Yet another AVSIM review with no mention...

[kiwikat 506]

...that the product is a PORTOVER. The Maddog 2010 is a FS9 portover, not a FSX aircraft. Why isn't this mentioned in the review? This is the single most important thing readers need to know about it!AVSIM reviewers really need to stop dropping the ball. I've brought this up many times and nothing has been done about it. Developers should NOT be rewarded with a good review for a product that doesn't meet today's (or even 3 years ago's) standards. Period. The Maddog developers have said on their forum they have no intent of making a FSX version of this aircraft. They need to be called out for it.

[Samwise 1]

The Maddog 2010 is an absolutely brilliant aircraft. It is definately up to modern standards and has many more features than some native FSX payware have. I don't own much payware, and the reason for that is because I've been tainted by the quality that PMDG produce, and bar the Level-D 767 (which is definitely ageing), the Maddog 2010 is the only product that comes remotely close in terms of attention to detail and systems functionality. Not to mention the failure system thats included, and if you pair it up with FS2Crew theres really nothing one can complain about the product. The only thing I would say needs an update is the VC, but that's being really picky.In my oppinion, that review is spot on. The Maddog is one of the best creations we've seen for FSX and FS2004.I think you're being way to picky over what is actually a great product, and a good, if not brief, review to go with it.

[kiwikat 506]

I think you're being way to picky over what is actually a great product, and a good, if not brief, review to go with it.

Picky? It isn't even a real FSX aircraft! It doesn't follow FSX standards. This is a FSX review. It should be mentioned right away that this isn't even a true FSX addon. Developers have been producing native FSX aircraft for over three four years now. These developers have failed to do so in 2 whole iterations of their product. In fact I can only think of a couple developers who are still producing portovers. It is 2010, not 2006. There's no excuse anymore.There are many people who are not buying this product because it isn't a real FSX addon. Myself included. All they have to do is release a native version and they will get my $$$.

[Chock 17,769]

Except that it actually is mentioned in the review that it is a portover (quite early on in the text as it happens): First paragraph of the review section under the sub header 'Visually', it states:'the visual model has not been updated or changed since that version'.I think that makes it fairly clear that it is a add-on with its origins in FS9 (and there are other similar mention in the review text too). Besides which, it is misleading to say that it is 'not a FSX aircraft', since it clearly does work in FSX. It might not be a completely native FSX aircraft, but it does nevertheless work in FSX, and that quote makes it evident how this has been achieved.Al

[kiwikat 506]

Except that it actually is mentioned in the review that it is a portover (quite early on in the text as it happens): First paragraph of the review section under the sub header 'Visually', it states:'the visual model has not been updated or changed since that version'.I think that makes it fairly clear that it is a add-on with its origins in FS9. Besides which, it is misleading to say that it is 'not a FSX aircraft', since it clearly does work in FSX. It might not be a completely native FSX aircraft, but it does nevertheless work in FSX, and that quote makes it evident how this has been achieved.Al

That is still not coming out and saying it is a portover. FSX was released in 2006. We all know the negatives of using portovers in FSX by now. Why isn't this mentioned in the review, or at the very least in the "cons" section?I don't understand why anyone would promote a product that doesn't meet basic standards from 4 years ago.

[Chock 17,769]

It is mentioned in the 'cons' section. It says: 'it’s the same Maddog 2008 but with the new analogue cockpit'The latest review makes mention of previous reviews, so readers can refer to those, and if you read the 2008 review, it says that it is a portover in that review in the cons section, so by definition if you read the new review and follow the references, it gives you that extended information.Al

[kiwikat 506]

It is mentioned in the 'cons' section. It says: 'it’s the same Maddog 2008 but with the new analogue cockpit'Al

I don't see the words FS9, FS2004, portover, or native anywhere in that statement. If a review has to assume you know something about a previous product, then it is a poor review.Whether you agree with me or not, it is not explicitly stated in the review. That's all I've got to say. AVSIM's reviews are missing some of the most basic (and important) points.

