Medellinexpat

This has been on my to buy list for quite a while as I believed that it was now effectively sorted out. I think I will put my wallet back in my pocket and await further news!
 

I don’t know the answer to this so it really is a question but did Thranda do ALL of the Xplane work for Carenado? I’d seen commentary on some of the later releases that the reason people found them so poor was that Thranda was no longer working on them.

Interesting and well thought out points. My observations

1. There have been several new start up developers during the pandemic in some ways making up for the drop in content from more traditional sources. In some cases this is likely people finding alternative income sources after losing work, in other monetizing the time at home that lockdowns have enforced. One questions is how active, if active at all, some of these new developers will be when life returns to normal. Some ai fear may become abandonware.

2. There seems to be an increasing trend not to sell software on the well known sites like the Org store. One understands developers wanting to save commissions but equally how will those products sell? Once the initial announcement is made of the availability of the software and where to go to buy it how will future purchasers even know of its existence let alone where to buy it or whether the site is safe? Again developers knowing how to code but having less idea on how to market I would suggest. Might we also find instances where software is made available on developers sites that might contain malware without the screening of the big sites? 
3. One does wonder just how well some developers are doing after stepping away from Xplane. Carenado would be an obvious example. Although their aircraft often had critics they did provide a good pipeline of aircraft into Xplane. I myself bought several. But there’s been nothing recently nor have I seen any signs of anything in the horizon or even much needed updates. Is their limited set of MSFS offerings replacing all of the old Xplane revenue. Is Carenado for Xplane now effectively abandonware?

Bought this today from the Org store and the review above is very accurate. I use it with Orbx TE Canaries and it looks excellent. As seems to be the case with DD the documentation is at best thin and there Installation with Orbx could do with a clarification or two. One thing is that the basic and the Orbx versions are both included in the package so your unzipped download is effectively twice the actual disk space needed. I also use JF’s Traffic Global and the airport was nicely populated with aircraft on the stands and heading for take off.

I’m not sure that the PP EGKK was beautifully rendered - it always seemed serviceable but not much more. The new Origami studios EGKK is much better.

I did not intend to suggest that the size of the aircraft should drive the price, rather that perhaps psychologically perhaps people think smaller aircraft, smaller price. The price doesn’t frighten me too much but most of the online comments aren’t positive. 
 

On Thranda my mistake I guess but have they done big jet work (thinking here of the projected A300, 747 and VC10) before? And if Thranda are involved why don’t JF make something of it? After all its only likely to sell more units with their reputation. Perhaps it might even be in your piece if that’s a definite?

On the FMC the suggestion is, if its like the P3D version, it should be a  UNS-1Lw. 

 

I am looking forward to this but a lot of the commentary online has not been positive. One thing, at the price, is that there are complaints that the preview shots just show the stock FMC. JF say that will be fixed but it does rather open the question what would be the correct FMC(s) for the aircraft? 
 

The likely price has also been generally lambasted. It isn’t cheap (JF aren’t a low cost shop) but its not that different to other new XPlane offerings like the 748, A300 and A350. It does make you wonder if the community expectation is that for a smaller aircraft, a regional jet, the price should be lower? Also it looks as if JF will be releasing multiple variants within the same pack, quite a deviation from the current trend of selling variants at an additional cost.

JF on their development page also suggest that for Xplane there is a VC10, an A300, a F-28 and a classic 747 in the pipeline. That’s quite a line up. Are they doing the work inhouse or have the Xplane conversions been farmed out?

I see that this scenery is already on sale. Developers need to understand that customers learn. 

I flew the 10 many times, mostly in AA colors but before that in BCAL. On what the simulation community wants it seems - that from most releases - it's current commercial aircraft. This issue is that one Airbus is pretty much like another - and some Boeings have been around for a long time - so perhaps the MD-11 is seen as something different. Generally though outside FJS and Rotate have classic aircraft succeeded, at least from a sales point of view? What is interesting is that how Rotate, who haven't had a new release in a very long time, are so well regarded based on the long running and excellent MD-80. What the community seems sure of is that Rotate are going to make the step up - the MD80 is great, but it is a little dated - with the MD11 to what contemporary XP11 aircraft can achieve. I've no reason to believe that they can't but  it does show the value of a good product and good customer relations with the community. Good vibes last a long time. Some other developers should take note.

I would agree that this is an excellent scenery and bought it from the Org.store recently. However there is a freeware Narita and that has quite a few fans some of whom seemed less than enthusiastic about there now being a payware competitor. Hopefully we’ll be seeing more good Asian sceneries in the future. Its an unrepresented area and somewhere to fly some of the long haulers that are becoming more available on Xplane.

Boundless have been coming along quite nicely with each new scenery seeming to improve on the past. They’ve also suggested some really interesting new developments including Palm Springs. They’ve also said they are going to support MSFS and they’re looking for someone to work on P3D conversions. It’s all very ambitious but we’ll need to see if the small team they have (two I believe) can execute.

I will almost certainly but this, but it’s interesting that this has so much attention of the community. But then I guess the release of the PMDG FSX version did as well.

I flew on the MD-11 many times, not easy to do as the passenger variant, at least in AA colors, had a short life. American wasn’t happy with the purchase, the performance being the stated issue but the landing behavior probably had them worried as well. Singapore just cancelled theirs when the real performance data was available. It didn’t sell a huge number but became an affordable freight option. MD got it wrong with the three holer - Boeing got it right that two engines and improved reliability meant that was the way to go for long haul. In many ways the 11 led to MDs downfall and yet as a community we see it as an icon.

