Review Feedback on FSDT Hawaiin Airports Volume 1

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I've never given negative feedback on a review before but I really have to say on this one that I disagree with a number of negative statements the reviewer made. I have never noticed any blurry textures and I've been using it since the day they announced it. And I really don't think the comment about birds and sounds should be stated as a negative in the final summary - that's very much a matter of personal taste. And the thing about your security hardware perhaps giving a warning? By all means mention these things in the review but to put them in the negative box at the end elevates the negatives almost to the level of the positives for the scenery. I don't think that's fair to the developer. The review was very well written and I don't want Mike to think I'm attacking him - I'm not. I just think the review has a more negative tone to it than is really fair. This is a great scenery from a team that doesn't know how to make anything but great products and to get FSX and FS9 versions of two fascinating airports at the price FSDT are charging is an incredible bargain IMHO.

[Benjamin J 751]

I think what Mike refers to as blurry might be this sort of stuff:http://www.avsim.com...hue%20tower.jpgNotice the windows on the building to the left of the tower. Compared to the windows on the tower itself, they are blurrier and ultimately I'd probably ask myself why it couldn't have been of the same quality. However, we must keep in mind that however objective a reviewer tries to be, it's still an opinion that is written down. Mike thinks the windows are a bit blurry and compared to the windows on the tower I'll have to agree. But would I care much? No, I wouldn't. That said, I do think it is a ligitemate point and you may ask the developers why there is such a difference.I have recently bought two of FSDT's airports: Chicago and JFK. Both are great, but I find the ground imagery in JFK to be sub-par. I simply dislike that ground imagery was used for the taxiways. That's why I think Chicago looks better than JFK: The taxiways are well-defined strips of concrete or asphalt, and are not part of a blurry ground imagine. Because I think this is a problem: in FS9 you can't really use ground imagery and paint taxi lines on them. I think it looks like a mess. However, it was apparent that other people did not agree with me on this point. Some people found it to be perfectly fine - which is an illustration how different opinions on one small thing can vary - probably something I needn't even tell you. My point is that the same happens when a review is written. You must keep in mind that the reviewer sees things differently. I think this is such a case too. Although I do think the reviewer maybe should have reffered the reader to a specific screenshot to make his point clearer. Now we are left guessing where the supposedly blurry textures are.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I think what Mike refers to as blurry might be this sort of stuff:http://www.avsim.com...hue%20tower.jpgNotice the windows on the building to the left of the tower. Compared to the windows on the tower itself, they are blurrier and ultimately I'd probably ask myself why it couldn't have been of the same quality. However, we must keep in mind that however objective a reviewer tries to be, it's still an opinion that is written down. Mike thinks the windows are a bit blurry and compared to the windows on the tower I'll have to agree. But would I care much? No, I wouldn't. That said, I do think it is a ligitemate point and you may ask the developers why there is such a difference.I have recently bought two of FSDT's airports: Chicago and JFK. Both are great, but I find the ground imagery in JFK to be sub-par. I simply dislike that ground imagery was used for the taxiways. That's why I think Chicago looks better than JFK: The taxiways are well-defined strips of concrete or asphalt, and are not part of a blurry ground imagine. Because I think this is a problem: in FS9 you can't really use ground imagery and paint taxi lines on them. I think it looks like a mess. However, it was apparent that other people did not agree with me on this point. Some people found it to be perfectly fine - which is an illustration how different opinions on one small thing can vary - probably something I needn't even tell you. My point is that the same happens when a review is written. You must keep in mind that the reviewer sees things differently. I think this is such a case too. Although I do think the reviewer maybe should have reffered the reader to a specific screenshot to make his point clearer. Now we are left guessing where the supposedly blurry textures are.

Hi BenjaminYou make fair points and I do see the blurry textures in the .jpg file you posted, but darned if I've seen it in the sim. I'll go take another look after I get offline. My problem wasn't so much the content of the review. My worry is that a lot of people may simply look at the summary at the end, see that the negatives are almost as many as the positives and just move on and cross the scenery off their "to buy" list. I think this scenery deserves a lot of respect - two airports, both very well done and for both versions of FS. Combined with FSDT Honlulu it really makes for a great environment for short-haul flights in a beautiful part of the world. I definitely don't think any reviewer should ever overlook any faults in the product they are reviewing - I want to see rigorous and critical analysis of products I might buy. I just thought the summary at the end was "picky" and not really fair to the product. But I agree that it's all a matter of opinion. Which is why we have the forums I guess! Cheers

[out 769]

cross the scenery off their "to buy" list

And I believed I was the only one to have a such a list (BTW both PHNL and Hawaiian Airports are there)! PS: I also was surprised to see the final dislikes list, especially the: 'No animated birds or sound effects' <--- Is it really a problem with top notch scnery addons?

[kiwiflyer45 123]

And I believed I was the only one to have a such a list (BTW both PHNL and Hawaiian Airports are there)! PS: I also was surprised to see the final dislikes list, especially the: 'No animated birds or sound effects' <--- Is it really a problem with top notch scnery addons?

I think we all have our "to buy" list - and it just keeps getting longer and longer. Where is Santa Claus when you really need him? :P As for the "birds sounds" - I have close to 400 sceneries in my addon scenery folder and I don't think any of them have sound effects.