[Benjamin J 751]

I don't see the words FS9, FS2004, portover, or native anywhere in that statement. If a review has to assume you know something about a previous product, then it is a poor review.Whether you agree with me or not, it is not explicitly stated in the review. That's all I've got to say. AVSIM's reviews are missing some of the most basic (and important) points.

With all due respect, but the way I read it, it is merely an extension to a previous review. The Maddog 2008 review is extremely lengthy, and the 2010 review only "updates" that review. because honestly, the review also states that not a lot has changed since the 2008 version. What I would do, then, is go read the 2008 review, and then the 2010 review again to remember what has changed. I do not think this is a poor review at all. I found it clear and informative.

[Samwise 1]

That is still not coming out and saying it is a portover. FSX was released in 2006. We all know the negatives of using portovers in FSX by now. Why isn't this mentioned in the review, or at the very least in the "cons" section?I don't understand why anyone would promote a product that doesn't meet basic standards from 4 years ago.

But if theres actually nothing wrong with the product in the first place, whether it was originally for FS9 or FSX, there really is no need to start from scratch with it.The product was updated this year. It works perfectly in FSX. Please tell me what negatives there are in this particular portover. You don't even have the product so I really can't see how you can back up what you're saying. I really don't see the need for a review to specifically state that it is a portover when it causes no issues. I completely agree that some original FS9 aircraft that have been touched up for FSX looking for quick cash are poor in comparison to the native FSX add-ons that we are seeing these days, but I am afraid that the Maddog is certainly not one of them.

[Guest 747-fan]

Well I do own the 2006 version, and the VC is hopelessly outdated.That's actually my gripe with this review - lack of emphasis on the VC. Most people use VCs nowadays, I think it's fair to assume that. Barely mentioning this aspect is extra bad in this particular case, since the Maddog's VC looks the way it does. Compare it with any native FSX titles by PMDG or even Captain Sim (which look the part, but are shallow in sim depth) and you'll get where I'm going, it's not so much any spesifics just the outdated looks of the VC. Also, the lack of updated VC means that with some of the maddog models, you apparently fly with one 2D panel and a different VC. To me, that's a big reason not to upgrade if you own an earlier version. If I spend 90% of my time in the VC, I'd expect the FMC or engine gauges that appear in the 2D to match the VC.The maddog WAS great 4 years ago. Now for every new product that comes out, it's really starting to show it's age.

[DC_Ed 3]

Hello all.

It is mentioned in the 'cons' section. It says: 'it’s the same Maddog 2008 but with the new analogue cockpit'The latest review makes mention of previous reviews, so readers can refer to those, and if you read the 2008 review, it says that it is a portover in that review in the cons section, so by definition if you read the new review and follow the references, it gives you that extended information.

Kiwikat: I just checked the review and states "Simulation Type: FSX". The original review sent to Robert Whitwell (AVSIM Reviews Editor) stated in this part "Simulation Type: FS9/FSX". So a bit actually got lost in the edition. I reviewed the product in FS9 as I don't have FSX.

With all due respect, but the way I read it, it is merely an extension to a previous review. The Maddog 2008 review is extremely lengthy, and the 2010 review only "updates" that review. because honestly, the review also states that not a lot has changed since the 2008 version. What I would do, then, is go read the 2008 review, and then the 2010 review again to remember what has changed. I do not think this is a poor review at all. I found it clear and informative.

As Benjamin and Al said, the review is somewhat "an extension" of the 2008 review, since few things have actually changed. This is stated in the review itself. While I do get your point that we should state in the reviews when the product is a portover from FS9 (and believe me, I will when I review a FSX product), I think it is sort of a "known issue" now that the Maddog is a portover. As some had said earlier, the add-on is basically 4 years old now, it has been a portover ever since it was created, so if "it's the same MadDog 2008 but with the new analogue cockpit" that sort of makes the point across. I agree with your comment a 100% regarding recent or new products, though.

