Did Angelique get the same CS 757 everyone else got?

[Robert W 3]

Well said.....I will add the word VOLUNTEER to the disclaimer at the bottom of every review.I know, nobody reads the fine print at the end.

[Robert W 3]

Bill,thanks for the retraction of your "money" statement. Unfortunately, it was taken to heart by the reviewer. Yes, sometimes one person's sense of humour is not undrstood by another.

[Robert W 3]

Great idea, can you put together a list of ALL items for every type of review we do (Aircraft/Scenery/Utilities/Hardware) and pass them on to me?I'm not an expert on all things flight sim, and neither are AVSIM's volunteer reviewers. They are entusiasts, just like the rest of the forum readers, who want to give back to the community.

[Robert W 3]

Thanks for your great comments, and you put things into perspective.About "I suspect there is an editorial policy of downplaying the negative aspects of commercial products"....no there is no AVSIM editorial policy of downplaying negative comments. Infact it's the opposite. I ask the reviewers to give their honest "personal" opinion of the product they are reviewing. Call a spade a spade, if it's crap, say so (but nicely).I have had developers ask to "preview" the review before it is published. AVSIM's policy....NO. If the developer has no faith in their released product, then why would you need to see what a reviewer has written about it.I would love to have 20 staff members who review at the calibre of the Sr Reviewers, but we all have real lives and I have to select from those who apply. Believe it or not, I get applicants who's review samples state:"This airplane looks pretty and flies nice. I would highly recommend it." It's not hard to weed out the High School simmers. What I wouldn't give for some hard core, knowledgable simmers that could write 1 review a month for AVSIM.

[EngineRoom 205]

Thanks for the clarification Robert :)However, I still believe it's hard to find truly representative "warts and all" reviews on any of the major FS sites, and we are often left with just comments on forums such as this, which are often highly subjective to say the least!To give an example, I read a review recently on another site of an addon aircraft for FSX from a very well known publisher. The review was very positive and prompted me to go and buy this addon. Once I got it home I found it was a port of an FS9 model and consequently suffered from significatly reduced framerates. The review I read made no comment of this fact, which I believe is a very important issue for many users.I appreciate the reviews are written by volunteers, but Avsim isn't just any old FS site, it is one of, if not the premier FS site online, and as such I think readers expect the reviews to be concise and thorough.I would also consider in future products from controversial developers/publishers, such as the subject of the review in question should be reserved for the more experienced (senior?) reviewers.

[Guest essoblue]

OK, so why don't we ask the hard core simmers here what a chacklist should contain, off the top of their heads. . . . a kind of forum brainstorm. After that maybe someone could volunteer to come up with a checklist for each category. This way you'll have a checklist made up from contributions' from the community.Main categories:1.Aircraft2.Scenery3.Utilities4. HardwareFor my part I tend to read the first two so I have a couple of ideas about them:AIRCRAFT-How are frame rates compared with a similar default.-Quality of external model. -texturing of model-panel VC and 2d clickable? texturing.-Flight model quality. . . maybe some idea of how the aircraft flies to the numbers. Pitch and roll behaviour,ILS capture, fuel burn etc.SCENERY:-frame rate hit similar to above in'AIRCRAFT'-texturing-how compare with real airport-placement of AI aircraftThese are a few of the checklist items I had in mind. Just of the top of my head. I know there will be loads more but in the end I think such a list could make for some very informative reviews.

[Guest j-mo]

I learned a long time ago to make my purchase decisions based on what I read in the forums instead of the reviews. I'm sure many others, especially those who post, have, too. But I'd bet there are a lot of AVSIM readers who don't consult the forums (I'll concede this is gut feeling, based on nothing more than a hunch). Which leads me to wonder...... is it not diligent for reviewers to read through the forums here (and, possibly, other sites if that is their habit) to gain insight as to possible issues purchasers are reporting. If reviewers are expected to do this, why can't any significant findings be included in the reviews? It seems that if this had been done as a part of this review, it certainly could have, no should have, been reported that the simming community is generally frustrated (being nice here) with this product, and why. Wouldn't this make for a more 'comprehensive', or at least more credible, review? I'll suggest it should be a part of all reviews. It could be reported matter-of-factly, something along the lines of "reports from the forum indicate near universal praise for this issue" or "unfortunately, many simmers are posting disappointing experiences, which are exacerbated by their difficulty getting a response from the developer." I think this would go a long way toward addressing any possible questions of fairness and credibility in the reviews. In addition, I would think developers would be more inclined to react to a "generally negative experience from simmers" type of comment, or at least make a strong effort to ensure higher quality in future releases. What I'm suggesting is that an AVSIM review would then carry more weight with developers.On the other hand... if reviewers are not expected to read the forums to "get their finger on the pulse," I would ask "Why not?"Let me be clear that I respect that reviewers here are volunteers, and that they give generously of their time as well as themselves. Though I have no way of knowing, I suspect that they read the forums, so I'm hopeful that I'm not asking for any more of a time commitment.Regards,

