Perry Barr Garage

[Dom]

How? It's better they'll be no more Super X displays going round Perry Barr routes.

And what's your issue with Super X?

[Jack]

And what's your issue with Super X?

Ugly.
The 9 font looks horrible. So does the 6 font.
And the top destination line is so hard to see from a distance.

I personally think the static displays look way more smarter than Super X

[MasterPlan]

How? It's better they'll be no more Super X displays going round Perry Barr routes.

What exactly is a Super X display?

[CL]

What exactly is a Super X display?

Super X is a function on the destination display software; essentially the function that allows for scrolling (or sometimes even static) messages on the display.

[MasterPlan]

Super X is a function on the destination display software; essentially the function that allows for scrolling (or sometimes even static) messages on the display.

Oh, well it's much better than this static display malarkey.

[I love Walsall buses]

Oh, well it's much better than this static display malarkey.

Is this new display going to move to all garages eventually or will it just be kept at the Birmingham garages

[2206]

1931 is on the 16 today

I'm sure I saw a 1906 on there as well today while getting of the 55 on the Priory Queensway at 10:00.
It seems to be becoming a regular occurrence now, whenever i'm in the City Centre I regularly see an Omnilink on the 16.

[Trident 4194]

I'm sure I saw a 1906 on there as well today while getting of the 55 on the Priory Queensway at 10:00.
It seems to be becoming a regular occurrence now, whenever i'm in the City Centre I regularly see an Omnilink on the 16.

Yes there were at least 2 omnilinks on the 16. Inadequate if you ask me

[CL]

Oh, well it's much better than this static display malarkey.

Personally, I'd beg to differ.

There seems to be much more versatility in creating static displays, such as the ability to produce atypical (yet, smart looking) display layouts.
last photo of 2164: http://wmbusphotos.com/NXWM/2001-2129/2164.html
2nd photo of 4960: http://wmbusphotos.com/NXWM/4700-4879/4960.html

The Super-X function hinders this creative flair by leaving the editor with, what I'd consider, the bare minimum features - including preselected "fonts" that results in the (aforementioned) hideous-looking 6s and 9s. There is a function in the Hanover software that overrides my statement, however. The "fix" tool, which does exactly what it says, allows editors to freeze elements from the static mode for use in the Super-X mode.

see: https://flic.kr/p/purh4T (credit to Bus Buster UK) - where Diamond has "fixed" the route number and upper tier destination, whilst the bottom blind scrolls as it would with in Super-X mode.

At the end of the day, I guess the main priority of the operator is to tell passengers where they're going. Not that many take a glance to the destination, anyway! With many operators up and down the country using the Super-X mode, it hardly gives NX the individuality it deserves as a major independent operator.



On another note, when Super-X blinds were implemented across the NX network, buses new before 2012 appeared to have smaller top-tier destinations; compared to the buses delivered in and after 2012, which had much larger & more defined destinations. Save for a few anomalies, of course - as a result of retrofitted blinds. The best examples to prove this observation would be to look at the blinds on both the 61 & 13-reg Hybrids. Perhaps someone could better explain why, as I can't seem to express it aloud.

[MasterPlan]

Personally, I'd beg to differ.

There seems to be much more versatility in creating static displays, such as the ability to produce atypical (yet, smart looking) display layouts.
last photo of 2164: http://wmbusphotos.com/NXWM/2001-2129/2164.html
2nd photo of 4960: http://wmbusphotos.com/NXWM/4700-4879/4960.html

The Super-X function hinders this creative flair by leaving the editor with, what I'd consider, the bare minimum features - including preselected "fonts" that results in the (aforementioned) hideous-looking 6s and 9s. There is a function in the Hanover software that overrides my statement, however. The "fix" tool, which does exactly what it says, allows editors to freeze elements from the static mode for use in the Super-X mode.

see: https://flic.kr/p/purh4T (credit to Bus Buster UK) - where Diamond has "fixed" the route number and upper tier destination, whilst the bottom blind scrolls as it would with in Super-X mode.

At the end of the day, I guess the main priority of the operator is to tell passengers where they're going. Not that many take a glance to the destination, anyway! With many operators up and down the country using the Super-X mode, it hardly gives NX the individuality it deserves as a major independent operator.



On another note, when Super-X blinds were implemented across the NX network, buses new before 2012 appeared to have smaller top-tier destinations; compared to the buses delivered in and after 2012, which had much larger & more defined destinations. Save for a few anomalies, of course - as a result of retrofitted blinds. The best examples to prove this observation would be to look at the blinds on both the 61 & 13-reg Hybrids. Perhaps someone could better explain why, as I can't seem to express it aloud.

Exactly, that is the main priority. So it's better to show various via points rather than just one. I'd say just as many people get off during the journey as they do at the destination points, so they're just as important. Whether the 6s or 9s look bad is irrelevant. My point is the scrolling display offers more info to passengers rather than just "via Kings Heath" or "via Harborne". What good is that?