Well I do own the 2006 version, and the VC is hopelessly outdated.That's actually my gripe with this review - lack of emphasis on the VC. Most people use VCs nowadays, I think it's fair to assume that. Barely mentioning this aspect is extra bad in this particular case, since the Maddog's VC looks the way it does. Compare it with any native FSX titles by PMDG or even Captain Sim (which look the part, but are shallow in sim depth) and you'll get where I'm going, it's not so much any spesifics just the outdated looks of the VC. Also, the lack of updated VC means that with some of the maddog models, you apparently fly with one 2D panel and a different VC. To me, that's a big reason not to upgrade if you own an earlier version. If I spend 90% of my time in the VC, I'd expect the FMC or engine gauges that appear in the 2D to match the VC.The maddog WAS great 4 years ago. Now for every new product that comes out, it's really starting to show it's age.

747-fan: I fully understand your point, however, I will emphasize that I reviewed the product on FS9 and from what I have experienced with the airplane since I've own it, I haven't seen the VC issues you mention about the FMS or the engine gauges. I respectfully disagree with your comment about the use of VC nowadays. I don't consider fair to assume that most people use VC because actually, my simmer friends and other people I have talked to all fly from the 2D panel, including myself. I couldn't compare the Maddog VC using FSX standards for reasons previously explained so in all honesty and fairness, I really have nothing to say about that.I apologise for the misunderstanding about the FS9/FSX thing.Thanks to everyone for the feedback, this helps every one of the staff reviewers here. Any other suggestions, remarks, or comments are welcome.Best regardsP.S.: Reviews Editor emailed to change "FSX" to "FS9/FSX"Edit @ 1507GMT: Fixed

[mgh 89]

What does it matter if it's a portover or not? Surely what matters are the features it actually has? I haven't seen anyone saying what specific FSX features it's lacking.

[Guest 747-fan]

Good response. I'm just a bit concerned that someone's gonna skim through the review a bit too fast and buy the 2010 model, only to find it has the same old VC that was developed 4 years ago. I was about to update too, until I discovered this. IMO it's not worth the money if you already have the 2006 model. I think Leonardo has made a great plane, no questions there, but they're sort of "milking it for what it's worth and then some". I'm half way expecting a "2011" version too with some obscure update or something, for example "the landing lights are now 3d" or something. For the most it's still the same product."Most people use 3D" is a bit assuming, but with the view system in FSX you can use VC even for tubeliners. Track IR usually helps too although I could never get used to it and have it in a drawer somewhere. Most people I know use VC most of the time. PMDG has concentrated their development on 3D (apart from a few popups). So at least I can claim it seems that VCs are becoming ever more popular.BTW Ed, It's heartwarming to see such grace on a forum, common decency and good maners. Keep it up! And thanks for the review, even though I disagree with parts of it, I honestly appreciate you making it.

[out 769]

IMO it's not worth the money if you already have the 2006 model.

As a legitimate Maddog 2006 owner you are entitled to a free upgrade to the 2010 Standard version.If you want the Pro, you pay only a well discounted amount of money.

[DC_Ed 3]

Good response. I'm just a bit concerned that someone's gonna skim through the review a bit too fast and buy the 2010 model, only to find it has the same old VC that was developed 4 years ago. I was about to update too, until I discovered this. IMO it's not worth the money if you already have the 2006 model. BTW Ed, It's heartwarming to see such grace on a forum, common decency and good maners. Keep it up! And thanks for the review, even though I disagree with parts of it, I honestly appreciate you making it.

I'd recommend to update to the 2008 version since it has a bit more of bells and whistles than the 2006. Although Rafal's got it spot on.Thanks for your comment 747-fan. I really appreciate it. One learns more about this as you write each review (especially me, since I'm fairly new at this)Best regards