be attended to,

so if you have an item to add, please add it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, this item has not been reported before, Nick. Another one is that the ground markings for Stands 208 and 209 need to be switched. All of these observations will help the developer with any updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

to be clear then, there are default edge lights in the simulator but there are none

at the real world airport and they should therefore be removed?

The second report is that ground markings for Stands 208 and 209 are incorrectly each at the other's location?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default AFD edge lights should not even be visible, as (I am assuming) all of the lights will be custom. In addition, if you have a look at the AFD file, you will see that the positions of most of them do not make a lot of sense. If there is a reason for them being there, then hopefully someone can explain it to me.

With respect to the ground markings for Stands 208 and 209.....the numbers next to the arrows that point from the taxiway to the stand parking positions are incorrect. The arrow with "208" next to it is pointing to Stand 209, and the arrow with "209" next to it is pointing to Stand 208. The ironic part of this is that the same issue exists in the UK2000 Xtreme version!

I also noticed that the car park textures are extremely low resolution (very fuzzy and indistinct)

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

With respect to the ground markings for Stands 208 and 209.....the numbers next to the arrows that point from the taxiway to the stand parking positions are incorrect. The arrow with "208" next to it is pointing to Stand 209, and the arrow with "209" next to it is pointing to Stand 208. The ironic part of this is that the same issue exists in the UK2000 Xtreme version!

 

 

 

 

 

Hello again,

if I was a beta tester I might have wondered how it could be

that such renowned developers as UK 2000 and Orbx could have made such an elementary

mistake as to paint markings onto virtual concrete that point to the wrong stands.

 

5.jpg

 

However, I am not, so I went to Google Earth and found that the authorities at Edinburgh Airport

have made the same mistake.

 

1.jpg

 

Also, I am not seeing anything wrong with the many car parks.

I agree that we cannot see the individual grains of the chippings in the tarmac but the addition of the markings seems to have counteracted that well enough.

 

2.jpg

 

3.jpg

 

4.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing that out, Nick. The NATS AIS website airport chart must have the designations reversed (which is where I checked). However, that means that the AFD file designation is incorrect for this stand. It is defined as "209", but it should be "208".

 

As for the car parks, the ones in your lower screenshot look very fuzzy on my PC. That is probably because you have the texture resolution set to 2048 or 4096. However, 1024 textures should not look like this....

 

http://www.mediafire.com/view/fju6qnskjjjy3vb/Edinburgh1.jpg/file

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that lowering texture settings and then complaining that they are not as sharp

as they could be is in fact a problem with this or any other airport product.

It's perhaps a bit like flying at night and complaining that one cannot see the scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 8:53 PM, Trevor Hannant said:

Chris, are you referring to the taxiway edge lights?  If so I raised it earlier:

 

 

 

I believe the taxiway edge lights are actually fixed in the ground and aren't attached to the yellow sticks, so it's completely different within the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thomas Greer said:

 

I believe the taxiway edge lights are actually fixed in the ground and aren't attached to the yellow sticks, so it's completely different within the sim.

 

As per my quote in the reply you've quoted:

Quote

Taxiway light(s):

Green centre-line lighting with blue edge lights on sharp curves, red stop bars at holding points. Runway exits have alternate green/yellow centre-line lights to the CAT ll/lll stop bars. Runway guard lights on accesses to runway.

 

The above is from the official NATS AIP documentation.  Checking a video of an arrival I made to EDI a couple of years back, there are no visible lights on the taxiways other than the centrelines as above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that the AIP information is available and that Gaya should simply build the taxiway lighting as stated in the AIP. That AND reduce the edge lights halo size, which is quite excessive at present.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

With regard to the AFCAD, there seems to be a blockage to Taxiway Alpha when AI traffic are taxiing to the gate.

 

Landing on Rwy 06 and turning off at end of the runway and proceeding on Taxiway Alpha, the UTL traffic while taxiing pass taxiway Papa to their left and before reaching the taxiway Mike, ATC instruct the traffic to STOP as there is conflict with other traffic on the taxiway Alpha DESPITE there being NO other traffic in sight.

 

I observed this over a 40 minute period and every UTL traffic aircraft is stopped on A between P and M and then because they have not been instructed to proceed, they just disappear.!!

 

I then reinstalled my UK 2000 Edinburgh and sat at same point and observed that all AI traffic passed by with no problem. There has to be some hidden object  on the AFCAD near to the taxiway to stop all traffic.

 

Just another item for the developers to look at on top of all the other preceding posts.

 

thanks

 

Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good question. But as this thread is marked as "answered" (due to whatever reason...), I guess it is not on the focus of the dev anymore. Also the "other" thread is not progressing anywhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Well, good question. But as this thread is marked as "answered" (due to whatever reason...), I guess it is not on the focus of the dev anymore. Also the "other" thread is not progressing anywhere...

 

The thread is answered in post 40, showing that the developer is noting all the reports in this topic.

