The sad part is that Ariane does have a pretty good product. Great framerates for such a detailed VC. Lots of good things about the product. But.....they are in a crowded market with a small number of people(per capita) that can or are willing to pay 100+ dollars for a flightsim addon. Then, you have them charging for liveries. Ok.....That in itself isn't that bad, but when you have them claiming that navigation updates are coming "soon" and it has been that way for the last year. You simply cannot compete at that price point without nav updates.I can deal with the Ariane activation and support process. I can even deal with being charged for addon liveries. No nav updates? Well....it is a little frustrating and it keeps my card in the wallet when it comes to their new aircraft. They did post some updates in March about beta testing a new nav data manager. There was a hint at the start of June that progress was being made, but I have to admit I am a little skeptical. A lot of people get frustrated with the PMDG development cycle, but they complete the circle when it comes to a fully functional product that is future proof.

I doubt that would improve matters much, there would still be differences of opinion as to what is important and what isn't. Flightsim reviews are no different from literary or film reviews in that regard - a good review by someone with a degree in the subject matter does not necessarily mean that I will like the book or film.Another problem with flightsim reviews is that they are usually not written by someone who is being paid to review - the reviewer may even have bought the product with his only money. Since they are not likely to spend money on flightsim material they expect to dislike, the whole thing is skewed from the outset.That doesn't mean that there are no good reviewers, but as you point out reviews should be taken for what they are - someone else's opinion.

With all due respect I beg to differ. Movies are a matter of opinion. The way a plane operates is not. If you lower flaps, you create lift. There is no arguing that. A reviewer can not say "In my opinion, lift is not created". Physics is based on facts. Movie reviews are based on feelings. But then you mention what is important in an addon. Thats is somewhat true. But this is a SIMULATOR. Isn't the point to simulate the real thing? But that aside, a type rated pilot that knows the plane well can give a review based on a list of items. One being Realism. On a scale of 1-10 is this product realistic. If not why? Generally speaking a non-rated pilot could not give an accurate description. I know there are a bunch of people out there that feel they could give an accurate review but unless you actually have flown the thing you couldn't. Sorry, but when I buy an addon I want the thing to be as accurate as possible. The same goes for scenery, doesn't it? So why not planes? If you are not so interested in a detailed aircraft then you dont have to use some of the advanced options. For example, if you have no interest in using the FMS then don't! A plane is capable of flying without it.

There was a hint at the start of June that progress was being made, but I have to admit I am a little skeptical.

HelloThe Navdata Editor was in development in 2007, doubt you will ever see it released.The sensible thing to do on their part would be to get Navigraph to support their Nav updates.I wonder why Navigraph do not seem in a hurry to deal with Ariane?

I agree that having some knowledge of flying can help with writing a review about a product that simulates flight, just as having some knowledge about movies helps when writing a movie review. But it isn't always going to guarantee an informative review.A more important ability with a review, aside from the enthusiasm necessary to do one, is to accurately analyse the facts of what you are reviewing, collate that into a meaningful structure, and then convey that in an entertaining and understandable way to the people who are most likely to want to know. If that were not so, then the only person qualified to write a review of Apocalypse Now would be a person who has made a Hollywood war movie, worked as a cinematographer, editor, served in Vietnam on an A-Team performing covert missions to Cambodia, become an alcoholic drug-addled burned out war veteran, and who also happens to be a professional writer as well.Having said that, I do think it sometimes helps a bit that I actually can fly an aeroplane for real when I'm writing reviews for Avsim, but I don't think it is vital by any stretch of the imagination, far more useful for me is the fact that I was and still am a professional writer who has spent years researching all kinds of different subjects in order to write about them. For example, when I had to write business pages for a daily newspaper, I went to the extent of becoming a qualified UK IFA, which did help a little, but not as much as being able to write. I'm not trying to diminish the abilities and knowledge of pilots in saying that, I studied damn hard to be a pilot and I'm proud of being a bloody good one too, but I just don't think it is anywhere near as important for writing flight sim reviews as other skills are. Who is Avsim going to get to write a review of Space Shuttle Simulator, are they to ask Bob Crippen? Who could review Rise of Flight?Most of the time when I write reviews for simulated airliners, the first thing I will have done is actually considered if I am in a position to be able to do it as far as being able to gather enough knowledge is concerned before even suggesting I'll give it a go. I will contact people who fly the thing for real, usually arrange a visit to the real aircraft, will generally try to get hold of the flight training manuals for the aircraft in question etc. It can be an expensive business, but I regard it as a way to contribute to flight simming as a whole. I would say reviewing the Ariane 737-900ER for Avsim cost me well in excess of 700 quid in total if one adds up all the visits I did to the real aircraft, taking a ride in a 737 simulator, conversations I had with various 737 pilots, manuals and books I bought, etc. In fact, I actually did so much reading up on the 737 NG's technical systems for that review, that there was more than one occasion when talking to genuine 737 pilots where I was actually able to correct them on some aspect of it, although it is true they were able to do that for me too.Al

Sorry, but when I buy an addon I want the thing to be as accurate as possible.

