Oh! I see it now. It’s at the intersection with taxiway B1 and B2 right? on the line.
That’s likely fairly easy to miss on 4L in testing because it’s slightly short of the aiming zone. I landed just longer three times and didn’t notice it.
Probably easier to notice on 4R, but I may have gone long when I landed yesterday night (the ILS is a bit tricker and the crosswind was pretty bad) and narrowly missed it.
But yeah, should definitely be fixed.
I think (and indulge me here) you might be making a complaint against the difference between a branded product one might buy in a supermarket and the supermarket’s own-brand product. Something like that. I sort of agree that it seems daft going to all the trouble of creating an airport if you’re not going to do the best (that you know) you can do. Then again, welcome to the world of contract work. You do what you gotta do for the agreed price; anything more would be redundant.
And I also think you’re right - if the hired help did too well with these free airports they would leave no space for the 3rd-party developers to offer significantly more polished payware alternatives.
I’m not an expert on airport designs (which is to say I’m not too knowledgeable about whether any of these airports are accurate or not), so for me - a casual simmer - it’s all good. Having said that, I bought Singapore Changi off the MSFS2020 Marketplace because that thing just seemed to suggest quality to my uneducated but sceptical eye - and on some intuitive level I can see that quality in the product in the sim.
Oh believe me, there’s a galaxy of difference between Singapore Changi by Cloudsurf and even the best airport included in the world updates. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the best airports on the market at the moment, so good choice.
I wouldn’t even ask for them to be THAT good. Ultimately, I’d be happy enough if there wasn’t any glaring issue like the ones mentioned in my first post (and the bumps mentioned by others). Anything more than that (for instance even less reliance on pre-built default models like approach lights and such) would be bonus.
I am sure @DubiousMagician and his team will work their magic and include custom jetways and other features that you recommended in the future updates.
I agree! I landed tonight during the twilight hour on good old Zestienhoven EHRD and it looked like I know it…
What irks me is that Rotterdam airport (free world update) got nice ground textures with stand numbers, yet the Amsterdam Schiphol (paid premium deluxe) does not.
There is some quality discrepancy.
Yeah, I bought the premium version for its airports. But they contain errors and lack detail.
Meanwhile they release new airports for free.
Might as well not buy the deluxe version and buy an airport you really like instead.
Same with the aircraft. The premium aircraft have issues, but they have the audacity to announce new airliners.
Well least they can do considering false advertising made many believe we would have photo quality cities and landscat everywhere. Most countries are devoid.
I would take free and frequent new airports over paid and sparse airports if the quality right now is the only issue. Because it’s much better than Asobo handcrafted ones.
Considering Microsoft’s budgets, I don’t really think that better quality and the usual frequency should be considered mutually exclusive.
As long as we don‘t know how much money Gaya get for each airport this topic is pointless. Just keep in mind what a normal Gaya airport costs and take that times a realistic number of customers. Then consider Microsoft paying that amount. Would that happen?
Free dlc airports will never be as good as dedicated payware as long as a commercial developer gets payed for them. They would have to be freeware to have a chance to be at top level. Many examples are already available in the internet from developers who do it for fun, not for money. No budget, no time limit, no compromises, just great airports.
However I‘ll not complain about those free airports, I did‘t pay for them (at least not directly) and still got them. I made my first FBW 320 flight into Stewart (USA) last night and while I‘ve never been there IRL I felt it‘s a sweet little airport. If I want greater detail I go for the known developers and have to pay.
I’m surprised by the false equivalences some are bringing up to essentially defend sub-par quality.
Earlier I see free DLC designed to promote the sim compared to gifts (lol). Now I see revenue from a bulk manufacturing contract compared to the price of payware airport multiplied by customers.
That’s not how it works. This is solid, guaranteed revenue for Gaya, which is why they do it. On top of that, it also promotes their work and name to a wide audience.
Mind you, that promotional effect is weakened by the quality issues. Better quality would be more effective. I wouldn’t be too surprised if unexperienced users thought Nice is representative of Gaya’s payware quality, and that’s less-than-ideal.
