Hi Guys,Probably not something alot of reviewers would ask for, but I'd like to take the time and ask you guys for some feedback on my review I did on the Vertigo Studio's P36 Hawk - http://www.avsim.com/pages/0710/Vertigo2/P36.htmI would like to ask you guys what I did a good job on, and what you think needs improving as I would like to imrpove every time, and that would require the readers feedback.I didn't add a lot of pictures but on the review im doing right now, I have added alot more.Any Feedback what so ever please!Cheers,Aidan Sandri.

I think it's a pretty good review myself. It's short, but there is nothing wrong with taking that approach, as it definitely cuts to the chase. I would however bear in mind that sometimes readers of Avsim treat the reviews a bit like a magazine that they would like to kill some time with, and since reviews only come out every few days on Avsim, it's occasionally worth considering that notion and giving people something that they can get their teeth into. Because that is the case however, I did particularly like the fact that you included a quick list of features at the top of your review, which means that even a lengthy review could be quickly scanned to suit those who don't want to read a big long affair, as there are certainly some Avsim members who prefer that approach too. I'm going to steal that idea off you!I also liked the choices for your screenshots, which showed things off well. You don't necessarily need dozens of screenshots, often just a few are all that is needed, but I would take care to include all of the available paint schemes, even if you just show them on a screengrab of the FS selection menu, as that gives people an idea of what they are getting for their money (this is where mentioning things such as whether there is a paint kit available is also useful). I perhaps might have included a close up screenshot of the gauges to demonstrate their level of quality, since that is what people will be looking at when flying the thing, especially given that the Hawk looks like it has a very nice VC.Of course a flight sim add-on aeroplane is never at its best with simply screenshots, and you will notice that a few reviewers, myself included, have started to put links in their Avsim reviews to some video on footage (on youtube or wherever), to show off the things such as the sounds, appearance of effects, how it performs on frame rates etc. And that's quite a nice thing to do. It also serves to get more people coming to Avsim, since if someone chances across the youtube video and it say on it that it accompanies an Avsim review, that might get people to the site.Other things you might have done, but didn't necessarily need to do, so it's not a mistake, are include a bit more of an expanded history of the real aeroplane. That's not always necessary of course, but in the case of the Hawk fighter, it is quite an unusual WW2 aeroplane, but an important developmental one with a novel history, and there will doubtless be many aircraft enthusiasts who aren't too familiar with it, who might like to know that sort of stuff.For example, the Hawk did actually make the first Allied fighter verus fighter 'kill' in the European theatre in WW2, when some French 75C export variants from Groupe de Chasse II/4 downed a couple of Messerschmitt bf109s. The Hawk was also the subject of some interesting confusion, when RAF intelligence mistakenly suggested that RAF pilots who reported a new enemy aircraft type with a radial engine in 1941, were mistaken and that the Germans were probably using ex-French Hawks which they had captured. As it turned out, those pilots were really seeing, was of course the new Focke-Wulf 190. These are the kind of things aviation buffs are often interested in hearing about. If, in doing that, your review ends up too wordy, Robert Whitwell (Avsim's hard-working reviews editor), can always chop the thing down, so it is worth giving him the option, especially if there aren't too many reviews that week, as he may welcome a long review in such circumstances. Don't get offended if he does edit it down though, Robert is an extremely skilled editor and invariably knows what is best.I might also have perhaps gone into a little more detail about how the thing flies. This is tricky for a lot of aeroplanes of course, since we have often not flown the real thing, and in some cases there may even be no flying examples of the real thing left in existence, but comparisons to other similar aircraft and information from historical accounts can help there, for example, the Hawk was able to occasionally shoot down the more capable Messerschmitt bf109, but was largely outclassed by aircraft such as that on most occasions, so you can get an idea of things such as maneuverability from reading historical accounts. Sometimes you might even contact someone who has flown the real thing and ask them about it. I did that for the P40 review I did for Avsim a while back, and it was a very interesting experience to speak to someone who flew the real thing in battle. Sometimes doing that kind of research can be an expensive business, if you have to locate and perhaps purchase pilot manuals or text books, or visit an airfield or museum, but for comprehensive reviews, it is occasionally worth going to that expense, or alternatively, getting a library to loan you such books. Naturally the internet is also a good source for such research too, as there may be footage of an aircraft on youtube at an airshow or whatever.One last thing. I notice you suggested that it might be worthy of an Avsim award. That might be true, but generally speaking, it is up to the reviews editor to say yay or nay to that, often from the impression he would form from reading your review whilst editing it, so it is usually better to suggest that you might think something is worthy of such an accolade on an email, so that Robert can consider it based on your appraisal of the product as well as his own.Feel free to disagree with these suggestions incidentally, a review is a very personal thing, so ultimately it is up to you how you tackle it. Overall, I thought your review was good.Al

Thanks Al.

Just joined today