Wow, I just read, I think, a AVSIM review entitled Ultimate 757 Collection - Redux found in the commercial section. There is no date to be found on the document. There is no reviewer identified anywhere in the document. The summary is one sentence with no recommendation. No stars assigned.I wonder if this is a bonafide review or something the developer cooked up for advertising. I would say AVSIM needs a little quality control in the review section. :( RayM

HelloI agree , on the Avsim front page announcing this "review" it states.A 2nd look at Quality Wings' Ultimate 757 Collection. This time for the FSX perspective.Then fails to mention that it is a port over from FS9 not an FSX native model, how could they miss this most basic thing?Who was the mystery reviewer ?.

HelloI agree , on the Avsim front page announcing this "review" it states.A 2nd look at Quality Wings' Ultimate 757 Collection. This time for the FSX perspective.Then fails to mention that it is a port over from FS9 not an FSX native model, how could they miss this most basic thing?Who was the mystery reviewer ?.

Maybe it will be corrected, updated later this week.

Because the review contained the word 'redux' in the title, which is a term that has in recent years been co-opted to now mean 'revisited' for literary or film efforts, I personally assumed that it was either... by the original QW757 Avsim review writer, revisiting their earlier work, or was perhaps a submission in response to the recent Avsim request on the front page for those who fancy being an Avsim reviewer to submit some work. Such submissions could focus on any FS-related product the person had, which might explain the two reviews. I do agree though, that it really should have had a name on there.With all that said, it is not unknown for a product to be reviewed more than once by Avsim, in order to freshen things up a little or perhaps offer more than one point of view. But if it was a submission from a prospective new reviewer, then they would have been working without the benefit of the Avsim reviews template, and if that is the case, then I think they did a pretty good job. Whilst it is not the most in-depth review ever written, I think it does the job, and I would say that it's a bit harsh to suggest that it is 'rock bottom' in terms of standards.To address the specific points made in this thread, the date of the review (Jul 10, 2010), whilst not appearing on the review itself, does appear in the Commercial Products Reviews Index listing. It also appears on the main Avsim sidebar and was also a link from the front end news, so I think it's easy enough to determine when the review dates from by any method one gets to it, even if it was omitted from the review page itself. That certainly would be the case for anyone who located the review somewhere down the line via the Index listing.The brief summary is indeed short and sweet, the phrase even appearing in that summary, but there is nothing wrong with cutting to the chase. Whilst my own efforts tend to be somewhat wordy, there isn't always the need for such circumlocution in a review, and brevity is sometimes a better way to go. As Mark Twain once noted: 'I never write metropolis for seven cents when I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman when I can get the same money for cop'. Wise words indeed and in the case of Avsim reviews, perhaps even more relevant when we consider that Avsim reviewers get no money whatsoever for their efforts. If it is an assigned review, a reviewer does get to keep the product of course, but with an average product price of perhaps 25 quid for an FS add-on, that's a very poor deal in terms of economics when you weigh up the time spent testing and reviewing a product, researching matters, plus the time writing it up and organising all the screenshots.There is no Star Rating on the review, then again, since it is not really a full-on pioneering review, I think we can kind of assume that any praise from the original Avsim product review sort of carries over, since most caveats to how the thing performs in FSX are mentioned, leaving the reader to draw a suitable conclusion. In any case, the Avsim Star Rating and awards system is not a mandatory part of all reviews; generally speaking, a reviewer could mention on the email to which their submitted review is attached, that it might be worth considering for some sort of award, or even write that in the review copy itself, but they cannot demand it, it is entirely up to Robert Whitwell, the Avsim reviews editor, to say if that is going to happen.It is true that there was no mention of it being a port over from FS9, but the reviewer may simply have forgotten to mention it, or perhaps thought their comments on FPS were enough to address the issue. If it is a case of the reviewer simply forgetting to mention it, well, anyone can make a mistake. After all, the OP made the mistake of posting this thread in the wrong section of the forums, when it should be in the review feedback section :( Al

HelloI thought that the content of the review was pretty good and accurate as regards the FPS.I just found it odd that it was not mentioned about being a port over.I hope the reviewer is not discouraged from further reviews as apart from that omission he did well.

