Blueprint Detroit Wayne Airport Review

[bobbyjoh 11]

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

[JSkorna 137]

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

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

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.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

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

[ahuimanu 50]

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.

[Superpilotv2 2]

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.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

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

[Superpilotv2 2]

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.

[out 769]

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.

[ahuimanu 50]

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.

[Benjamin J 751]

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.

Two things here:- Not everybody understand exactly the meaning of voluntary. Sure they understand we are not getting paid for it, but the whole way in which Avsim reviewers operate (choose what they want to review etc) is also affected by it. Anyway, this is not at all the point of this discussion, but it is a completely different topic. Regarding your specific statement, no, voluntary review =! poor quality review, but like with professional reviews, you also have good ones and you have bad ones. No reason why it should be any different for voluntary reviews. You try to make it as good as you can (well at least I do), but it doesn't always work out that way.- My point was not that criticism should not be given. My point is that criticism should be nuanced. If you do give it, be kind, and do not generalize. The reason I got irritated was because a post was amde in which basically all as-of-late Avsim reviews were accused of being untrustworthy, which I find a highly annoying and offending remark. The poster later admitted to not have read all the as-of-late Avsim reviews, and apologized and retracted his statement, at which point my anger also subdued and I thank the poster for his courtesy.