[Sh4318]

Ugly.
The 9 font looks horrible. So does the 6 font.
And the top destination line is so hard to see from a distance.

I personally think the static displays look way more smarter than Super X

I really don't like the static displays. For the 76, the via destination is Kings Heath, what about Yardley Wood, Shirley, Selly Oak etc.?

Also the space between the numbers doesn't look right, especially with the heavy weight of font.

Super X has grown on me. I like the display in the 2nd photo down on 4960 - although I'm not sure that particular layout is used anymore

[CL]

Exactly, that is the main priority. So it's better to show various via points rather than just one. I'd say just as many people get off during the journey as they do at the destination points, so they're just as important. Whether the 6s or 9s look bad is irrelevant. My point is the scrolling display offers more info to passengers rather than just "via Kings Heath" or "via Harborne". What good is that?

The aesthetic of the blind is just one factor; it certainly ties in with how an operator choose to put themselves across, in my opinion. (for instance: taking the time to curate their own blinds rather than rolling them out through basic, predesigned software - i.e. Super-X - if that makes sense; the "personal touch")

Good to see we're on the same page regarding prioritising information for the passengers' benefit. I agree with you also in the sense that its better to show more than one 'via' point, in order to convey more information. Admittedly, the newly programmed blinds aren't the best we've seen; though, one could argue that static displays are able to achieve the same - if programmed across say two, three, or even (on the odd occasion) four alternating "pages", if you will. In doing so, static blinds are also capable of providing the same amount of information as a scrolling blind. In my opinion, this really boils down to personal preference.

I know the recent replies in this thread, regarding destination blinds, have been focused on the LEDs presumably; in terms of flip-dots, static displays are the only choice... And they seem to have no complaints. Though, I suppose it is a different ball-game there.

I really don't like the static displays. For the 76, the via destination is Kings Heath, what about Yardley Wood, Shirley, Selly Oak etc.?

Also the space between the numbers doesn't look right, especially with the heavy weight of font.

Super X has grown on me. I like the display in the 2nd photo down on 4960 - although I'm not sure that particular layout is used anymore

The points you've raised here are quite understandable. Though, I'd be curious to know if you'd be as irked if the static displays (on the 76, or other routes) featured other key points along the route? I'll agree with you there that these new blinds aren't the best in the business. I, too, would appreciate the mentioning of other key points.

In fairness, since its implementation, Super-X has grown onto me as well! I do have a petty gripe regarding the decisions to keep switching between the two formats. Prior to Super-X being rolled out network-wide, I recall some comments regarding the fact that there is no "one standard style" across the region, when static displays were still the norm.

[MasterPlan]

I really don't like the static displays. For the 76, the via destination is Kings Heath, what about Yardley Wood, Shirley, Selly Oak etc.?

Also the space between the numbers doesn't look right, especially with the heavy weight of font.

Super X has grown on me. I like the display in the 2nd photo down on 4960 - although I'm not sure that particular layout is used anymore

I agree with this entirely. I have noticed that with the numbers too. For instance, from reasonable a distance I can't tell if a display says X20 or X21 or even X22 at times because of the new font type. How is that clearer exactly? I don't see anything wrong with that example on 4960 either.

The aesthetic of the blind is just one factor; it certainly ties in with how an operator choose to put themselves across, in my opinion. (for instance: taking the time to curate their own blinds rather than rolling them out through basic, predesigned software - i.e. Super-X - if that makes sense; the "personal touch")

Good to see we're on the same page regarding prioritising information for the passengers' benefit. I agree with you also in the sense that its better to show more than one 'via' point, in order to convey more information. Admittedly, the newly programmed blinds aren't the best we've seen; though, one could argue that static displays are able to achieve the same - if programmed across say two, three, or even (on the odd occasion) four alternating "pages", if you will. In doing so, static blinds are also capable of providing the same amount of information as a scrolling blind. In my opinion, this really boils down to personal preference.

I know the recent replies in this thread, regarding destination blinds, have been focused on the LEDs presumably; in terms of flip-dots, static displays are the only choice... And they seem to have no complaints. Though, I suppose it is a different ball-game there

You can do it that way, with the display flicking between points but when I've seen this in the past they tend to take an age to flick to the next point and by then it's too late. Whereas the scrolling goes by quick enough to get through them all but not too quick for you not to be able to read them.

But anyway. The phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind.

[Kevin]

I get the arguments here, but the issue I see with scrolling "via" points is that simply no one has time to read them, so what would be the point having them? Far better to have a static display to glance at
People don't catch buses by watching them all and seeing where they go, they catch them by knowing which route and which direction (ie end destination)
For more detailed information there's the bus stops, showing the timetable

[CL]

On the topic of destination blinds, 4476 needs updating as it's just supposedly arrived into the City on the 52!

Taking a moment to think about it; are both the 52 and 952 programmed onto the blinds? If not, has the 952 been programmed u der the 52's route code on the Hanovers?