ARMI Project Airports

[martinstebbing]

Just thought I'd comment on a couple of the ARMI project airports I have bought recently (ORBI and OIIE). Maybe others have comments to add...

 

First (and foremost), this is not a 'moan' about the developper in general: quite the reverse in most ways. It is great that these sceneries are available for Fs2004. For the most part they have been done really well and I have no regrets at all about buying them; I would very much recommend them to anyone interested in flying in this area in Fs9.

 

But, once again ARMI seem to spoil things slightly by lack of attention to the AFCADs and gates. I emailed their 'customer service' address about the gates at ORBI (which are mostly too high, so A320s/B737s etc. parked there just look silly - none of the gates seems suitable for anything smaller than 747s/A380s) back in July. A small point, but I never had a reply. I just bought their new OIIE too, and again, as at ORBI some gates have markings too close to the jetways, so that some AI a/c parked there look like my screenshot below. (Hoping both these airports will get AES support: more £££ outlay, but then at least these gate problems will be solved!).

 

Then, I had to edit the faulty AFCADs myself to get the airports to work properly. I noticed that AI traffic would just sit at runway entrances but never move onto the runway. Sure enough, all the hold short nodes are too far away and there are blank runway links, which should have designators associated with them. Having edited the AFCAD, traffic now moves normally.

 

I also added mips to all the bitmaps, which cuts down on the dreadful shimmering..

 

OK, the question of mips seems to divide people, but why can't the developer at least issue a properly functioning AFCAD (and reply to support questions sent!)? And check how AI traffic align with their gates? (Not really any good changing the position of the problem gates in the AFCAD file, as the apron markings are included in the bgl files and will stay the same no matter where the AFCAD places them).

 

Seems a shame to spoil such otherwise good scenery like this for the want of a little final checking. Maybe someone else has had a response from ARMI about this? I can't imagine I am the only one to find this a little disappointing for payware airports and to have contacted support.

 

Martin

[gwillmot]

I think you bring up a great point. It's not so much that scenery has "flaws", but rather the trouble communicating these flaws to the developer. It always amazes me that many people are more interested in product than service ..... and this relates to more than ARMI, or any other FS developer ..... it covers most everything these days. I'm now inclined to pay more for something when I know I will receive excellent customer service and communication.

P.S.

ARMI DOES have great products .... I have many

[martinstebbing]

I'm now inclined to pay more for something when I know I will receive excellent customer service and communication.

 

I couldn't agree more, and there are some developers out there with simply amazing customer service (I can't help but cite OnCourse Software (who make FDC and PF3): probably the best service I have had for anything I have ever bought online).

 

But the choice here, where the airports have no rivals, is buy them and just take what you get, or refuse to buy as the customer service email given with the download never seems to function. Depends how much you want the product I suppose (and I really did want ORBI and OIIE!).

 

:)