Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

PSS concorde = 5 stars??

Recommended Posts

In all the years of visiting AVSIM I have never disagreed with the stars system and the products that received it. However, I wanted to express my opinion on the review. I do not have the product, but based on the review I fail to see the 5 star reasons. With the exception that it is a Concord product - what 'cutting edge' devlopments are there? being able to save the switch state?Yes, I read the review and yes, I enjoy PSS product greatly - but based only on the reivew I would have expected to see a 4 or 4.5 star rating.I dont know, maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. Just my thoughts. I hope those that purchase it, enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Mike,One question,...Are you in anyway afiliated with Koch Media?Strange that you have such a firm opinion on a title you don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,I've just read the review. Whilst I wouldn't want to criticise what Tom has written he has simplified many of the operations of this fantastic aircraft - probably because of limited space. The Flight Engineer's panel barely gets a mention (apart from having numerous switches) and because he flew manually a lot of the time he didn't talk about the autopilot or the INS system. I think by "cutting edge" he's referring to the flight modelling of a delta wing aircraft which is very different to standard aircraft. The VFE (Virtual Flight Engineer) is brilliant - allowing you to get on with the job of flying the aircraft whilst leaving the fuel management system to your invisible friend :-)I don't disagree at all with the 5 star review - in fact I anticipated it would get one in a message I posted earlier today in PSS's Concorde forum.Sure, it has one or two niggles. What complex aircraft doesn't. But given the complexity of this aircraft PSS should be congratulated on producing a first-class product. We shouldn't forget either that there has only been one modification to the original product. A slightly tweaked FDE file although they are also working on other small tweaks to the autopilot.The documentation is excellent and the frame rates hold up very well given the detailed 2D panel. Maybe you'll change your mind and get it. I doubt you'll be disappointed.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wanted to express my opinion on the review. I do>not have the product,>>I think I've highlighted the important parts of your "opinion."ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too agree with staffan here, I have both the Koch and PSS Concordes, and I prefer to fly the PSS one, for one simple reason, FUN.Yes, the Koch bird is maybe a bit more indepth, has a few more swtichs that you can push and pull, but its just way to hardcore for me to be any fun.I have fun with the PSS bird because you can either decide to let the VFE take over the "difficult" jobs, and just concentrate on flying, or you can turn him off and do them yourself.I may not have given the product 5* simply because I dont believe the model and textures are good enough, but that said, it would get a good 4*.Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Mike on this one. First of all, the review is written in an unprofessional manner, which is not typical of avsim reviews. It's riddled with cliches, poor English grammar, and vague, rambling praise.Look at the final justification of the 5 star rating. Avionics, flight model, and cockpit features. That's enough for a prefect rating?He doesn't mention the aircraft systems in any level of significant detail, nor does he support his claims that the PSS has a high-fidelity flight model (show me the numbers). He mentioned the climb procedures he followed, but are these realistic or just procedures he dreamed up? It's not made clear. No shots in the VC looking straight ahead. Hardly any mention of the 2d panels, and nothing said about the FE panel. No mention of the gauge refresh rate (2d or VC). Nothing mentioned about automatic flight or the INS. I could go on.Five stars means near perfection, in all areas. Products like the ATR72-500 deserve 5 stars, and a good case for this was made in the avsim ATR review. Although the PSS may be worthy of 5 stars, it was not justified sufficiently in this review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secks,You don't say if you have this aircraft but if you do then surely you must agree it's just about as good as Concorde can be modelled. Let's not get confused between the quality of the review and the quality of the product. Yes, I agree the quality of the grammar and spelling is variable and he hasn't covered many aspects of the package but the fact remains the aircraft is worthy of 5 stars even if the review fails to convince those that don't have it.In all honesty he hasn't given the package the credit it so richly deserves. He clearly isn't familiar with flying Concorde and some of his language is emotional to say the least. If I was PSS I wouldn't be particularly pleased with the review saved for it getting 5 stars.If you need any reassurance regarding the quaity of the flight model I understand a former BA Concorde pilot was in the beta team so that speaks for itself.Added afterwards: Let's not forget this is Tom's first review and maybe he shouldn't have been thrown in at the deep end with such a complex aircraft to review!Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wanted to express my opinion on the review. I do>not have the product, BLAH,BLAH,BLAH!I DO have the product and I think PSS did an excellent job on it and I am very pleased with the challenge and fun that that flying the magnificent bird brings. It highly deserves the 5 Stars, no doubt on that in my mind. I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiThe last payware addon I thought was worth 5 stars was PICv1.Everything else was at best worth 4.Needless to say I give little credence to reviews as at best they are very subjective and a bit too close to the source.Troy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy,<>Just as your opinion on PICv1 was subjective. That's the nature of the beast.Please clarify what you mean by "close to the source".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, I do not have the PSS Concorde, which is why I take the quality of the review seriously. I agree that the quality of the review and product are two very distinct things. This is why my last sentence was: "Although the PSS may be worthy of 5 stars, it was not justified sufficiently in this review."I stand by that! It's unfortunate that people may get the wrong impression about the PSS Concorde after reading such a "soft" review. I'm sure many people assume that since so many features were not mentioned, they are not _worth_ mentioning. This is why it is so crucial to produce thorough, high quality reviews for products which deserve them.I don't blame Tom for the review. He probably did his best. What I am disappointed with is Avsim's quality control on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I think I've highlighted the important parts of your>"opinion.">>ricardo>He made it clear that he was commenting on the plane based only on the review. Just because he doesn't have the plane, he can't comment on the quality and thoroughness of the review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your comments. Espcially you SECKS - I see that you understand my statement that, based on the REVEIW only - I have difficulty with the 5 star rating. Staffan - no I am affiliated at all with any producer. Correct that I dont have the title, but I do have the review - thus my comments and questions on the review.Dan - good to hear another comment from one who has the product, thanksRay - always appreciate your comments, excellent clarity and a nice manner. thanks for clearing up some of the review's brief comments.Ricardo and jwenting - what can I sayAs was stated, "Let's not get confused between the quality of the review and the quality of the product". And to all, have a good day, wish I could hang around today but off to Salem Oregon for my brother-in-laws birthday party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't have the product either, I do have this:http://www.avsim.com/pages/commercial_rating_system.htmlTo those who have this product, is it, "At the Edge of That Even Conceivable Today" ? Because that's what AVSim states a 5/5 score means. It looks like a good model, certainly, but not groundbreaking like a 5/5 rating would indicate.The overly positive reviews of products have been a problem lately. Reviewers "forget" to mention the drawbacks and give the products 4/5 or 5/5. This has been a huge problem at Flightsim for a while (who also complement their "reviews" with discount if you reference their site when you buy the product) but now it's spreading to AVSim as well :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this