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
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

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

> 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

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

excellent and concise shortening of the original message :-lol

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

>>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

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

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

Geez, I am becoming more and more amazed at fact that ANYTHING that is written in these forums or by Avsim is so quickly picked to pieces. I, for one, appreciate it when someone takes the time to write a review and submit it for all of us to enjoy. If I'm not mistaken, this is done for FREE, no $$$. The contributors do it to give something back to the FS community. Many posts on the forum offering suggestions for improvements, modifications, payware packages, etc are given for the same reason, and are also attacked straight on. This is supposed to be a community of FS hobbyists and we should all try to be a little more respectfull, tolerent, and appreciative for the contributions that all of us try to make, no matter how insignificant or "faulty" they me seem to some. I probably spend two or three hours a day looking through the Avsim forums and files (I know, I need a life :-roll ) and it adds a great deal of enjoyment to my hobby. It just seems that it is becoming more and more the norm for folks to "lay in wait" for an opportunity to post a negative comment about something someone else has done or said. Oh well, off the soapbox and back to reading and enjoying all the good stuff on the site.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree George, it didn't use to be like this a few years ago. And also people like to use these forums to speak badly about people from different countries (mostly against Americans), this should not be tolerated, this hobby is shared by people from all over the world and everyone should respect each other, like you said. And a caveot of what i just said, politcal discussions should be prohibited in there forums, unless it pertains to aviation (sim or real world).Jeff USAF

Share this post


Link to post

Chipping in as i own both i would disagrree with the 5 sars as well.Primarily from the dissapointment with the poorly shaped and innacurate model.You really only need to look at the Koch Concorde to see where the PSS model is wrong.Its fuselage is to wide,the nose profile is totally incorrect with visor up and down and as for the special effects well i just don't think they are that special.The burners look nowhere near as good as the freeware afterburner available here at AVSIM.Now the panel on the other hand is fantastic,it looks incredible and is very user friendly and the advent of the Vfe is a great idea and to be applauded.PSS made a few concessions either because they didn't know how to implement something like the debow procedure for start and the fuel system is not as accurate as the Alt verision but the average punter will not even notice it.I am extremely suspect of the flight model.Given within 2 days of the release of the PSS Concorde a patch was released because it was taking way to long to do the supersoninc acceleration burn it leaves me wondering what other things are incorrect that slid through testing.The ALT version is well from where i sit very good with excellent fuel burns and time on crossing but the aircraft does have some A/P issues with wind changes.Apart from the A/P issues it handles differently to your normal jet and the drag from the big delta cuts in nicely as you slow.The spoilt model really drags the PSS Concorde down either half or a full notch i'm afraid and despite the invention of the Vfe i can't see how it can be rated a 5 star product.A quick example of model issue's,take a look at the size of the wheels and then look at some pics of the real deal.I'd say they are twice the correct diameter.It is clearly PSS's best by quite a margin but i still can't belive the model is so wrong.Great effort but certainly not 5 stars.DarrenWho is associated with no one other than being an ex PSS tester.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Secks,I can't disagree with anything you've said :-) It's a pity they gave the review to a rookie. With all due respect to Tom.

Share this post


Link to post

HI JeffIts more to do with the fact that many people use reviews to weigh up decision as tho whether to buy a product or not.So glossy reviews like this really arn't much use to anyone.There are some excellent reviews here that can really help you decide whether you want something or not good reviews are essential to the usefullness of these style sites.Glossing up a product does noone any good either the producer or the purchasers.SeeyaDarren

Share this post


Link to post

George,I don't know whether you're including me in one of those who have "picked to pieces" the review of Concorde. I hope not as I don't believe I'm guilty.I thought carefully before posting my reply because like you, I appreciate the work the reviewers undertake for our benefit and to criticise them would appear disingenuous. I feel some of the responsibility for the review should be borne by AvSim for asking a new recruit to review such a complicated aircraft - one which I suspect he had not flown before being asked to review it. I've been flying various versions of Concorde for about 5 years so I feel I speak with some authority when I say the PSS offering is the most realistic I've flown.But, because I have the PSS Concorde and felt the review didn't do it justice I felt I had to say something about what was missed in the review. Not to do would not be fair on those people who were perhaps considering buying it and were not convinced by the review awarding it 5 stars.There's a big difference between just slagging something off and having a reasonable discussion about something you feel hasn't been shown in the best light. I always try to do the latter.Being a reviewer is probably a #### hard job as there's always someone who will disagree with you. It's not Tom's opinion I question as everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's what it didn't contain that concerned me. For a first timer it is probably quite a good effort but for this particular aircraft I feel a more experienced reviewer should have been given the job.Edited: I didn't realise delta alpha mike november would be blanked. Woops! :-doh Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

>"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."And? You think that the Altitude one didn't? I don't have any connection to the Altitude effor except for meeting one of its creators in person, at a public concorde event no less, but I can assure you that he is a family friend of a BA Concorde Captain and it was properly checked out.Infact, I was playing on the sim at a quiet moment during the event and ending up chatting to Christopher Orlebar who was also very impressed. If you don't recognise that name, look it up. Given 5 stars is supposed to represent "At the Edge of That Even Conceivable Today" you just can't really agree with that surely. The external model just isn't up to current standards of detail, its not even the right basic shape. The Flight 1 ATR, Dreamfleet 727 or Real Air Spitfire are surely better examples of cutting edge Flight Simulator add-on technology that deserved the 5 stars.Perhaps a 4.5 at the most because of the VFE technology but personally I think even that is pushing it given the lack of attention to some areas.

Share this post


Link to post

it's a really nice model,and,it rotates with it's thrust reversers closed.that's quite an achievement ;)i must honestly say i did enjoy reading the review,i did enjoy the pictures that go with it,i do not have the add0n in question.and i applaud PSS for a job well done.i DO believe you don't get 5 stars for nothing.tataJP.

Share this post


Link to post

Bry,You've posted a reply to Darren's message but are quoting something I said several replies back. If you're talking to me please address your replies to me so there's no misunderstandings.<>I have never made any comparison between the PSS and Koch offerings. If you say it has then fine. This isn't a discussion about the comparitive merits of either product. If you want to discuss that why not use the other Concorde thread?I do recognise Christopher Orlebar's name thank you. I have no need to look it up. So far the discussion has been good natured but your tone is aggressive and I take exception to you talking to me like that.I respect your right to an opinion even though you deliver it with a sledgehammer. I just happen to think differently.

Share this post


Link to post

Although I personally don't own the PSS Concorde, I have to agree that the last few AVSIM 'reviews' are really undermining the credibility of the entire concept of objectively evaluating a commercial product. A good review should in my opinion be a critique, the good taken with the bad. AVSIM reviews these days seem to all be '5 out of 5 stars' with reviewers glossing over every aspect of a product, invariably leaving out inevitable flaws and shortcomings that are shared by even the most complex and innovative add-ons.Really, it's as if the authors of these reviews write with a pre-concieved opinion that a particular product is absolutely perfect with no conceivable flaw. This is simply unrealistic and does not provide we consumers with an objective picture before making an informed purchase decision. Business being what it is of course, developers themselves market products by emphasizing the good aspects and detailing as little as possible about their shortcomings. An objective review should fill the void between marketing and reality to give consumers a clear picture of what a product does and what it does not do. A good review should point out performance issues as well, testing the product over a range of computer platforms. I do not feel that the staff here at AVSIM have been accomplishing this with their latest series of reviews on this website.

Share this post


Link to post

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