[rightseater 0]

In reality, AVSIM reviewers do have a checklist to follow. The base reviewer's submission form describes in vague detail as to what should be included in each section of the review. The problem is that with the vast differences between products and the freedom for each reviewer to inject there own opinions, it is difficult to remain consistant for all reviews. It is also a challenge to write a review that invites simmers of all skill levels to make an educated decision as to how suiting the product is for them. That is why all purchases should be made based on a variety of sources, including reviews, forum comments, trial versions (when available), personal history with that company's products, and any other source of information you can get your hands on.I am currently working on a very long review that has made me pause a number of times. I am constantly re-reading sections I have written to ensure that I am reaching out to beginners, moderate level simmers, and the most discriminating. But no matter how hard I try, I can guarantee you that I will be getting e-mails regarding something I missed, a difference in opinion, and in very rare cases, perhaps a shred of gratitude for my hard work. I am one of those who have complained about a review in the past, but until you do it for yourself and have to deal with those in the forums, including a handful of disrespectful enthusiasts, you can not understand what a challenge it can be to do this volunteer job. And keep in mind that it is volunteer work by those who want to give something back to the community.And, despite the fact that there are a lot of real-world pilots and controllers here at AVSIM, they are not all volunteering to do this job. Therefore, a product may have to be reviewed by someone with no experience in that aircraft, or someone who has never been to the airport being reviewed. I was fortunate enough to get type rated while I was still with Skybus, and I am now back in the right seat at another airline. Add that to the C150 I was trained in, the C182 I owned in the 90's, and the C206 I parade the family around in now, and that only gives me four aircraft that I would be deemed suitable to review by many simmers. If a RW driver of any aircraft wants to join the team, I'm sure Mr. Whitwell will be more than happy to give you a shot, but I suspect we will never be able to get a pilot for each aircraft being reviewed.

[Petraeus 147]

>I would also consider in future products from controversial>developers/publishers, such as the subject of the review in>question should be reserved for the more experienced (senior?)>reviewers.If you look over time at the list of reviewers and senior reviewers on the right hand side of the front page, it's clear that there's quite a turnover of people. So there's not a build-up and continuity of experience.It may be that expecting reviewers to produce one review a month is far too much. It obviously doesn't happen in practice, and looks like an emphasis on quantity over quality. I'd rather see a core of seasoned and experienced reviewers producing perhaps two or three a year, so that they have the time to put a product though its paces in depth, and not produce a superficial and rushed impression. Meanwhile let the less experienced ones do reviews on single airport packages and the like.Petraeus

[Wolfko 0]

Allready in 2006 a Senior Staff Reviewer (Brian Fletcher) has written a positive review of the CS 757 and even awarded her the AVSIM Gold Star!http://www.avsim.com/pages/1006/CS757/CS757.htmWolfgang

[Guest Proflig8tor]

Thank you for contributing constructive comments that will be included in future reviews.One good effect of this thread was to get some of the reviewers thinking and you will probably see more collaboration on reviews, particularly those aircraft with FMC, VNAV, and complex systems.In the case of the 757, there are a couple of current 757 pilots around who are Flight Sim enthusiasts.It is sometimes funny to read folks complain about issues like the autothrottles and VNAV. If we do a MD80/83/88 review, should I complain if these items work in the sim model? Because they work very poorly in the Mad Dog.In the 757 they work well, but the airplane is very slick and does not descend easily. Coming down with spoilers deployed to remain on VNAV profile is very frequently necessary. The winglet equipped 757's are even slicker.