I agree with a lot of what you mentioned. The most objective reviews I've seen thus far on the internet regarding computer software are on CNET.com and Gamespot.com The editors at these sites will really rake a software title over the coals, backwards and forwards, if they don't like it :) The FS2004 add-on industry seems to have managed to collectively insulate itself from this kind of scrutiny.I believe the reasons, as you mentioned, might perhaps be related to the relatively sparse number of simming-related websites altogether, as well as product disparity vs. potential loss of advertising revenue. It's a matter of not biting the hand that feeds you :) Case in point: When FS2004 was initially released, every commercial simming-related website absolutely praised the new weather engine. Not one reviewer on any of the major sites, not one, ever mentioned the huge flaw in the winds aloft engine. The winds at high altitude would shift horribly and crash your aircraft at random intervals with the default weather engine. It took a 3rd party developer, Pete Dowson, almost 2 years to find a solution with his commercial FSUIPC module. It was never really possible to fly cross country at flight level altitudes with the default FS2004 weather engine, nor any add-on weather programs either until Mr. Dowson managed to finally program a winds aloft fix.None of the major websites devoted to simming ever addressed this gaping flaw with FS2004 in any shape, matter or form, ostensibly in fear of alienating themselves from Microsoft's good grace :) I wish I understood more of the dynamics that go on with the commercial add-on industry and how it remains so much more insulated from critical evaluation than every other segment of the computer software industry. It's interesting to say the least :)

Good points Jeroen and Dianne! Perhaps the best thing would be to abandon the star-rating system, since it gives a false sense of objectivity? Maybe just the occasional Avsim Award is enough? I took a look at the AVSIM reviews from 2004-05, and eighteen out of twentytwo payware planes reviewed got four stars or more... rgrds fredrik

JentwingYou must be thinking of another product.I was refering to PIC-767 which broke new ground in many respects and was pretty much bug free at release.Troy

Hi Mr Wenting,>>> 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? <<

No offense to AVSIM, but the five star rating should be reserved for remarkable achievements in FS. Maybe AVSIM should go to a six star grading system?I'm REALLY not trying to start any crap here, but five out of five stars is the best possible rating...right? If something comes out next week that is way ahead of the rest, how will you rate it?

Did you even read what he wrote? He said that based on the review, it doesn't deserve 5 stars. So, yes, he can make such a claim without having used the product.

no, that's exactly the one I am thinking of.And it was riddled with bugs on release. The massive number of complaints about this made that much clear (and that was before the time that people started to complain about products they didn't even own...).

Yes, any single rating for a complex product is pretty much useless.If a reviewer gives a rating without providing a very solid reasoning for that rating how can I know what that rating is based on?What weighing factors did he apply for example?Some reviewers may decide that a flaw in the visual model is serious enough to deduct a whole point from the final rating where another considers that flaw to be minor enough it doesn't detract from the rating at all. Same with all other factors of course.A rating system with separate ratings in different categories would partially do away with that problem but only if a solid reasoning is still given for each decision.And when seeing that the vast majority of reviews get a high rating, consider that vollunteers tend to only spend time on writing a review if they really like the product in question and are thus predisposed towards giving it a high rating.Many poor ratings would therefore be reviews that are just as useless, only pointing out the glaring errors without any attempt at pointing out what is good.In fact, many of those would likely read so much like a flamewar that site editors would not publish it.Of course most reviewers are no realworld pilots (and even fewer will have realworld experience in the exact type of aircraft under review or will have visited an airport being reviewed in the case of scenery so any conclusions will have to be seen in the light of that inexperience (as well as their likely inexperience as authors).

Jentwing"no, that's exactly the one I am thinking of.And it was riddled with bugs on release. The massive number of complaints about this made that much clear (and that was before the time that people started to complain about products they didn't even own...)."Your memory is faulty.Troy

I read the review and was very impressed, so well done Tom and the fact that it was your first review full marks.I don't have the PSS Concorde although I am giving serious consideration to buying it. I DO have the 'Koch' Concorde which I am most pleased with.I have a question though with regard to the rating?If the Koch Concorde is better visually and has more switches, would it have six stars if they issued a patch that provided a VFE?All the best,Dave.'Three greens and soft landings'

The review really had to much grammatical errors it feels like it was rushed. Perhaps simming in 100+ hours writing the review in 10 minutes. And since English is not my primarily language I guess it

Folks, just got back from overseas, so am a bit tardy in responding to this. I will simply say this; we welcome any and all who would like to put their skills to work in providing reviews. I see many here who obviously are concerned about the quality of our reviews, and we would welcome your talents in improving them and providing a better offering to our community. If you are indeed desirous of having quality reviews, please send a note to [email protected] and volunteer your time. We need the help and your contributions would be appreciated.

Bry,Text comms aren't the best way to get a feeling across. I accept you weren't having a go - it just looked like that last night.You apparently have different settings in AvSim to me which may explain why you didn't reply to my message. No matter.<>But I had never mentioned the Koch product in any message in this thread so how I could be suggesting this? :-hmmmNeither the PSS or Koch product will fly 100% accurately compared to the real thing. It's installed into a

Tom You havent been on our side of the pond again ;-)While the Cats away the Mice will play :-) apart from everyone here stampeding to write reviews (some of us cannut even spill :-)There are a few interesting points ? and just to remind you of Europe UK A little pickie to keep you sweet fresh over SnowdoniaPeterhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/105391.jpg

Peter, yes, I was on a whirlwind visit to the UK and Germany. Arrived EGLL on the 23rd, drove to Portsmouth and returned on Monday, meeting in London on Tuesday, business dinners on Monday and Tuesday night, transit to Hamburg on Wednesday, official dinner on Wednesday, and cloistered behind closed doors in day-long meetings on Thursday and Friday. Saturday early departure to Frankfurt, catch up with United flight to IAD and back home late Saturday night, driving through 2 hours of snow and ice. Sunday was spent catching up with sleep. So, yes, did visit your neck of the woods, but only briefly. Next time I hope to have some time, so that we can get together, as I have been threatening to do for three years now. :)Nice pic...