I guess it’ll be the same for the upcoming BAE 146 from JF. Four engines for regional and short haul? Another interesting idea, but probably as wrong as you could get.

I just bought this from the Org. Store and it seems as if there was an update in 01/22 to address some of your issues. Did you see that?

Interesting as always. The X-Plane community does love the freeware. I made the mistake, on another forum, of welcoming the new payware Narita that’s just been released. There isn’t much good payware for Asia at the moment and the developer does have a decent record. My post instantly attracted negative comments. Why welcome this new scenery when there was a good freeware alternative - which there is? The temerity of the developer in releasing a product in competition to a liked freeware!

On the MSFS gold rush it seems that everyday four or five new sceneries are released. But the choice of subjects is usually interesting. I’ve a good knowledge of geography and the world’s airports but often the choice of subject elicits the response where or what part of the community is that aimed at. Panning for gold is one thing. Choosing a location where you will find enough to pay for your dinner is another.

 

Well, I bought the scenery and I’m very happy with it. As the review says a good location and its a great scenery for the money ($18). Pleasingly it’s not bloated in size as many sceneries these days seem to be. Look forward to more from this developer. 

I didn’t say you shouldn’t say it as you see it nor ignore, in fact I say the complete opposite. All I suggested was that getting and including feedback from developers. Yes some developers are bull headed, many not though. 
 

On this review ‘I love the scenery’ yes I can see that in the summary. However getting to the summary is the problem. Your language on the flaws is pretty strong and overwhelms the mid portion of the review. 
 

You allow feedback on your site but you tend to be as bull headed as the developers in rejecting comments. All I suggested was whether developer input might be useful and you’ve turned it back into suggesting that I’ve said you overlook issues. ‘I will say it as I see it’. That is not useful.
 

An interesting review and as you say a location that is useful for short over water flights. Also the stock airport isn’t much to get excited about.

While I do understand not wanting developer influence on the review I do wonder if in cases like this some discussion with the developer might be useful. For example was the decision about the poor beyond the airport work perhaps driven by performance factors? Some developers are no doubt better at balancing the performance of their sceneries and others may need to take more drastic action. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that you found the beyond the airport poor but as your reviews can be pretty influential on sales, in particular through the Org store, perhaps getting some feedback might be fair for some smaller developers. 

It is true that the 10 fps is an individual user decision. But it is always trade offs. For example the latest generation of commercial airliners for Xplane like the Inbuilds A300 or the SSG 748 are often heavier on frame rates than the generation before. Then add in other plugs in that people use and performance can be impacted pretty quickly. In your reviews you don’t list what plug ins and other sceneries that you are using. Looking at the screenshots you post it looks as if you used Zibo and one of the Toliss Airbuses. But other than that its difficult to judge how complex your set up is.

Perhaps, at least for me, this might be useful for general aviation but the idea of stutters is a little worrying. I also use Activesky, not available in the org.store I know, and I’ve generally been pretty happy with the weather in that. However your review is food for thought.

You are right, $10 and importantly 10fps less. I am sure that it has its fans but the complexity of the interface for me suggests too much fiddling around and not enough flying. However the developer deserves credit for trying to resolve some of the current Xplane issues.

Vulkan has given me a pleasant but not huge increase in frame rates. Not sure that I want to give that back or add stutters. 

I know that the Orbx ortho is an add on. I made sure, that in saying I had no issues with the scenery I did identify my different usage to you. However it appears that you haven’t taken my feedback in the spirit that it was made in. It’s interesting that in a scenery that does present some options - and important options no doubt for many users - they aren’t mentioned in your review. Nor is the fact that the scenery is a lot cheaper on the developers own site. 

I have this scenery and have updated it and am not having any issues. I am using the TE Orbx Florida mesh though. 

Your issue sounds like an Ortho issue - the floating items. Did you look at the manual, that should have cleared the floating bridge?

There’s also freeware for the city of Tampa that might create issues - it adds airport buildings. Again you using that? There’s a link to a Tampa city freeware that removes the issue in the documentation.

Yes basic installation is easy. If you think that there aren’t many options perhaps you missed the Options folder. There there are sub folders for
 

Default

Grass Medium

Orbx

Orbx TE Orthos

With grass

With Orthophoto

Without grass

Without Orthophoto

User Nav Data

most of them undocumented

How many extras do you consider ‘not a lot’?

I bought this scenery and Lyon from the same developer. I cannot understand why the review doesn’t mention that Digital Designs documentation is very poor. Yes, there are options with the scenery, but the documentation excludes any mention of how to use them, except for Orbx. ‘Customize the scenery to your liking using the options folder’ is not documentation,

Also why are  manual updates needed to the base Xplane user_nav.dat files? The Orbx compatibility requires you to change files in True Earth. That’s fine of course until Orbx updates their files or you verify them using Central. I’m not that keen on add ons that require you to change other add onsanyway.
 

This, and Lyon which is similar, are really buys for users experienced and confident around Xplane scenery. The documentation is very, very thin and should have been a point in the review.
 

The existing BSS sound packs are good but the management of them isn’t simple. If BSS add more soundpacks that becomes even less easy or clumsy if you replicate the base Toliss pack for every sound option. Perhaps there might be some way of mapping the appropriate BSS sound pack to the engine choice menu? Having said that I don’t think that the Toliss/BSS relationship is what you would describe as close. For me, this time, I’m planning on sticking with the stock Toliss sounds.

You should tell the store that they’ve linked your review to Lyon not Liverpool