PSS concorde = 5 stars??

[Guest bigun]

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.

[AWACS 12]

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

[Guest Darren Howie]

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.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

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.

[Guest Darren Howie]

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

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

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,

[Guest Bry]

>"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.

[JP_Visser 3]

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.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

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.

[Guest Dianne_S]

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.

[Guest Bry]

Aggressive? I'm Sorry you saw it that way. Just one of those inherant flaws with text based communications I'm afriad. Not an intentional 'attack' really.As for the location of the post, that just depends. Personally I sometimes its more confusing to have replies in a non-linear manner, ie newer posts nearer to the top than older posts. Hence why I quoted you by typing it in. Just another difference of opinion there I suppose.Anyway, its an arguement I've seen before. At the end of the day, both teams were tested by real Concorde pilots and given the thumbs up, but do they handle the same? No, they don't so the "tested by a real world pilot" line often used when selling or promoting products should always be taken with a pinch of salt.Afterall, people say their product was tested by a real pilot, they don't always say what the pilot actually thought of the result. ;)The main point is, the way you made that post seemed to suggest that one was tested while the other wasn't. I'm merely making it clear that both received such testing and since both don't handle the same, its not quite as reassuring as you may have implied.I also call the "its past mid-night so I might be a but blunt" card. :(No hard feelings?

[oqvist 11]

Quote from AVSIM review: "In the virtual setting my pc ran the add-on in good frame rates, I rarely every dipped below 25 fpm, 15 fpm is industry standard so the PSS Concorde is well with in the acceptable limits for a commercial offering."Nah 15 fpm being an industry standard and rarely dipping below 25 fpm can

[Guest]

>>>>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?no he can't. He's making value judgements about a product based on a review which he claims is inaccurate...Without the product he can't claim the review is inaccurate and without acknowledging the review is accurate (which he can't without the product) he can't judge the product.What he does is saying that because of the review the product is no good and because the product is no good the review is no good. But if the review is no good how can he determine based on it that the product is no good?

[Guest]

>The last payware addon I thought was worth 5 stars was PICv1.>Everything else was at best worth 4.weird you'd say that.PIC when released was so riddled with bugs it was almost useless...They did patch it up over time but initially it didn't look good.

[Guest]

That's what you get when you have amateurs write reviews. Amateurs moreover who aren't compensated in any way.They will write about products they like, and many will be emotional about that, it's quite understandable.And remember that the sites hosting those reviews depend on advertising revenue from the very companies whose products are under scrutiny in order to operate.This may prevent reviews that are openly negative to get published in order as to not make (potential) advertisers angry. It might also mean that products sold by major competitors of the main sponsors of any particular site aren't published or are published only after the product has either gained solid acceptance or has faded out of public interest.This is true for all sites, not just Avsim btw., not even just the FS addon industry. If you've read reviews elsewhere most all of them are just advertising in another form.Pick up a copy of Popular Photography for example, a glossy consumer magazine with professionally written reviews.Apart from the more slick language (which is because of the professional authors and editors) the reviews are if anything more obviously blatant advertising.In fact all articles published in these magazines are advertising...The most blatant example of this all that I can remember was a comparative review of some lenses that was posted 2 years ago in a Dutch highprofile magazine.On the left we have a