Pretty good review overall, but when I read a scenery review for FSX (especially airport scenery), there are two things I am looking for from the review:- 1). Plenty of nice screenies.2). Notes from the reviewer about how the scenery performs in FSX, in terms of CPU demand. I noted this review did not make one single reference to how the scenery performs in FSX. Thanks,Stick.

What I Don't Like About KDTW

• Nothing.

??? No offence to the reviewer, but the airport looks nothing like an airport... maybe the terminals are in the correct spots - but it looks nothing like a real airport.

Nothing? In the review points out things that the reviewer doesn't like, but the summary lists nothing that the reviewer doesn't like? No comments on the textures, lack of AES, accuracy of the airport as a whole vs charts, performance?

??? No offence to the reviewer, but the airport looks nothing like an airport... maybe the terminals are in the correct spots - but it looks nothing like a real airport.

This is one reason why I put absolutely zero faith in AVSIM reviews. Years ago they used to be objective, and you could rely on them to make a decision, now there appears to be a concerted effort to coddle and not offend any of the developers poor work. Unless the reviewer has never seen any other payware scenery add-on, this was a heavily biased review.

Their specialty seems to be in accurately representing the buildings and layout of an airport and in this regard they do not disappoint. Aficionados of Detroit Wayne Metro will surely enjoy this homage to the airport and feel as if they are at the real thing. For a mere $US 17.50 you get a lot of airport.

Unless the standard is "there is a building here in real life, and there is something that resembles a building there in the sim, so it's "accurate", the first bolded statement is comical. Let's look at the $15-$25 price point range. The de facto standard in add-on scenery has become FSDT and FlyTampa (with ORBX being on the far right in essentially a category by themselves). This was a glowing review of a product in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that the airport is so far below the standard, it should be either in the sub-$10 price range, or freeware. One just needs to look at any of the offerings by FSDT/FT/ORBX that are in the same price point range as KDTW to see the vast difference in "top quality rendering". If you're going to write a review, you need to be objective and compare it (performance and quality) to other products in the price range. However, if you were just looking to write an AVSIM branded product description, you nailed it.

That's what I call a solid review.

Really you need to do something with this review guys, you can't leave it as it is, send it to another reviewer or just delete it from your files, its a joke for us simmers. The airport, as all blue print ones, are just too plain, as someone says they are in freeware category!!!

If you have familiarity with any previous BluePrint airports then you have a rather good idea of what to expect with this one.

Yes, buildings that barely resemble the airport using MS paint to do the work. Freeware scenery out there has better quality than Blueprint. This review is awful. Its either a family member of Blueprint or someone who has never used a quality add on scenery. How about being honest? This does nothing but make me doubt every single review done by avsim. Also with default FSX DTW scenery you can move the jetways. Now you pay 17.50 and lose that feature.

This is one reason why I put absolutely zero faith in AVSIM reviews. Years ago they used to be objective, and you could rely on them to make a decision, now there appears to be a concerted effort to coddle and not offend any of the developers poor work. Unless the reviewer has never seen any other payware scenery add-on, this was a heavily biased review.

Please, keep things in perspective and be nuanced. Do not generalize on the basis of one review you do not like, like you are doing now. You are now involving many more reviews than you probably want to, including all reviews I did - all of which received very good critique. If you truly have problems with my reviews, then post about it and tell me what to correct. just not come with this kind of statement.

Please, keep things in perspective and be nuanced. Do not generalize on the basis of one review you do not like, like you are doing now. You are now involving many more reviews than you probably want to, including all reviews I did - all of which received very good critique. If you truly have problems with my reviews, then post about it and tell me what to correct. just not come with this kind of statement.

My apologies. I just read some of your reviews and they are more critical than most of the reviews here. Unfortunately the products you reviewed I had no real interest in, so didn't read them. I guess the past dozen or so products that I've been interested in that have been reviewed by AVSIM, the reviews were of such poor quality and/or lopsided, that it skewed things.