Realism in itself is not enough. I have a Dash 8, for example, that by all accounts is very realistic. Unfortunately the VC quality is not good enough for me, and I put it in the hangar long ago.Flightsim addons are about giving the simmer a credible experience of flight. But exactly what defines "credible" varies greatly from person to person, as can be clearly seen from the wide range of addons available and discussions in forums such as this one. (I've always wondered why things like wingviews and detailed galleys and cabins would matter, but clearly these things are important to some).Personally I enjoy the DCS A-10C, but I do understand the point of view of the reviewer you referred to. There is no point in buying an extremely realistic simulated plane if the time you must spend to learn to use it is beyond what you can reasonably dedicate to a hobby.I value the occasional input from real-world pilots on the simulated planes I fly, but I don't think that their flying skills alone would make them good reviewers.

Most of the time when I write reviews for simulated airliners, the first thing I will have done is actually considered if I am in a position to be able to do it as far as being able to gather enough knowledge is concerned before even suggesting I'll give it a go. I will contact people who fly the thing for real, usually arrange a visit to the real aircraft, will generally try to get hold of the flight training manuals for the aircraft in question etc. It can be an expensive business, but I regard it as a way to contribute to flight simming as a whole. I would say reviewing the Ariane 737-900ER for Avsim cost me well in excess of 700 quid in total if one adds up all the visits I did to the real aircraft, taking a ride in a 737 simulator, conversations I had with various 737 pilots, manuals and books I bought, etc. In fact, I actually did so much reading up on the 737 NG's technical systems for that review, that there was more than one occasion when talking to genuine 737 pilots where I was actually able to correct them on some aspect of it, although it is true they were able to do that for me too.Al

Indeed, and it's exactly the reason I stopped writing reviews of aircraft. I simply feel I do not have the knowledge to do it as accurately as one would want. Sure, I can comment on the exterior model and VC, and the sounds. However, beyond that point, I will never be able to state whether a plane flies like it should or whether the systems are truly accurate. Sure, I did write aircraft reviews, and as I speak I'm writing my last aircraft review ever. I will focus on sceneries - that's what I'm good at. All you need for that is airport maps (Navigraph, thank you!), Google Earth, and an eye for detail.Out of curiosity, how did you arrange visits to the real aircraft?

Out of curiosity, how did you arrange visits to the real aircraft?

Depends on which aircraft. What helps is contacting maintenance facilities, or if it is an old type, museums can help too. A lot of the time they will let you have a look around the cockpit whilst the thing is out of working commission so long as you make it known that it is for a reasonably serious purpose and not simply because you are being nosey for the sake of it. You might be surprised how respected Avsim is in the aviation industry if you ask nicely, are polite and amenable.In the case of the 737, I was fortunate in the timing somewhat, since there was a bit of an economic downturn at that time, and there was one in temporary storage awaiting a new lease client, so I was able to look around that one, which is often about the best way to do it nowadays since the security checks in the post 9-11 era have made that less easy to get more than a very brief visit to the flight deck. But for a go in a working simulator, I simply had to get my hand in pocket and cough up for that like anyone else, which was fun by the way and is recommended. As far as advice goes, several real-world 737 pilots actually contacted me when they knew I was doing the Ariane review of their 737, which was quite lucky, and they were very helpful and generous with advice, and being a keen glider pilot myself, I do know a few airliner drivers, since there are a lot of airliner pilots who like flying gliders, as it tends to be a lot more 'hands-on flying' than airline pilots typically do when driving the heavy metal, and you can bump into them on a glider flight line and then bend their ear about stuff LOL!More tricky than having a shufty around a 737, which after all is pretty ubiquitous since it is the best-selling airliner of all time, was checking out 707 cockpit for the CS FSX review I've just completed, since there are hardly any of those about in the original condition which is depicted in the CS version, although I was very lucky on that score in that there is a preserved BOAC 707 cockpit section up in Scotland which you can visit, and I was able to combine that with a trip up there I had to make when I was working in Glasgow. A good tip for visiting museums is to do so on a slow day (i.e. a mid weekday not during school holidays), as you will find the staff more amenable to letting you have a nosey about when there are few people visiting.In other words, it is mostly a case of asking about and occasionally being prepared to travel about. Fortunately, from having worked for newspapers and worked for airlines as well, I tend to know who to ask and how to be a bit cheeky when asking as well. Having a few contacts I can pull in favours from, via various jobs I have done comes in handy too, for example, I know a few people who work for Airbus, BAe etc, which invariably means I'll be a cheeky sod and ask to have a nosey around their stuff, for example, I was chatting to someone the other day who was making the tail sections for the JSF. I got really lucky once and trained someone from a large avionics company who was on my copywriting course, and they were doing work on GPS approaches and the avionics related to that, so it's funny how things turn out well via what you might think would completely unrelated things.It isn't always necessary to visit a cockpit of course, but it can help give you a feel for if a VC does a good job of conveying the real thing well. For example, I've managed to clamber around the cockpit of a Vulcan Bomber a few times, and that's a right pain in the &@($* to get into, with you smashing your head on stuff a lot when you come up into it because it is so awkward, and it's very dark in there too, but that does now mean I know the IRIS Vulcan's VC does a good job of conveying that. Similarly, the 737 NG cockpit is a bit more 'cosy' than the earlier ones from when Boeing having the pedestal by about ten inches to fit all the fancy radio avionics, thus it is a bit trickier to see things on the edge of the pedestal on an NG because your arm is in the way sometimes, and those things are only really apparent if you've had a nosey around a cockpit. You then also know that it is easier to smash your knees if you don't move the seat when getting in there, whereas on a 737-200, you can squeeze past the pedestal edge and the seat! Most Boeing cockpits are tiny, and although lots of people don't like the fact that an Airbus has no central yoke, it's great when it comes to getting into and out of the seat and being able to see the PFDs.A good example of how that kind of experience relates to sims and reviewing things is the way you operate switches in a VC. Sometimes people complain that it is difficult to operate switches from the pilot's seat that are over on the other side of the overhead or facia in a VC (such as the position lights switch), but the fact is they are a bit of a stretch to reach from that position in the real aeroplane as well, and really intended to be operated by the co-pilot, so having a sit in the right seat is usually worth a go as well, and if an FS add-on includes saved views for the co-pilot's seat, then you can comment on how that works from a functionality standpoint in FS.Al

