I just downloaded the january 2012 issue of PC Pilot on my iPad. To my big disapointment there was nothing about X-Plane 10 in this issue. The only exception was a full page ad.I was really looking forward to read a qualified review, some news and perhaps some tips'n'tricks, but there was nothing.How come?

I just downloaded the january 2012 issue of PC Pillt on my iPad. To my big disapointment there was nothing about X-Plane 10 in this issue. The only exception was a full page ad.I was really looking forward to read a qualified review, some news and perhaps some tips'n'tricks, but there was nothing.How come?

Because magazines can easily take a month or more lead time...............for articles that also end up in print. That's my guess on this subject.

Larry's right, give them until at least next month to catch up. They're printing articles written last month.

I hope you're right, but I'm not sure you are. I've worked as both a journalist and editor, and even though there is a gap between deadline and availability, it's rarely this long.

Yah, it was disappointing to get the January 2012 issue and not a single line about x-plane 10. I figure the writers want the released version to explore and comment critically about. If there is no article in the next issue I will begin to wonder.

Why would anyone review a beta copy of a piece of software?

They could have at least done a "first-look" piece with the promise of a more comprehensive review later. But I know they're not flat out ignoring X-Plane 10 since they have done articles and blurbs about the sim in the past (most recently a several page interview with Austin Meyer).

When the latest edition went to press, XPX wasn't even released yet. So dear posters, how should they have handled that?

Well duh, get in bed with Austin himself and get an early copy...isn't that what every major publisher does for reviews? (read with tongue-in-cheek, not meant as serious)I find most reviews with this approach find the end result buggy and put down a piece of software's feature, but then say "but this isn't the final draft. That isn't due out for another few months" and the end result is that the bug is in the final release too, but everyone thinks that since a major publisher found the downfall, it would have been fixed by release time (which usually doesn't happen unless it's an earthshattering bug like the LSD-like shadows some people were having with XP10). If they had done that with XP10, I doubt anyone would have bought it as the reviews would have been either really bad for LR or really tongue-in-cheek reviews of how different things are with XP10 versus XP9 and how much improved certain features are and leave out anything bad. The beginning of December yielded some major updates and the trend continues. I'd be happy for a review 6 months after release just to let the initial bug-squashing and optimization for broad system, as that is when XP10 should be ready. To expect users to wait more than 6 months for an as of yet unoptomized bug-laden software is a bit long, even for XP.

To expect users to wait more than 6 months for an as of yet unoptomized bug-laden software is a bit long, even for XP.

:FSX:Two patches and done. Try to keep things in perspective.FSX remains tolerable mainly due to the sim community at large sorting stuff out on behalf of the user base and the efforts of third party developers.Just saying :( .p.s. I am sure there will eventually be a piece in PC Pilot; however, as others mentioned print will always be a month or two behind. This will make XPX difficult from a review standpoint given the constant post-release updates

What I meant was that if I were reviewing a title like XP where at release there are always issues to be sorted and with the new scenery engine, optomizations to be made, I would not review it until those issues were sorted as I'd have to re-review the title once those were taken care of. But for that process to extend beyond 6 months after release is asking users and reviewers alike to wait a significant period of time before being able to make a fair judgement about the title.As most titles are considered "done" at release and XP is considered "basic - yet to be built-up", it puts a different spin on things. XP is never done updating, bug fixing and adding features. Other titles, if you want a feature added, you'll have to get the next version. This lends XP very difficult to do a review of the overall title as by the end of the title, the review is no longer applicable in a good portion as much has changed, a lot of cons eliminated and a lot of pros boosted and maybe a few more negatives worked in due to new things added that aren't quite up to par. Reviewing XP is a very difficult proposition as most reviews are one-time "state of the software" addresses that most users at any point after the review is printed use to gauge if they will take the software for a spin or let it rot on the shelf. Since XP is always changing, a review that is set in stone has to be flexible enough to accommodate the changes, but must be fair to other titles that choose a more conventional approach to design.

They typically don't do full reviews until several months after product release and even the news section lags a bit. The iPad edition is just an image of the print edition, and it would have been closed up before X-Plane 10 was released. They did do a preview interview with Austin last spring or summer (I can't remember the exact issue), so it's not as though they've been ignoring it completely. Give it time.

My opinions on the state of X-Plane notwithstanding, keep in mind that no major flight simulation websites have issued any reviews, notes or other articles on XP10 yet either.Although AVSIM and flightsim.com have published the Laminar Research provided press releases, no editorial articles have been created or published yet. The fact that magazine-style publication (even if it's electronically distributed) doesn't have anything is not surprising. From prior experience, I know that AVSIM usually does give new products a litlte "grace period" before they will issue a review, and I would not be surprised if others do the same.I'd love to see a review from the editorial minds here and at other sites right now, but I can completely understand why they may be holding off a bit on things, much to Laminar's delight. ;)