When I read responses to our content like those found in this thread, my immediate reaction is; "where were you when the page was blank?"... In other words, if you want to see reviews meet your standards, or standards you believe should be met, then write a review for us to use that meet those standards. You will be contributing to the community and be achieving the standards that you wish to see achieved.

When I read responses to our content like those found in this thread, my immediate reaction is; "where were you when the page was blank?"... In other words, if you want to see reviews meet your standards, or standards you believe should be met, then write a review for us to use that meet those standards. You will be contributing to the community and be achieving the standards that you wish to see achieved.

Tom, perhaps I will volunteer to do a contributing review once things calm down at work in a few weeks. With regards to "standards", I apologized to Mr. van Soldt as I hadn't read any of his product reviews, which are much more critical. The issue I've had with the reviews I've read of late is the apparent lack of any objectivity or lack of willingness to say anything bad about a product. I don't know about others, but I used to place a significant weight on the reviews here at AVSIM when deciding to make a purchase. It's just after a few purchases with glowing reviews (or "nothing I didn't like") in which I got burned, sort of lost faith and started doing my own research.Cheers,

I agree. I do feel the standards have dropped in the last couple of years. Take a look at this AVSIM review from 2008, of a Feelthere product. Not only does the review challenge the attitude of staff on the developer's support forum (at the time), but it also directly picks up on a number of genuine flaws. (But it manages to do this with balance, with a good overall recommendation for the product) :- http://www.avsim.com...Wilco/EJets.htm

"It should also be noted that both feelThere and Wilco have something of a mixed reputation across the community in terms of customer support. Although I’ve not approached Wilco directly for support, I can say from my own experiences that in terms of feelThere, I have on occasions received helpful, prompt support. On other occasions I have been left feeling disappointed and frustrated at the attitude sometimes shown towards paying customers, by some support representatives on the feelThere forums. Every simmer has their own experience and customer support is difficult to judge objectively".

Just lately, it seems the reviewers are 'grabbing' the products, but not then putting the work in to produce a detailed, 360 degree assessment of it, for AVSIM readers to base their purchasing decisions on. Rgds,Stick

This scenery is definitely somehow under normal FSX addon standards. The developers have much to learn...

When I read responses to our content like those found in this thread, my immediate reaction is; "where were you when the page was blank?"... In other words, if you want to see reviews meet your standards, or standards you believe should be met, then write a review for us to use that meet those standards. You will be contributing to the community and be achieving the standards that you wish to see achieved.

I have to echo the bosses comment. There are so many titles in the review queue and I have a handful of dedicated reviewers trying to take on the workload. We are all volunteers with real world jobs. Our reviewers spend their "off-time" giving back to their "hobby" by reviewing material for your benefit. No they can't all be 20,000 word, in-depth reviews, but they do the best that they can. Please, if you feel strong enough to make derogatory comments about the reviewss (and the reviewers)....I ask that you take some of your "off-time" and help the community but submitting reviews of your own. I have the material....do you have some time? Contact me.

As a former AVSIM reviewer, I respect Tom's position about those who criticize have an opportunity to volunteer and make a difference... I agree. But I don't agree to the insinuation that non-volunteers are doing something questionable by challenging a review. By taking the time to critique a review, they are doing something "constructive" which is to hold reviewers accountable. When I read this review the first thought that went through my mind was that it was going to be lambasted. The only thing that prevented me from starting this thread was that BluePrint do charge less than other payware producers and I decided to hold back. But it is an indisputable fact that their quality does not reflect current payware standards, and increasingly is being surpassed by freeware producers. I do own some BluePrint products and I chose to do so because they "filled a gap" in my airports that nothing else at the time was able to fill. But I would not have chosen any of them if one of the first rate design teams like FSDT, Aerosoft, FlyTampa etc. had produced the same airport. I'd rather spend $10-15 more on a really first rate product than buy a mediocre one at a lower price.I don't believe in savagely criticizing a reviewer - I've been there! But I totally agree that the review lacked a critical perspective and reads more like an endorsement than a real review. And that's my contribution to AVSIM for today - participating in a discussion..CheersIan