Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stick

Blueprint Detroit Wayne Airport Review

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest acezboy561

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post
??? 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.

Share this post


Link to post

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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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,

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

I live in Detroit and know this airport VERY well. First the review may have been more detailed in the area of what he didn't like, but that is a matter of taste. What I am disturbed about is the criticism for BluePrint sceneries and more important this one of KDTW. The default scenery of DTW is at best POOR. Several freeware developers have tried to update the default scenery with limited results. BluePrint has done the most creditable job reproducing DTW to date. Check, is there any other scenery developer that has done the current DTW, a big NO. I have a lot of BluePrint's airports, are they accurate YES, do they have the best detail NO, are they easy on frames YES. I have installed and then uninstall detailed scenery that had so much eye candy I could not taxi or land without major stutters (KLGA). I never have this problem with any of BluePrints airports. For my money I love and will buy almost all of BluePrints airports sceneries. Would I like to see moving jetways yes I would. However when I fly into an airport I want accuracy of runways and taxiways and then eye candy. Blue Print gives me that balance. Since I live here in Detroit and fly this airport in real life and numerous times in FS this Blue Print airport is better than anything available in the FSX world and the price is right on target. Bob Johnson

Share this post


Link to post

As it is also my home airport.........+1 to Bob's post. I am sure that some other Detroiters will agree.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Ian, at best you are putting words in my mouth. There was no insinuation. I flat out stated, if you want to see reviews that meet your standards, then wrtie one and provide it to us. We might all learn something in you doing so. No insinuation in that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Ian, at best you are putting words in my mouth. There was no insinuation. I flat out stated, if you want to see reviews that meet your standards, then wrtie one and provide it to us. We might all learn something in you doing so. No insinuation in that at all.
Hi Tom.I certainly didn't mean any kind of personal attack and apologize if any offense was caused. I guess "insinuation" wasn't a great word choice. Perhaps I should have said "suggest" or "imply" as I do not think you were deliberately "insinuating" anything. All I was trying to do was to support your statement that if someone wants to change something, they have to get involved. (Like you did as a Peace Corps volunteer) Volunteering to write reviews is a way someone who thinks the reviews are not up to their standards can improve those standards. But at the same time I was trying to respond to what I perceived as a response by "the management" that implied that people shouldn't critique the reviews unless they are willing (or able) to write one themselves. I was just trying to point out that a civil and thoughtful response to a review, even if it is negative, is a "contribution" to the community. Though I did not agree with some of the language used in the responses, I thought they were justified in pointing out that the review seemed overly positive about a product that really is not comparable to scenery produced by a number of other developers. The review was well written and I look forward to reading future reviews by this contributor. But I hope that his future reviews will be more analytical and nuanced, to use an excellent word employed by Benjamin above. Again, I apologize for any offense my words may have caused. That was not my intentionCheersIan

Share this post


Link to post

The review could have been better edited, but it is a straight-forward account of a fairly straight-forward developer. AVSIM is indeed volunteer-run and volunteerism is a mixed-bag if you want high-order standards with consistency. It would seem that the following maxim retains some merit in this circumstance: you get what you pay for. BluePrint sceneries are always priced to sell and AVSIM reviews will usually be a function of what the reviewer is inclined to share. Some will work harder and some not, but in any case, they are giving freely. Both value judgments, that of the reviewer and that of the giver of feedback, could be said to be cheap. However, the reviewer has the nobility of a creator as they took the time to build up something that did not previously exist. The sniping critic passes judgment as easy as air through a piehole, so the value of that contribution is somewhat less. None of us earned or paid a cent, so it's all entertainment. Hobbies are fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Hobbies are fun.
Yuor´re right, it´s indeed fun. But it ain´t fun if you buy something after reading an somethat mediocre review (no offence at all) and discover that you´ve spend your hardly earned money for something which doesn´t deserve it to be charged for.

Share this post


Link to post
Yuor´re right, it´s indeed fun. But it ain´t fun if you buy something after reading an somethat mediocre review (no offence at all) and discover that you´ve spend your hardly earned money for something which doesn´t deserve it to be charged for.
Nicely put Steffen. This thread has probably outlived its usefulness but I think you nailed what needed to be said. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Nicely put Steffen. This thread has probably outlived its usefulness but I think you nailed what needed to be said. Thank you
Thanks. Btw. I would be happy to write an review but I don´t think I can cause they´re all now FSX and this isn´t working on my system.

Share this post


Link to post

To all those here who are irritated that there is some criticism about AVSIM reviews. We all know AVSIM reviews are 'VOLUNTARY' (though prized with products, I guess).But does that have to equal 'POOR QUALITY'? I don't think anyone would really like it to be so.By giving our (constructive) criticism we help keep the level bar as high as possible by filtering some stuff.I know not everyone is Angelique van Campen and no-one expects it to happen. And before someone tells me to 'write a review myself then', come on, please!You don't have to be able or willing to do something yourself to have an ability of evaluating it. We could just pass by all reviews with no interest in them. But some people do care what they read.So they write posts here saying what they think and feel about reviews, especially that this subforum looks like created for that purpose. If AVSIM becomes criticism-resistant one day, it will stop being what I have always loved it for.

Share this post


Link to post
Yuor´re right, it´s indeed fun. But it ain´t fun if you buy something after reading an somethat mediocre review (no offence at all) and discover that you´ve spend your hardly earned money for something which doesn´t deserve it to be charged for.
I'm not knocking your ability and need to call the review our for flaws, but with something free, like an AVSIM review, it may be a good idea to triangulate - ask around, post on forums, read other reviews, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...