Objective review? You be the judge.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

These types of threads often result in questions or misunderstandings about what our policies are regarding reviews and advertising. So, I would like to take the opportunity presented by this thread to once again set our policies out to the community so that you have a good understanding of our standards.First and foremost, all of our advertisers understand from the outset that their ads have zero impact on our reviews of their products, or that their products will be reviewed at all. They understand that their advertising dollar is wasted if the credibility of the site they are paying to be present on is loosing readers because of that loss of credibility. In short, it makes their advertising dollars more valuable to be invested in a site that does an honest review, warts and all. We would be doing them, as well as you, a disservice if we allowed advertising to influence our reviews.Secondly, we have a distinct separation between our editorial staff and those of us on staff that are responsible for generating the revenue to keep this site open. Bill, Bob and I are responsible for the business side of things, and the editorial staff is responsible for the editorial side, including reviews. Those of us on the business side of the equation never do reviews. In fact, most times, we don

[Guest Ken_Salter]

On a further note, we have also created a special forum for USER (yes you!) submitted reviews. For some reason, this forum does not see much traffic, but I encourage you to write a review to be posted here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

Tom, I like the way you lay your cards on table and allow comment on reviews, keep it going ! Lets hope there are others who read this and implement similar.....anybody up for a bet ?RegardsAD

[MM 422]

I'd like to sing Tom Allensworth's praises...something that we don't do often enough. As he explains above, Tom and the staff have designed AVSIM to represent the values that we all hold dear. Naturally, not everything works perfectly as everyone involved is human. But the design, the intent, is admirable.These high standards apply not only to the product reviews but also to the journalistic editorial standards

[Guest Tomlin]

Mike, please contact me at E_tomlin@hotmail.com regarding your system. Thanks,Eric

[Guest cw1011]

Just for the record, Mr. Herd is not young nor a fool. He is a middle aged doctor who flies regularly in England. He is also building his own airplane. I have found for the most part that his reviews are solid, well-written pieces. That said, this one confounds me a bit. CS' 700 series birds have terrible flight models that over-model intertia making them virtually impossible to hand fly on my rig. I will never forget the conference at Denver, where, after nailing three pretty good landings in the 777 full motion sim at Denver,I completely ruined my landing competition approache because the darned airplane would not go where you pointed it...Is it possible that this is the original review of the 707, with Just Flight replacing CS using "search and replace?" Standards were a bit different when it was released.

[MM 422]

Hi Mike (and everyone),I've got lots of respect for you and your participation in the community. You've done much for all of us over the years. So let's start from that point of view.I'm going to stand up for Andrew Herd.There is absolutely no reason to question Herd's credibility. You may justly disagree with his reviews, or find them lacking, or some such. From my perspective, Herd's reviews are well-researched, deeply informative, and immensely entertaining. They are among the few things that I read immediately on sight

[Guest panda234]

the evidence is there Mike, just read the review and then fly the airplane. The 2 don't match. With all respect to Andrew, it's clear that flightsim.com dosn't say it like it is but rather sucks up to their advertisers. billg

[rightseat 277]

I don't think anyone is labeling Andrew as a fool, at least I'm not. But the fact remains, allnodesbusy does control the content of their reviews and it stands to reason that this particular review has been tampered with because of the site's position on advertisers. A company that sells rave reviews about poor products to generate sales has become an fs site that now serves no purpose. It's obvious that the 707 is rubish in its current condition and anyone who says otherwise is either wrong or has an agenda. I submit that the other site has an agenda. Now, maybe Andrew is the scapegoat this time, but it's still a long standing pattern that all of the above posters have noted for some time: Allnodesbusy.com sells reviews and more than likely requires their reviewers to alter their opinions so their sales don't drop. That's a bad way to run an FS site. They might as well stop supplying freeware and just peddle the merchandise their advertisers supply. I don't want to go on a rant, but I don't think the other site is of any more value to the community if we can't count on them to present unbiased reviews of products we are interested in. I'm sure you're right and Andrew is a stand-up guy; it's the site I don't trust any more, and his review (most likely altered) is a definitive example of the kind of behavior we're noting down the street.

[RobbieHe 0]

Andrew is not a fool. He is someone who misrepresented the truth for the benefit of FlightSim.com. RH

[Ricardo41 5,935]

The original review that was posted on flightsim was not particularly impressive either. Upon reading it, I couldn't shake the impression that the reviewer spent very little with this addon. In general, the only reviews that really count are the ones that provide an indepth analysis of the addon, tested over a number of days, following strict testing guidelines. A review that basically indicates that the reviewer got the plane started, taxied it around a little bit, etc. is completely worthless to a prospective buyer. ricardo

[mgh 89]

Following this discussion I checked for AVSIM's reviews of CaptainSim's products and give extracts from them:Legendary 727 - Four and a Half StarsThis really is an absolute classic and a "must buy" item for anyone who wants to experience something of what it would be like to fly this great Queen of the Skies-the Legendary Boeing 727.MIG-21UM - Five StarsThis is one aircraft that should definitely be in everyone's aircraft folder who is a fan of military aircraft - there is no reason not to own it. The level of visual detail is astounding. The sound is superb. The panel and virtual cockpit is some of the best I've yet seen. It's challenging and fun to fly, and is full of nice little touches from the Norma Jean livery to the Interactive Flight Manual.TLK-39C Four StarsThis is a sim within a sim. From the flight manual, maps, planes and scenery you get a complete package. Well worth your money.Are we all talking about thew same CaptainSim?

[rightseat 277]

The bulk of those reviews were conducted a while back when the technology merrited more praise for the product. You've supplied examples of other products, not the one in question. 2 years ago CS727 was the only commercial one in existence and it had some great features for the time. It wasn't perfect, and it still isn't. The 707 was less impressive than the 72 and it came later when customers expect more from newer technology. Yes, we're talking about the same Captain Sim. But we're also talking about flightsim.com, and our opinions hold.

[mgh 89]

I agree the reviews were carried out a while ago, but AVSIM hasn't reviewed the 707 or the C130. I think many people would welcome AVSIM reviews, though I suspect they might upset a number of people on both sides of the debate.For the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection with any developer and, in fact, have never bought a payware aircraft.

[rhodges 6]

Possibly Editors may be the culprit, not the original author????