To satisfy your apparent need, I have marked it as noted instead.

As mentioned above, an update is expected in January

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Nick Cooper, and sorry that I seem to be such a pain in the last few posts of mine... I am still utterly happy with ORBX products, it is just that I have the feeling quality is going down continuously and this somehow lets me write more emotional than intended...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 12:16 PM, AnkH said:

Thanks @Nick Cooper, and sorry that I seem to be such a pain in the last few posts of mine... I am still utterly happy with ORBX products, it is just that I have the feeling quality is going down continuously and this somehow lets me write more emotional than intended...

 

agreed how can you sell a product that is so obviously has issues is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just purchased Edinburgh airport today and I notice that the new stand 308-317 seem to be missing. Is Orbx Edinburgh based on an old terminal layout perhaps? If possible please add those to represent Edinburgh airport as it actually looks today. Thanks

 

Mike  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ORBx version of Edinburgh Airport is currently based on 2016 data, and therefore it does not include the new Turnhouse Apron. I think that the developer has indicated that an update for this may be possible at some point.

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I can really understand that a developer wont update their addon airport every time the real world airport change layout etc after its initial release, but the reasons to use a three year old layout from the get go is a little hard to understand for a quality addon like Orbx.

 

Hope you are right Chris and that they will update this with all other requested issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 10:01 AM, Nick Cooper said:

 

The thread is answered in post 40, showing that the developer is noting all the reports in this topic.

To satisfy your apparent need, I have marked it as noted instead.

As mentioned above, an update is expected in January

Hi Nick,

 

We are almost at "the end of january". Are updates of "when is the release" available? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont use Orbx Edinburgh  at present time, back to UK2000 version for now. The only reason I have not requested a refund is becasue I trusted there would be an update as promised. At present I find, and have found from the start the prodct as "faulty". If we see no update in reasonalble time is a refund still possible?    

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second this. If an update is not delivered as promised, I too will be making a request for a refund. Seems the ORBX label has lost a bit of its value. Gothenborg is absolutely awesome, but Edinburgh a disappointment. Will be awaiting reviews on any further releases before making another purchase.

(I have heard media from my country have been excluded from review copies because we are not a big enough market. :wacko:)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Went for a refund and if the update sorts the issues I will repurchase. It is very disappointing that an update is taking this long. I too will wait for reviews before purchasing any further airports!

Edited by joe d park
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I've been someone sat quietly waiting for the update. But it is getting to become a very excessive wait now. Imo there were very quick updates that could've been pushed a long time ago such as a broken ILS. It's very disappointing from a company I have always held such a high opinion of. I'm not quite at the stage to get a refund but I won't be buying the next sceneries until they have been thoroughly reviewed as quality control seems to have been neglected in this release.

 

Such a shame.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, 

 

First of all I would like to aknowledge we read the forums and aware of all issues people raised. Your feedback is important for us. 

I will also mention we are working on an update we plan to release soon. what is soon? as soon as possible actually. it's our first priority right now and we stopped other projects developing to make it. 


since we all part of the same community and passion I would like to bring you into the developer world for a minute. for those of you who working or have experience with other gaming/software development I'd say it's a little different from some reason ill not mention at that post.

Airports are places having massive and frequent changes and constructions all the time. the huge increase of the passengers and cargo traveling around the world make airports constructions essential. You can see it on almost any airport- buildings new buildings, buildings demolished, ground layout and markings sometims changing weekly with changes in some places, road is block here and new road open there. live area. 

When we come to develop and airport we start with research and decide what is the "freezing point" we choose. Freezing point? airport developing usually taking more than 1 week. it's mean there are good chances (probably 100%) there will be some changes at the airport during the developing time- some you know in advance and some not. We chose a "Freezing point", or as someone told in some forum "snapshot in time". That way is common also in developing real products (i.e electric things and even softwares/games). 

To all that story add the fact our simulators looks and behave different in any pc and in every monitor. The changes are massive! example- during the development we made the new terminal expansion. that expansion as seen from the images is made with grey aluminium/steel. when we made it we had an argue about the what is the right shade. we found (and know actually) each one of us see a little different shade because his monitor, his sim etc.). 

another funny thing is the accuracy dilemmas- the best way to illustrate it is Nick's post from Nov 18 (scroll up) where you can see ground marking directing to "wrong" parking positions- in the real imagery. it's mean the real EGPH made mistake. with whom should we go? with the pure accuracy or the real situation of the airport? if you will go with the real situation of the airport (as we did) than it will be incorrect, and If you will go with the "pure truth" it will represent wrong the situation of the airport. There will be always a pilot based on the specific airport who will mention "we know that and we use for that gourd mistake on the real world".

 

enough philosophy (it's our problem and not yours :) ) and back to customer support position. we working on the update for both EGPH and EGNX. the EGPH will come first and will deal with critical fixes (e.g ILS, taxi lights and more). We base on the satellite imagery we have which is pretty expensive and taking nice part of each project budget so not change often. 