Because the review contained the word 'redux' in the title, which is a term that has in recent years been co-opted to now mean 'revisited' for literary or film efforts, I personally assumed that it was either... by the original QW757 Avsim review writer, revisiting their earlier work, or was perhaps a submission in response to the recent Avsim request on the front page for those who fancy being an Avsim reviewer to submit some work. Such submissions could focus on any FS-related product the person had, which might explain the two reviews. I do agree though, that it really should have had a name on there.With all that said, it is not unknown for a product to be reviewed more than once by Avsim, in order to freshen things up a little or perhaps offer more than one point of view. But if it was a submission from a prospective new reviewer, then they would have been working without the benefit of the Avsim reviews template, and if that is the case, then I think they did a pretty good job. Whilst it is not the most in-depth review ever written, I think it does the job, and I would say that it's a bit harsh to suggest that it is 'rock bottom' in terms of standards.To address the specific points made in this thread, the date of the review (Jul 10, 2010), whilst not appearing on the review itself, does appear in the Commercial Products Reviews Index listing. It also appears on the main Avsim sidebar and was also a link from the front end news, so I think it's easy enough to determine when the review dates from by any method one gets to it, even if it was omitted from the review page itself. That certainly would be the case for anyone who located the review somewhere down the line via the Index listing.The brief summary is indeed short and sweet, the phrase even appearing in that summary, but there is nothing wrong with cutting to the chase. Whilst my own efforts tend to be somewhat wordy, there isn't always the need for such circumlocution in a review, and brevity is sometimes a better way to go. As Mark Twain once noted: 'I never write metropolis for seven cents when I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman when I can get the same money for cop'. Wise words indeed and in the case of Avsim reviews, perhaps even more relevant when we consider that Avsim reviewers get no money whatsoever for their efforts. If it is an assigned review, a reviewer does get to keep the product of course, but with an average product price of perhaps 25 quid for an FS add-on, that's a very poor deal in terms of economics when you weigh up the time spent testing and reviewing a product, researching matters, plus the time writing it up and organising all the screenshots.There is no Star Rating on the review, then again, since it is not really a full-on pioneering review, I think we can kind of assume that any praise from the original Avsim product review sort of carries over, since most caveats to how the thing performs in FSX are mentioned, leaving the reader to draw a suitable conclusion. In any case, the Avsim Star Rating and awards system is not a mandatory part of all reviews; generally speaking, a reviewer could mention on the email to which their submitted review is attached, that it might be worth considering for some sort of award, or even write that in the review copy itself, but they cannot demand it, it is entirely up to Robert Whitwell, the Avsim reviews editor, to say if that is going to happen.It is true that there was no mention of it being a port over from FS9, but the reviewer may simply have forgotten to mention it, or perhaps thought their comments on FPS were enough to address the issue. If it is a case of the reviewer simply forgetting to mention it, well, anyone can make a mistake. After all, the OP made the mistake of posting this thread in the wrong section of the forums, when it should be in the review feedback section :( Al

These are all good points - but after all that, do you know who wrote the review? I found the review using google search so I did not have a prior review or link to show any date. I took the REDUX as a FSX review of a FS9 product. It started off with a sentence about the package being two years old. I guess if one is not going to make a recommendation, then why publish a review. We can all go the the developers site and look at the screenshots.By rock bottom, I was specifically referring to the NO DATE and NO REVIEWER identified and no recommendation. I think these are rather key to any document. I still do not know who wrote the review.RayM

These are all good points - but after all that, do you know who wrote the review? I found the review using google search so I did not have a prior review or link to show any date. I took the REDUX as a FSX review of a FS9 product. It started off with a sentence about the package being two years old. I guess if one is not going to make a recommendation, then why publish a review. We can all go the the developers site and look at the screenshots.By rock bottom, I was specifically referring to the NO DATE and NO REVIEWER identified and no recommendation. I think these are rather key to any document. I still do not know who wrote the review.RayM

I did a little for searching and came up with a similar review dated about a month ago. If these are the same product and the same reviewer, this will be a first for reviews of the same product a month a part. Now it is even more suspect.I wish some of the AVSIM leadership would weigh in on this.

