PMDG review on Flightsim.com

[Guest cw1011]

Andrew didn't write the flying part of the review. He's a good writer and eminently fair. Don't know anything about the other guy.

[Guest Ray CYYZ]

Kris, just a minor technical point.It very much sounds like you were single channel on your ILS because you failed to tune the second Nav Radio to the ILS frequency. It is not that PMDG does not support Dual Channel modes, you just didn't use the system properly. Just one of the classic "gotchas" when playing with a new plane. I too got caught by exactly this with the inability to engage the second channel until it dawned on me that my Radio page only have Nav 1 tuned. Tuned up Nav 2 and click, in went channel two!All in all, your review struck me as a bit lop-sided. I fly PS 1.3, 767PIC, and PMDG's 737. All three have excellent points. All three are fun, and all three expect you to know what you are doing.Your comments about the "averate user" are not valid as average users buy advanced simulators to learn what the pros do. They take reviews by what they think as "Pros" (you in this case) at face value because they do not know any better, so unless you place those specific comments in your review, the average folks will take them as fact. If your review had been slanted by starting out that you were not a 737 expert and might not understand proper use of some of the systems, the technical "facts" you are stating would not carry the same kind of weight. As I have show about with your ILS channel problem, You make it sound like PMDG doesn't offer a proper autopilot yet in fact, they do and you simple do not know how to use what you have been given.We all have our limitations and we always are learning new things so I will not blame you for your oversights (I'm far from perfect myself) but you clearly need to correct your technical errors as soon as possible or put a quick update in stating that there are technical errors that will be corrected by the reviewers as soon as possible.That is the mark of a good editor!Ray

[Guest edrutl]

This is an interesting thread for me.Up until last month, I was a Staff Reviewer for AVSIM. I left mostly for real world time contraints, but I lost some motiviation due to spiraling expectations.I'm a long term flight sim enthusiast. Though I have my PPL, I'm not current. I haven't flown the overwhelming majority of aircraft I reviewed. My reviewers were always written from the vantage point of an average flight sim user to another. While I tried to be objective, thorough and fair, I also understood I couldn't be all things to all people. Some people are realism nuts. Others love a good external model. Some people are going to push every button, while others are going to skip the checklist and want to the plane to be a reasonable rendition of the real thing. I considered my goal to be addressing each of these concerns within reason, but knew I could never satisfy everyone.From a developer's standpoint, I would rather my product review focus on all of these features to reach my maximum potential audience (whether the review was good or bad), than focus on too much of one segment.It is very easy to nitpick tiny details at the expense of the overall review. IMHO, I don't require a type rated 737NG pilot to walk me tell me this is 100% authentic to get any more joy out of the aircraft. Some do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.But keep in mind, most reviewers are fellow users. They aren't all knowing experts in every facet of aviation. A couple of posts insinuated that any reviewer who was familiar with a 737 should know these things. That type of gold standard just isn't realistic.ed

[ErnieAlston 33]

I have to agree with Ed, reviewers cannot be experts or we'd have very few product reviews.The best we can hope for out of reviewers is that they are mostly above-average users.The reviewer 'does not' need to clarify he/she is a non-expert, this is a presumption you should have about every FlightSim related product review.Regards.Ernie.

[virtualstuff 750]

I agree here with Ed and that's the beauty of this community to help each other to get the best of our hobby....Everybody is entitled to there opinion and with respect for fellow simmers (developers / reviewers / etc...)Bottom line I like to see things in perspective and just have fun :-) Andr

[crvm 0]

Kris Heslop, Thank for for taking the time to come here and discuss with us. This shows a lot about your character. Cheers,[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/winglets_lg.jpg [h3] AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h3]

[Guest RangerJack]

For what it is worth:Me = Average User/Don't know much.I want to learn to fly the big jets. I think it is a truly engaging way to spend time simming. I am no pilot in real life, although I would like to be. I just jump out of perfectly good C-17s. (As a note, this is one aircraft that needs to be simmed by someone who knows what they are doing, a jumbo-jet with a HUD and a F16-like stick, too cool. Pretty nice glass in the cockpit too.).The one thing that sticks out in the review for me as I contemplate buying this product is the point that the product lacks manuals with walkthroughs and/or tutorials. I could care less about the details you are quibbling over, and frankly I think any simmers that would be deterred by these issues probably already has the product:)Maybe it isn't marketed to us average guys, but we probably represent a large amount of purchase power. No need to simplify the product, just take some time to get us familiar.It sounds like the NG is a great product, but I really don't know if I could pick it up and figure it out. The PSS Dash-8 walked me through for the most part but it still could use even more. It would be revolutionary for one of you specialized developers to include the "new guy" through as much effort in instruction as in code. And you would probably make bank too.Anyone know a product like this for FS9?Like I said, for what it is worth.Ranger.