 

I will monitor that thread personally way frequent from now. Also feel free to send me private messages. I can assure I answer and few guys got nice and proper answers for things they raised. 

 

Best regards, 

Raz

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Raz for your post, but to be perfectly honest here, I think you're missing the point.

This is not about how accurate the airport is to the real airport, which yes of course is being developed and changed all the time. The issue here is technical implementation and accuracy of your developer's work.

  • The ILS is broken, which would be a quick fix for someone knowing the workings of AFCAD files.
  • Flawless integration into FTX Scotland is advertised, but not delivered, since seasons don't match
  • Taxiway lights are a big mess and totally inaccurate, despite this data being readily available in the published AIP. And their visual representation is not at all matching what is visible to pilots IRL, its simply a bad design choice.
  • You placed what feels like a 100 people flow characters around the airport, with no way of customising their placement, as it is normal with all other ORBX products. This drags performance to a level that is WAY below competing airpots of similar size (ESGG is a perfect example)
  • Night lighting errors and rogue placement, a forgotten mip-map on a fence texture (at EGNX), stuff like that could be fixed in minutes and simply shows careless quality control

These are all items that have nothing to do with the continued development of the real airport counterpart. Things like that shouldn't even have made the first release, and yet, many months ofter that first release the update is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile Gaya is happy to show previews and progress reports of Vienna and Kos on social media, suggesting that those projects are your priority, not EGPH and EGNX, for which you have already received our money.

 

No hard feelings, just wanting to point out that your EGPH is not unusable because of discrepancies to the real airport, or questions about the correct shades of grey for building materials, at which you hint with your post. It is unusable due to technical mistakes and errors, wrong development  and design choices and bad quality control.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ed for recognizing defects in your QC/ Beta testing procedures. 

One can not improve without an acceptance of ones failings.

This is a new year and new progress will be made to achieve customers new satisfaction!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this is finally being looked at!

 

Further issues I have noticed:

(It would be nice to see it at least purple, or for extra pizazz, use SODE to display the different colours on certain dates!)

 

  • Double Jetway missing at Stand 16

Regards,

Luke

Edited by luke11brown
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 3:19 PM, mburkhard said:

Thanks Raz for your post, but to be perfectly honest here, I think you're missing the point.

This is not about how accurate the airport is to the real airport, which yes of course is being developed and changed all the time. The issue here is technical implementation and accuracy of your developer's work.

  • The ILS is broken, which would be a quick fix for someone knowing the workings of AFCAD files.
  • Flawless integration into FTX Scotland is advertised, but not delivered, since seasons don't match
  • Taxiway lights are a big mess and totally inaccurate, despite this data being readily available in the published AIP. And their visual representation is not at all matching what is visible to pilots IRL, its simply a bad design choice.
  • You placed what feels like a 100 people flow characters around the airport, with no way of customising their placement, as it is normal with all other ORBX products. This drags performance to a level that is WAY below competing airpots of similar size (ESGG is a perfect example)
  • Night lighting errors and rogue placement, a forgotten mip-map on a fence texture (at EGNX), stuff like that could be fixed in minutes and simply shows careless quality control

These are all items that have nothing to do with the continued development of the real airport counterpart. Things like that shouldn't even have made the first release, and yet, many months ofter that first release the update is nowhere in sight. Meanwhile Gaya is happy to show previews and progress reports of Vienna and Kos on social media, suggesting that those projects are your priority, not EGPH and EGNX, for which you have already received our money.

 

No hard feelings, just wanting to point out that your EGPH is not unusable because of discrepancies to the real airport, or questions about the correct shades of grey for building materials, at which you hint with your post. It is unusable due to technical mistakes and errors, wrong development  and design choices and bad quality control.

 

Unfortunately @razgo, I have to agree with the above.  For something as simple, and as necessary, as an ILS, a patch could have been issued within hours of it being highlighted.  While runway 24 is the preferred runway and is used almost all the time thanks to the prevailing Westerly winds, 06 is used a reasonable amount (there was a reasonable period of easterly ops recently...).  

 

For some, flying offline with "Clear Skies" weather will always bring them to 24, there's a significant portion of the customer base who use these products in an online environment - and if they're directed to 06 by online ATC (of which I'm one), then they'll be struggling with a visual approach in what may be non-VMC conditions.  Tunable, working ILS is not a "nice to have" in a sim product - it's an essential part of an airport infrastructure.

 

While you work on the visuals, lets get the ILS patch pushed out as a priority then follow up with the rest.   Even putting them out in smaller, more frequent packages would be better than waiting months on the full fix.  The longer customers have to wait on anything, the more trust is lost, not only in Gaya, but in ORBX themselves - and I'm sure that's not a position you want to be putting ORBX into...  @Ed Correia - thoughts on this approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...