Did anyone pick up on why there is a REDUX for this review in the first place. Was there glaring errors in the one last month or was there a timely major update? Why would there be two reviews for the same product less than a month apart with no explanation of why.The index doesn't show either review as of today. Wierd.

HelloI agree , on the Avsim front page announcing this "review" it states.A 2nd look at Quality Wings' Ultimate 757 Collection. This time for the FSX perspective.Then fails to mention that it is a port over from FS9 not an FSX native model, how could they miss this most basic thing?Who was the mystery reviewer ?.

One of the staff reviewers took a look at the FSX version and submitted an abbreviated "review" of that version of a previously reviewed aircrat, then through a misplacement of the submission email I lost the name of the reviewer, therefore I took that line out of the header box.I thought it pertainent to give the readers another view of this aircraft since the original review was of the FS9 version yet the developer had released it for both FS9 and FSX. I was not aware that it was a port over as I had not flown this title myself, and as everyone has mentioned it is not a "true" FSX aircraft.I apologize if there was misconception.Yes, we tend to use the word "redux" as a "2nd look" at a previously released title, especially in the film industry. I was hoping that the readers were going to get some good information out of it. In a perfect world, when a developer releases an FS9/FSX product it would be nice for the reviewer to review both versions. Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't always fly both FS9 and FSX. Another option would be a collaberation review, one FS9 one FSX, but time constrains usually prohibit this from happening. So we do the best we can. I thank the readers for the thoughts and comments within the forums, afterall that's what they're for.

One of the staff reviewers took a look at the FSX version and submitted an abbreviated "review" of that version of a previously reviewed aircrat, then through a misplacement of the submission email I lost the name of the reviewer, therefore I took that line out of the header box.I thought it pertainent to give the readers another view of this aircraft since the original review was of the FS9 version yet the developer had released it for both FS9 and FSX. I was not aware that it was a port over as I had not flown this title myself, and as everyone has mentioned it is not a "true" FSX aircraft.I apologize if there was misconception.Yes, we tend to use the word "redux" as a "2nd look" at a previously released title, especially in the film industry. I was hoping that the readers were going to get some good information out of it. In a perfect world, when a developer releases an FS9/FSX product it would be nice for the reviewer to review both versions. Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't always fly both FS9 and FSX. Another option would be a collaberation review, one FS9 one FSX, but time constrains usually prohibit this from happening. So we do the best we can. I thank the readers for the thoughts and comments within the forums, afterall that's what they're for.

Thanks for the background. I have read both reviews a couple more times and I don't think either one addresses either FS9 or FSX specifically. I'm not sure what sim he was using for either review as he didn't make it known to the reader. Most reviews list the computer specs used for the evaluation and how many hours of flight time in the program being reviewed. All of that is missing in this one. It looks to me like just some very thinly veiled advertising by the developer. After all, the previous review was less than a month old and the redux did not introduce anything new or different. Further, there is no link from the redux or most recent to the one done last month. Nothing stating why there is a "redux. The original review (June 13, 2010) is quite hard to find in the AVSIM filing system. The only way I found it was a link from the develper's "awards" page back to avsim bragging about the gold star.I sure think we deserve better than we got with these two. Probably 98% of the words and 100% of the screenshots came directly form the developers web site.Any idea why neither review is listed in the commercial review section as of today? A post a little earlier shows nothing in 2010 for the Boeing 757, Here it is . ..

I think if you are going to review this product post SP1 than do a full review and not just a update. JeffG

I sure think we deserve better than we got with these two. Probably 98% of the words and 100% of the screenshots came directly form the developers web site.

Who are you pretending to speak for when you say "we", instead of "I"?Anyone who has been around for a while should be fully aware of Avsim's position regarding reviews, advertising, commercial members, planting posts, etc. This is not like some other FlightSim sites, where you automatically get a glowing review if you list your products with their online store.Or maybe you've become the Woodward and Bernstein of the flight sim world and have discovered some nefarious plot by Avsim to influence the purchasing habits of innocent flight simmers worldwide? Care to share your proof of your 98% claim?