[Guest Ray CYYZ]

Ranger,There is no gentle way to break into heavies. You must basically start with one and make every mistake there is. The biggest problem you can possibly get yourself into is playing with one of the FAKE heavies and learning everything wrong. They say it takes 10 times as long to unlearn bad habits as learning things properly the first time.The fun part is that as you learn, you will be learning via the "school of hard knocks" so you will be really proud of yourself as you accomplish things.One of the things that helps is the community that is always around to answer questions no matter how trivial they may seem because they tend to spark debates on different ways of doing the same thing and everyone learns new ideas that way.Someone has already put up a tutorial here, download it, read it, download the manuals from PMDG's site, read them (pretty dry, but thats the heavy world). Give your head a bit to clear and think to yourself ... Do I want to really learn this stuff or am I happy flying VOR to VOR and playing around with a GPS in prop planes?If you answer "Yes", go ahead, it's $40 that will probably consume your time for the next 5-10 years of your life. ;)Ray

[Guest Rich]

5-10 years LOL

[Guest]

RayI've been away on my hols so I apologise for not getting back to you sooner, in reply to your post:I had both Nav radios selected to the appropriate ILS frequency and the second channel would not engage, however the autoland system worked correctly as I said in the review, I was, at the time using version 1.0 and subsequent v1.1 and 1.1.1 were not available, I have tested it since and the CMD B channel does engage so it apears to have been rectified. As always with software that is subject to patches it is difficult to keep up with every patch and work to a deadline! I am aware of the gotchas having studied Low Vis procedures and CAT2/3 approach systems as part of the ATPL syllabus and be assured I did investigate this with collegues on both the A300 and B737-300 fleets before going to press. The patch as I say seems to have rectified the problemThe package is without doubt a sophisitcated one and is accurate in its detailing of many of the critical systems but my point was that without easy readable documentation the aircraft is diffult to get to grips with. For example lets take a flat pack piece of furniture from somewhere like IKEA! It looks fab in the showroom and you know it will look great in your home (ie it does all the things it says on the box) but when you get it home it hasn't got an instruction manual! bummer you know it all works but without an incling of how to start making it work you're stuffed, you end up working for hours figuring out how part B joins suffix soffit joist J when you know your mate got the same piece of furniture and had it together in twenty minutes! A joiner would know how to make it all work as ould an IKEA man but you the mere mortal are completely stuffed! I am that mere mortal or at least I place myself in those shoes, I want the product to be usable with the minimum of fuss after all I've just paid a fat wad of cash for it! You on the other hand have some experience so using our analogy of furniture perhaps have some woodworking experience as a hobby well thats great you don't need the tutorial but for us hard of thinking people we're still stuffed!I don't mean to sound condescending or to rubbish you or the product, I just try to se it from the worst situation, a person really wanting to break into flying heavy jets might buy this product on the strength of its features and then find it completely useless because they can't fathom out the techie bits that are fundamental to the operation of the aircraft. so now our user is ###### becuause they feel cheated out of their cash. The addition of a simple tutorial to get them used to the basics is worth its weight in gold as it gives the user a datum to work from without having to wade through maunals the size of phone books trying to find the answer to a simple question like 'where is the save flight plan button?'You may not feel the need to use it becuase you already have some experience with the big jets so its just surplus to you so dont print it but I am a firm believer that tutorial should be a standard part of any sophisticated software!! I have tomes of data on my aircraft in the form of manuals and groundschool notes, they take up 2 shelves of my bookcase and the F27 is a simlpe aircraft in relation to a B737 the last thing I want to do is wade through another 2 shelves worth to play with an add-on I've just paid $40 for! I hope you can see my point of view.Yes we are all human and we make mistakes, and where possible we make additions and changes to the finished article to make it as accurate as possible, at the time of reviewing the product the review was accurate and true to the product as we found it. Technical errors and oversights are relevant to a point but if those oversights are due to a lack of proper documentation then they become errors not of the user but of the developer. As it happens both Andrew and myself have had several e-mails from people who have bought the product on the strength of the review and I hope that even if the review is techinicall accurate in some peoples view it also gives people an insight into what they are buying and ultimately increases the turnover for the developer which means more quality products!I hope that clarifies our standpoint and diffuses some of the arguments that seem to ave stemmed from the piece, if nothing else it certainly got people talking so at the very least it kept you all reading to the bitter end! All the best and happy trailsKris HeslopReviewer for Flightsim.com

[Guest bigun]

Kris,I am in total agreement about the manuals. I am very much a supporter of this fine add-on and have really enjoyed it, but, it sure would have made life simpler if the manuals were a little more user friendly. I am a good example of what you referred to. I have been us MSFS for many years but mostly with GA aircraft. This plane by PMDG is why I jumped on the big iron. I have used PMDG aircraft in the past with the FLY! series and enjoyed them very much. I never really got into the "technical" aspects of flying them. I went out and purchased a 3 gig H/T 1 gig ram monster machine for FS9 and the 737 specifically. (Sad huh:) I have, over the last couple of months, been able to come to grips with the basics of the FMC and this sweet bird and can actually complete flights with FMC control and full autoland pretty much at will now. This is mainly because of folks on this forum like Randy that have helped me tremendously. Also, the tutorials by Fred and Tim were invalualble to my understanding. It would have probably saved a lot of questions and frustration if this type of information would have been included in the manuals.Believe me, this is in no way a slam against PMDG. The plane is fantastic and th support has been equally great.My 2 cents worth.George Stoddard