[Chock 17,769]

Of course it is personal preference, but I've only got one airport (freeware Archangel) that has animated birds on it, and although that's quite cool, since one cannot get a bird strike in FS, I could take or leave the effect. Still, it does clearly say at the bottom of every Avsim review that it is a reviewer's opinion, and if it is the reviewer's opinion that birds flying about would improve it, then who are we to say that is incorrect?Al

[Guest acezboy561]

'No animated birds or sound effects' <--- Is it really a problem with top notch scnery addons?

It is when you fly in the FTX

[out 769]

It is when you fly in the FTX

I see now.... . I was looking from an FS9 perspective. :wink:I guess it is hard to compare anything to OrbX addons.I can hear birds (seagulls) only in Aerosoft's latest Gibraltar scenery. In the beginning I thought it nicely adds some realism, but after one minute it starts irritating me.As for seeing the birds animated, well, it surely depends on what you like and value.Some years ago, when I read about what new featiures FSX was going to bring, I thought that the addition of animated animals (sounds strage) is not what I would really care to see.And even though I understand people have different preferences, I am still not convinced it is any objective advantage (or its lack being a disadvantage) for a scenery.

[Benjamin J 751]

Hi BenjaminYou make fair points and I do see the blurry textures in the .jpg file you posted, but darned if I've seen it in the sim. I'll go take another look after I get offline. My problem wasn't so much the content of the review. My worry is that a lot of people may simply look at the summary at the end, see that the negatives are almost as many as the positives and just move on and cross the scenery off their "to buy" list. I think this scenery deserves a lot of respect - two airports, both very well done and for both versions of FS. Combined with FSDT Honlulu it really makes for a great environment for short-haul flights in a beautiful part of the world. I definitely don't think any reviewer should ever overlook any faults in the product they are reviewing - I want to see rigorous and critical analysis of products I might buy. I just thought the summary at the end was "picky" and not really fair to the product. But I agree that it's all a matter of opinion. Which is why we have the forums I guess! Cheers

That's a fair point. I agree with you: what ends in the summary should be the major points. It does feel a bit like Mike might have not had a lot to put in that "dislikes" box, and so put some of the more minor stuff in it. I'd probably try and make sure that doesn't happen. On the other hand, I can also imagine that many people who read that bit will think "oh well, that's not too important for me" and simply buy the scenery. Ultimately, though, we indeed have the forums, as you rightly say. Whenever I think of getting a product and the review doesn't fully match up with my opinion, I refer to the forums (like I did with FSDT JFK).

[kiwiflyer45 123]

That's a fair point. I agree with you: what ends in the summary should be the major points. It does feel a bit like Mike might have not had a lot to put in that "dislikes" box, and so put some of the more minor stuff in it. I'd probably try and make sure that doesn't happen. On the other hand, I can also imagine that many people who read that bit will think "oh well, that's not too important for me" and simply buy the scenery. Ultimately, though, we indeed have the forums, as you rightly say. Whenever I think of getting a product and the review doesn't fully match up with my opinion, I refer to the forums (like I did with FSDT JFK).

I have learned that same lesson the hard way - take the review as a general guide but see what the users are saying in the support forums and elsewhere.Cheers mate - thanks for the good dialogue

[virtuali 4,421]

I have learned that same lesson the hard way - take the review as a general guide but see what the users are saying in the support forums and elsewhere. Cheers mate - thanks for the good dialogue

I would like to humbly point out that, in case of FSDT, there's even a better way to form your own opinion about our products, which is of course downloading and installing the Trial version and have a look at it on your system.

[out 769]

installing the Trial version and have a look at it on your system

Which is what I LOVE about your sceneries, Umberto. I wish all other developers had this option too. It would save a lot of disappointment to some folks.

[scott967 62]

I think what Mike refers to as blurry might be this sort of stuff:http://www.avsim.com...hue%20tower.jpgNotice the windows on the building to the left of the tower. Compared to the windows on the tower itself, they are blurrier and ultimately

It looks like the area on the texture used for the tower is about 200x400 pixels, while the side of the building looks to be about 100x20, so has to be scaled up when mapped to the object and that I suspect is what is making it appear more blurry. Using bigger textures or more of them would allow more detail in the texture at the expense of additional drawcalls and more texture data being passed to the graphics and rendered all of which will impact performance.scott s..

[kiwiflyer45 123]

I would like to humbly point out that, in case of FSDT, there's even a better way to form your own opinion about our products, which is of course downloading and installing the Trial version and have a look at it on your system.

You are absolutely right Umberto. That is one of the many things I admire about FSDT and why I have bought so many of your sceneries. Some are too complex to run on my old PC but others that I thought I wouldn't be able to run, and therefore would not have purchased, turned out to be absolutely fine. (EDDM for example - I love it!) The point is that you can try them all and see if you like them. Thank you for the excellent work you do and the absolute fairness of your policy...

[Benjamin J 751]

I must also admit that this demo policy of FSDT is great. I had the chance to demo KORD and KJFK before I bought them. What's also good is that, even though the scenery vanishes after a couple of minutes, the performance doesn't change, so I could do some rigorous performance testing even without the scenery actually being visible.