I have to admit that I am at least interested in the Ariane 737. No doubt a beautiful aircraft! However, I have a big problem paying for paint jobs. If their policy didn't restrict all the talented painters out there from repainting, I'd probably buy. Seems the silly repaint thing is just about getting more money for themselves. Not a good business move when there are other options out there, in my opinion.

I have to admit that I am at least interested in the Ariane 737. No doubt a beautiful aircraft! However, I have a big problem paying for paint jobs. If their policy didn't restrict all the talented painters out there from repainting, I'd probably buy. Seems the silly repaint thing is just about getting more money for themselves. Not a good business move when there are other options out there, in my opinion.

Yup, I agree with that too. I made my own paint kit for it!Al

If I had a penny for each complaint about Ariane, I would buy Microsoft. Obviously they cantt be THAT good. They dont even have a forum here!

So if a product does not have a forum on Avsim they are no good.You have a lot to learn,grow up. JeffG

So if a product does not have a forum on Avsim they are no good.You have a lot to learn,grow up. JeffG

Jeff give it a rest. I see the sarcasm escapes you. Not once did I insult anyone personally on this topic. You just insulted me. If you take everything literally on these forums you may need more experience texting. If you were in the same room with me and I said "How good can they be? They dont even have a forum on here", The way I express it in my voice I can make it sound many ways but right away you think I meant it literally. Heck Leonardo doesnt have a forum on here and their MD80 is fantastic. If you don't know how to take people on here, or at least give hem the benefit of the doubt, you have no business on these forums. As for growing up? Nuff said.

Jeff give it a rest. I see the sarcasm escapes you. Not once did I insult anyone personally on this topic. You just insulted me. If you take everything literally on these forums you may need more experience texting. If you were in the same room with me and I said "How good can they be? They dont even have a forum on here", The way I express it in my voice I can make it sound many ways but right away you think I meant it literally. Heck Leonardo doesnt have a forum on here and their MD80 is fantastic. If you don't know how to take people on here, or at least give hem the benefit of the doubt, you have no business on these forums. As for growing up? Nuff said.

To be fair, being that you are a member of a developer posting in a competing product's thread (BTW, as such, shouldn't you have joined the Orange "Commercial Member" club?) I can see how such comments can be taken out of context, so maybe it may be a good idea if you use the smiley's when your posts are meant as sarcasm, like you say we can't tell your intentions from just written text. For better or worse, developer's (or members of) comments tend to carry more weight, then the average member post.

To be fair, being that you are a member of a developer posting in a competing product's thread (BTW, as such, shouldn't you have joined the Orange "Commercial Member" club?) I can see how such comments can be taken out of context, so maybe it may be a good idea if you use the smiley's when your posts are meant as sarcasm, like you say we can't tell your intentions from just written text. For better or worse, developer's (or members of) comments tend to carry more weight, then the average member post.

