I don't think the B200 got a fair review here at AVSIM.Having used this add-on for quite a while, and installed the first patch, and being someone who puts systems & flight modelling way ahead of the visuals I was very well impressed by this B200.Having access to rw POHs of the B200, and also to the operational documents used by a local operator of this aircraft type I rushed to get it thoroughly tested after installing and applying Patch1.0. I also used Bob Scott's modified AIR file. The results I obtained were astoundingly good, with performances matching the POH tables under a multitude of configurations. The only thing I might complain about is the rather limited GPS included, but that can certainly be solved with other add-on products and a few modifications to the original PANEL.CFGWhile I am looking forward for Patch 2.0 to solve some very specific problems, mainly with damage modelling, I am already very satisfied with this product, and place it near the very tops of MSFS add-ons.I somehow got the idea that the person who wrote that review didn't really know how to deal with the so many features being modelled, and most probably that stole a good deal of motivation to try it systematicaly.

As the author of the review, can I just clarify 2 points?Whenever we review a product, we review the standard model that is on sale. That is what AVSIM readers, as potential customers, would get if they bought it. Anyone buying the Aeroworx B200 would not get:-- A real-world Pilot's Operating handbook- operational documents used by a local operator- Bob Scott's modified AIR file.All they would get would be the standard download. That was what I reviewed.I can assure you (as can my wife!) that I crawled all over this plane and its documentation for many hours, and flew it for 22 hours in a wide range of conditions. I have probably tested its systems more systematically than most. As far as I am aware, I am the only person in the world to have detected the Inverter / Torque gauge bug! You don't find problems like that without flicking every switch, and looking at every gauge, endlessly!

I also used Bob Scott's modified AIR file Sorry but this statement sounds like someone telling us the orginal PIC 767 is much better with the added Posky merge file or Captain Sim's 727 airfile tweaks. If it is great already then certainly a "user" edit would not be needed. As for the King, I don't have it so cannot comment one iota but after reading the review it did not sound like a bad review juding by the star count. I read a rl pilot's review and he really liked the aircraft, the threads that have been started on this plane were all in favor. Certainly Aeroworx will look into the things brought up in the review maybe in some future update or maybe they won't..... Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

I found Paul's review objective and fair. The only thing I would have done differently is to give it 4 stars. But then, that sort of thing is a matter of pereception. And I don't think it needs a flight tutorial... the checklists are quite good for a simulation.Even with it's few niggles I consider it a landmark piece of work for FS. No way would I not recommend it to anyone interested in that class of aircraft.Greg

>>I also used Bob Scott's modified AIR file>>Sorry but this statement sounds like someone telling us the orginal PIC 767 is much better with the added Posky merge file or Captain Sim's 727 airfile tweaks. If it is great already then certainly a "user" edit would not be needed.I would have to disagree with this. Modeling is an art, not a science. It has to do with 'feeling' also rather with mere numbers per se. Most people have not even heard of 'Bob's air file', and I suspect that is not needed in the first place to get excellent results. Just because someone creates an air file doesn't mean the original is 'less right', it's just a difference in opinion, even among real pilots. Another thing is that I think the 'landing' paragraph is quite unnecessary/misleading. It's operator error/RTM as acknowledged by the reviewer. And the ILS thing is a known FS quirk.The main thing the thread starter points out is a low score, and when viewed with the criteria given by the scoring scheme, probably makes sense. It's just that if the same criteria is applied to all reviews, the PMDG planes might have gotten less than 4 stars as well. But there are no easy solutions to this sort of thing, naturally... :)

Well the PMDG is not in discussion but to clarify the 800-900 got 5 stars from the Avsim review. My comment was to the orginal posters' comment that WITH the airfile HE was using it was better, so IMO the premise of his objection to the reviewer's rating was based upon personal judement gained in part by this "other" file. As to the review itself, again I cannot comment because I don't have the aircraft. Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