Well one thing, is I found a visual problem with the model, which you can see clearly in the wing view. There is a separation, at least in the RR model between the front part of the pylon and engine. The real aircraft does not have this separation. I've seen this in a number of wing view videos of this model. I haven't noticed it with the PW engine type though.

Who are you pretending to speak for when you say "we", instead of "I"?Anyone who has been around for a while should be fully aware of Avsim's position regarding reviews, advertising, commercial members, planting posts, etc. This is not like some other FlightSim sites, where you automatically get a glowing review if you list your products with their online store.Or maybe you've become the Woodward and Bernstein of the flight sim world and have discovered some nefarious plot by Avsim to influence the purchasing habits of innocent flight simmers worldwide? Care to share your proof of your 98% claim?

Sorry if I spoke for you without your permission, I apologize. As for the % of words, it is quite easy, read the reviews, go to the web site and you will see where all the cut and paste came from.I really don't have a problem with the review itself. Heck, I'm probably never going to buy anything written for FS9 and ported over to fsx. What I dislike is that we (avsim readers, all) have a published review by a true no-named person that did not identify if he/she was using FS9 or FSX or both, did not date the review, did not make a recommendation other than the name of the developer should be enough, did not identify his/her PC configuration (Pentium2, 1 gb ram, who knows), I have no guess at this persons qualifications, don't know if he/she has ever flown heavies before, ever. Don't know nothing about the reviewer, so how can the review be credible?Stuff like that. The lack of quality control is in the publishing of the document, not necessarily the content, maybe its a Cessna pilot that just got his/her first free heavy package for writing a review. Who knows.I think I have made my position fully known so I don't plan anymore posts on this thread. I started it, and now I am finished.RayM

As I have explained elsewhere, I was the author of the review. I didn't know why my name didn't appear on it, either, until I read the explanation. As I have also explained elsewhere in this subforum, I accidentally left out my specs (which were the same as my other reviews) and followed up with an email citing them. I suppose I am to blame to the extent that on my first review back from some serious medical issues I failed to follow the review format to a T on the original submission.On the more substantive issues, some of the more sophisticated AVSIM readers may not be misled by "non-native FSX" but I'm not sure your average review reader would know what to make of that. Although I know there are some readers with an intense interest in the issue, I suspect they are in the minority, and I thought it more to the point to address the effects of that status, i.e. poor frame rates and lack of bumpmaps. That is something everyone can understand. If the Reviews Editor deems it appropriate to make it a policy to specifically identify non-FSX native products as such, then I'm sure all the reviewers will comply.I did not recommend the product for an Avsim Gold Star. The other reviewer did. I don't know what more to say about that. As for recommendations, I don't know that it is the reviewer's job to always give a specific recommendation on whether to buy or not. I believe the purpose of the review is to provide facts and impressions from which the reader may form his own opinions. For the contributor here that claims 98 percent of the words and 100 percent of the screenshots come from the developer's site, all I have to say is that I assure you all of the screenshots except for the tails one (identified as such) were taken by me, and all of the words, except for the list of models, were written by me, however poorly a job he may consider that I did. I thought the review was even-handed when I wrote it, and I still do. I offered criticism where I felt it was warranted and praise where merited. I believe the now infamous "Redux" review is, in fact, quite different from the original one, and at the very least offers a different perspective. Whether those differences warranted publishing the second review is a matter for the editorial judgment of the Reviews Editor.The conspiratorial thinking is amusing enough to take the sting out of criticism. In fact, I can't feel too bad about criticism because I don't feel it was my strongest review. Writing is something that comes easy for me usually, and I struggled quite a bit with this one. I think part of the problem was that I had already written the Captain Sim 757 review and felt stymied by not wanting to repeat myself. By the way, I did not even receive the benefit of a review copy, since I had already purchased the product and volunteered since I had it. I had no reason to write a fluff piece and I doubt the developer is 100% pleased by the review.Anyway, constructive criticism that allows me to write better reviews is always appreciated.