Yeah the smiley thing miht ome in handy. Never used em though. Do they have a sarcasm face though? Not sure what that would look like! Being on the tevh team for PMDG doesn't mean that I am biased though. Heck its the Devs that deserve the credit. I have been asked by a couple different companies to help out with their 737. i wanted to help out PMDG because I knew they would do it right having been a customer of PMDG since the original 737. I just believe in their philosophy on how this sim stuff should be created. And for the ones that know me know that I am a hardcore simmer and if I could choose any company that I could associate my name with then it would be one tnat believes in hard core simming.

Depends on which aircraft. What helps is contacting maintenance facilities, or if it is an old type, museums can help too. A lot of the time they will let you have a look around the cockpit whilst the thing is out of working commission so long as you make it known that it is for a reasonably serious purpose and not simply because you are being nosey for the sake of it. You might be surprised how respected Avsim is in the aviation industry if you ask nicely, are polite and amenable.In the case of the 737, I was fortunate in the timing somewhat, since there was a bit of an economic downturn at that time, and there was one in temporary storage awaiting a new lease client, so I was able to look around that one, which is often about the best way to do it nowadays since the security checks in the post 9-11 era have made that less easy to get more than a very brief visit to the flight deck. But for a go in a working simulator, I simply had to get my hand in pocket and cough up for that like anyone else, which was fun by the way and is recommended. As far as advice goes, several real-world 737 pilots actually contacted me when they knew I was doing the Ariane review of their 737, which was quite lucky, and they were very helpful and generous with advice, and being a keen glider pilot myself, I do know a few airliner drivers, since there are a lot of airliner pilots who like flying gliders, as it tends to be a lot more 'hands-on flying' than airline pilots typically do when driving the heavy metal, and you can bump into them on a glider flight line and then bend their ear about stuff LOL!More tricky than having a shufty around a 737, which after all is pretty ubiquitous since it is the best-selling airliner of all time, was checking out 707 cockpit for the CS FSX review I've just completed, since there are hardly any of those about in the original condition which is depicted in the CS version, although I was very lucky on that score in that there is a preserved BOAC 707 cockpit section up in Scotland which you can visit, and I was able to combine that with a trip up there I had to make when I was working in Glasgow. A good tip for visiting museums is to do so on a slow day (i.e. a mid weekday not during school holidays), as you will find the staff more amenable to letting you have a nosey about when there are few people visiting.In other words, it is mostly a case of asking about and occasionally being prepared to travel about. Fortunately, from having worked for newspapers and worked for airlines as well, I tend to know who to ask and how to be a bit cheeky when asking as well. Having a few contacts I can pull in favours from, via various jobs I have done comes in handy too, for example, I know a few people who work for Airbus, BAe etc, which invariably means I'll be a cheeky sod and ask to have a nosey around their stuff, for example, I was chatting to someone the other day who was making the tail sections for the JSF. I got really lucky once and trained someone from a large avionics company who was on my copywriting course, and they were doing work on GPS approaches and the avionics related to that, so it's funny how things turn out well via what you might think would completely unrelated things.It isn't always necessary to visit a cockpit of course, but it can help give you a feel for if a VC does a good job of conveying the real thing well. For example, I've managed to clamber around the cockpit of a Vulcan Bomber a few times, and that's a right pain in the &@($* to get into, with you smashing your head on stuff a lot when you come up into it because it is so awkward, and it's very dark in there too, but that does now mean I know the IRIS Vulcan's VC does a good job of conveying that. Similarly, the 737 NG cockpit is a bit more 'cosy' than the earlier ones from when Boeing having the pedestal by about ten inches to fit all the fancy radio avionics, thus it is a bit trickier to see things on the edge of the pedestal on an NG because your arm is in the way sometimes, and those things are only really apparent if you've had a nosey around a cockpit. You then also know that it is easier to smash your knees if you don't move the seat when getting in there, whereas on a 737-200, you can squeeze past the pedestal edge and the seat! Most Boeing cockpits are tiny, and although lots of people don't like the fact that an Airbus has no central yoke, it's great when it comes to getting into and out of the seat and being able to see the PFDs.A good example of how that kind of experience relates to sims and reviewing things is the way you operate switches in a VC. Sometimes people complain that it is difficult to operate switches from the pilot's seat that are over on the other side of the overhead or facia in a VC (such as the position lights switch), but the fact is they are a bit of a stretch to reach from that position in the real aeroplane as well, and really intended to be operated by the co-pilot, so having a sit in the right seat is usually worth a go as well, and if an FS add-on includes saved views for the co-pilot's seat, then you can comment on how that works from a functionality standpoint in FS.Al

Thanks for the post, Alan! I'll put your tips into practice if I ever again do an aircraft review. As far as a connections go, my ex-girlfriend's dad worked at KLM, but well, the "ex" part makes that a bit problematic...I agree with Jack: The Leonardo Maddog is fantastic. At this time, I think its best aircraft out there money can buy you.