Sub-par quality is sub-par quality, regardless of whether it’s provided at an additional cost or not. By your reasoning, we should ignore any flaw of the sim introduced by updates, since we’re not paying for the updates. Of course, it doesn’t work like that.
Appreciating that something is offered at no additional cost does not mean thinking that something shouldn’t be of quality.
But as long as it is free, you have no right to complain. You lose nothing and you can always opt-out if you do not like it. You can think it has inferior quality but you can’t really complain about it as you did not pay nor put anything into it. Go to the freeware addon site and tell people their free work is not up to your standard, we will see how it will go.
We do not know what is the arrangement between Microsoft and Gaya. Once we were told that they were not supposed to deliver payware level quality (i think Jorg said that in one of the videos).
Edit: Forgot to add. We do not know the arrangement Asobo and Gaya have. Maybe it is about a certain amount of money (budget), maybe it is the availability of Gaya staff time that is limited, maybe it is about making simpler airports so they are not resource-intensive… we do not know.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t make much sense. We’re customers. Of course, we have the right to criticize a product that is of sub-par quality. The fact that the product is offered at no additional cost has no influence on that.
World updates are part of the value proposition of Microsoft Flight Simulator since the very beginning (which means they’re part of its price). They’re not some gift we’re given out of Microsoft’s goodwill.
As with anything concerning this simulator, we’re absolutely entitled to criticize (in a polite and balanced way of course) its quality and to ask for better if it doesn’t hold up. It’s called customer feedback.
This is another massive false equivalence. Freeware add-ons are made by volunteers that create their assets without being compensated in any way (besides possible donations for those who allow that, but donations are not compensation). I know quite well since I have a few bits and bobs there myself.
Airports provided at no additional cost in world updates are absolutely compensated work done by professionals that are paid for it as part of their job. They’re products that are part of the value proposition of the sim, for which customers pay. As such, it’s certainly not unreasonable to ask that such work is quality work.
In my day job, my “customers” don’t pay any money for the content and services I provide. The company is funded via advertising and I’m compensated for it by the company. Does that mean it’s ok for me to offer sub-par content and should not listen to feedback from those who enjoy my content because they don’t pay money for it? That’s not how it works. Feedback (negative or positive) is how I improve.
If this is true (but I’m quite sure it’s not, or at least, nothing about it has been mentioned. Feel free to prove me wrong, but Jorg never talked about quality, just about trying not to do the same airports third-party devs are doing), then it should change.
The OP did mention some flaws he noticed, and for EHRD I could add missing ILS data (for autotune feature in e.g. CJ4 or A320), vanishing transparency on the terminal when viewed from inside the cockpit (tested with CJ4 only) and ondulating taxilanes.
He did it in a respectful, constructive and polite way. Why on earth should he not have the right to do so? How could a product ever get better if customers (or users - to not fuel the cost-free debate) are denied the right for criticism? It’s probably in the best interest for Gaya to get honest feedback as they for sure can benefit from knowing the expectations of potential customers for their upcoming products - and that again is in the interest of us users.
As Gaya seems to do some of the POIs too, it seems to me that the contract contains the airports models only (just guesswork from what i can see). The smaller clutter models are standard assets provided by the sdk only and the groundwork seems to be the standard AI computed + minor handmade fixes to it (which was covered in one of the feature discovery series).
Given the fact that those are free of charge i’m still quite happy with them, as they are still better than the autogen airports, biggest let down for me are incorrect taxiway signs (default and handcrafted) as it makes navigation on vatsim more difficult.
Its also clear, that the marketplace sales will ramp up after worldupdates, so all the content isn’t really for free, but theres no problem with it, as no one is forced to buy some of the 3rd parties (although i can recommend a lot of the good ones). Its not that the game is being tedious if you don’t buy something as in most of the f2p games - but there are still high running costs in msfs for devwork, contracts and servers.