>I would have to disagree with this. Modeling is an art, not a>science. It is really both. There is fair amount of science in it.>file', and I suspect that is not needed in the first place to>get excellent results. Just because someone creates an air>file doesn't mean the original is 'less right', it's just a>difference in opinion, even among real pilots. With this I have to disagree strongly. Depends on your standards and what you mean by "excellent" resuts. Bob is extremely qualified pilot and he reported glaring (by order of 50%) disparity in takeof roll for example. 10,20 % may be tolerable but 50% sounds excessive even for an MSFS add-on. I suggest you find his original post and read it in its entirety.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Hello All, Well, I thought the 'stars' were a 'tad' low, , but all in all, it was, I felt an honest and fair review, and as we all can't like or have the same woman, (or guy if you're a gal), none of us will all like the same aircraft in a same way.Personally, I mostly fly the big stuff, with my background in 'real world aviation' (I'm beginning to hate that phrase, as even simming is 'real world' too) , but the 200 is a refreshing change and I just love to zip around the clouds in it, and as of last week, I got to (shhhh, we won't tell the FAA) grab the controls of a real one on a trip from Meridian Key Field to DeKalb Peachtree with a friend to look at a new stud horse in Atlanta. I've got to tell ya, it was a really fun aircraft, and the Aeroworx package gave me just a tad of 'heads up' on the real thing. I looked at the POH for about 20 mins before the flight, knowing I would get to toss it around a bit and everything fell right into place.On another note, my friend who just bought this aircraft, (this is his second 200, the first being destroyed by a huricane in S. Fla a month or so ago,) was sort of in a fix, as he has a total of about 4K hours, and knows my 15k+ hours and I think he felt a little strange pointing out some finer points of his baby. I had to constantly reassure him that it 'was' his baby and I didn't usually fly the small stuff and I could use all the help I could get..LOL. He was a real gent, (Thanks Russel, I had a ball) and let me play all I wanted with the exception of letting me do a low level, (sorry, I'm ex military) twin turboprop haircut on a few stray cows we saw along the way. I kept telling him that the FAA really does have a sense of humor, but he wasn't goin for it.Anyway, I happen to like the AW 200 . . .nope, it's not the PMDG NG, but that's not what I bought it for . . .I bought it to have FUN with FS without having to go by all the numbers like I do in other aircraft I fly in FS . . . and that is just what it is . . .fun!Oh, and where's this modified .air file . . .I want to get my hands on it . . .All in all, I found the 200 a close likeness of the real aircraft considering all the FS limitations and if there is another patch, well, that will just make it just that much better!Best to all and hope all of you attending the AVSIM convention have a ball . . . (Tom A, you really do put on a hellofa service for all of us . . . Kudos!) and I will be interested in seeing a few comments on a new aircraft you all might be seeing at the convention . . . a few of us, (they shall presently remain nameless), have worked very hard on a beautiful edition of a certain airliner which is most popular and I hope you like that also . . . (Lord knows, it's taken long enough! LOL) Hey Paul? and it was a pleasure to be involved and help just a bit with the beta's. Clayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)Sundance Quarter Horses"Drac" . . . 'a horse is a horse, of course, of course . . .'

>>>With this I have to disagree strongly. Depends on your standards and what you mean by "excellent" resuts. Bob is extremely qualified pilot and he reported glaring (by order of 50%) disparity in takeof roll for example. 10,20 % may be tolerable but 50% sounds excessive even for an MSFS add-on. I suggest you find his original post and read it in its entirety.Thanks for the added info. :)

I thought the reviewer did a credible job of being thorough and fair, though I too think the final score was low based on my personal comparison of this plane to other payware I have in the same class of aircraft. This is an outstanding piece of work. 4 stars for sure.However, Im sure personal taste will prevail.As for reviews generally, they almost never persuade or dissuade me from buying or downloading a plane or scenery. I look at other owners experiences and comments from the gen population here. You guys know whats good...and make it clear. I havent seen one situation where the general opinion wasnt worth following.Eric

The following is the link for Bob's .air file:http://home.comcast.net/~gulfstream-v/index.htmlI also have the B200 and like most totally enjoy flying around in it. I especially love the simple way tyre and oil, etc were modelled, which the reviewer thought was too simple.I will also say that the review was fair. However, compared to other reviewed payware in its class, I think it should have been scored higher. I was suprised at what I think was a Low score.Finally, I must also agree that in all the years I've been buying addons, I have never once made a purchasing decision based on a review. All my decisions have been made based on the long threads started on Avsim, or the forum of the payware site. If the general consensus is "Buy it" then I probably will. Or, (like I did for PMDG and the PSS airbus) I wait until people stop reporting bugs in the patches :) and start reporting enjoyment.I look at an official review as just a way to guage my reasons for my opinion with the reviewer's reasons for his.BTW, I do the same for every hardware purchase I have to make.EDIT: The developers have indicated that they may include Bob's fixes in the upcomming patch.

I disagree that there is a inverter/torque gauge bug. I believe the system logic is modelled correctly with respect to both the operation of the torque gauge, the EFIS and the HSI and the inverter. Can you back up your assertion that the torque gauge should still function if the inverter is turned off while the engine is running? I'm thinking that a systems schematic for a B-200 typically found in a POH would help address this question. I think you've raised an interesting point.As for some of the other problems you pointed out, for example light switches and the trim wheel moving in the opposite direction as commanded - I've used the B-200 for about 75 hours now and have not noticed these discrepancies myself - but your review has certainly led me to look more carefully for these anomolies. I get the feeling that these packages work differently on different computers, set-ups, etc. What do you think?

The lights issue I think is a known 'bug', and it also probably has to do with how FS inherently handles it. It's not a critical thing, though. There are ways to 'work around' it.

Guys,You have to take under consideration a rather unique grading system that Avsim staff employs here because most likely it is not what you think it is. Read my very recent post on the "letters to the editorial staff" forum about this very issue. And also read Avsim's scoring guidelines.Michael J.

I did a little research and learned that the torque gauge used on PT-6a turbine is an electro/mechanical device that requires 28V AC current to run. Batteries only provide DC - that's why the torque gauge doesn't light up until the inverter is turned on.Weston Aerospace manufactures a torque sensing device for PT-6 turbine engines (http://www.westonaero.com/products/how_torque_sensors.stm).I learned that the torque meter requires 28V AC from this source:www.baseops.net/c12/FAMdiscussitems.doc