Sure you can respectfully criticize but the OP is expecting payware quality. Whether Microsoft pays Gaya or not does not matter, it is their business, you only paid for Flight Simulator and the value proposition is really not a case for most people who got MSFS at launch did not even know about any free updates before they purchased the product. Unless free updates factored in your decision-making to buy the sim or not, I do not think you can talk about the value proposition of already purchased product before free airport updates were even a thing.
Let me correct myself. English is not my native language obviously. OP can criticize and give feedback but not expect (unreasonably) payware quality from updates that most people did not know about when they purchased the sim and therefore would still enjoy the sim without. it is really an “extra” from Asobo rather than a core reason to buy a product.
You talked about your daily job. Fine. Let’s take your example. People can give you feedback, but can they reasonably expect from your content AAA blockbuster quality that would cost you to make much more than you can afford? You d consider that unreasonable. Asobo and Gaya made a certain arrangement that we do not know about and I am sure if they could, they would provide 20 payware quality airports and 100000 landmarks in each update.
I think the airport’s are good for what they are, they are a step up from the original handcrafted airport’s and better than plenty of payware airport’s out there.
Apart from budget constraints, there is also a time limit to consider, as the world updates depends on data available, so they need to confirm they have the data before the world update itself can be confirmed.
I absolutely love the world update concept, to get updated data, airport’s, photogrammetry, challenges and a ton of POI for free is really unheard of in the flight sim world!
You’re wrong basically across the board.
1: World Updates are a well-known aspect of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Their coming has also been announced before the release of the sim (but it wouldn’t matter, any known update or addition is part of the value proposition of a game. People don’t purchase a product just at launch).
They’re a selling point like everything else, so their quality is 100% subject to scrutiny. Saying that they’re not part of the decision-making of purchasing the sim is absolutely false. They’re a widely advertised factor, so they are.
What do you think the gorgeous trailers they release every time are for? To give some free eyecandy to existing users? They exist to draw in new ones (possibly from that area), to bring back those who left into the fold, and to tease Xbox users that can’t wait to jump in. Or you’re forgetting MSFS is getting a whole new platform in the summer?
2: “Payware quality” is a big and absolutely meaningless catchphrase, and you’ll notice I never used it so please don’t put words in my mouth. Payware add-ons have a massive range of variation. that goes from absolutely fantastic to massively poor. What I expect (and every customer should expect) is simply quality. Things like cutting corners by using a lot of default assets that don’t actually represent the airport (and assets we see from very up-close like jetways), bugged ATC, and sub-part textures are not indicative of a quality product.
Do I want bells and whistles included in top payware like animated passengers, custom dedicated vehicles and so forth? Nah, but I’d certainly like to see them do better.
3: Customers from my day job can expect me to put every ounce of effort I can. Reviewing MSFS airports is part of that job, mind you, and I often take as long as 8-10 hours per review simply doing research to make sure everything is as it should be, studying approaches, and more additional work, and there’s still a lot of room for improvement, I’m sure. That’s way beyond my job description, simply because I want to offer the best quality possible. It doesn’t matter who pays me. Offering the best product I can is my responsibility and feedback from end-users (in this case readers) is 100% acceptable and welcome. It’s not unreasonable to expect Gaya to offer a quality product regardless of whether they’re paid by the end-users or by Microsoft. Who puts the money on the table is an irrelevant factor. Someone is paying for that product.
4: If Gaya can’t handle doing the current number of airport at a good level of quality, then perhaps Microsoft should subcontract someone else in addition to them. I’m fairly positive (as a matter of fact, I know that for a fact) that there are plenty of devs out there who do great work and would give an arm and a leg to have a bite of the world update pie. Steady, guaranteed revenue is awesome for everyone, and Microsoft has deep pockets.
I find the new airports to be in the sweet spot of better than default, and in some cases VERY good (their Atlanta blows away the payware version I bought on the Marketplace just a week before the update came out, so that one has been discarded now)… I am pretty happy, so that’s my take.