Avcomware, I totally agree with everything you said in your post - it was just this one review which 'tipped the boat'. I've read it a few times now I can't help feeling that I'm being brainwashed into thinking this product is the best. It's quite funny really, I'm just suprised AVSIM would publish it and advertise it....

why don't you publish your own review, Avsim said it would publish it and I would gladly read it.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

Ben is a part of a payware organization, so it might not be the best thing to do as much as he or we might like to.* I think we need to find us a couple of Siskel and Eibert's <-spelling? *

Yeah that's true, I don't have the time anyway mate!.

Hi to all, I actually looked for this forum topic, since I trully find it weird that a payware aircraft that has no FMC, no overhead and it is fairly basic in terms of what we are used to, gets half a star less than something like PMDG's 744!I respect Avsim and I always read the reviews - especially on products that I am really interested. I think that you are doing a marvellous job that supports the FS communitty like no other. But, if I go by this review, trust the rating system, then CLS' A300-600 is almost as good as the Level-D 767 or the PMDG 744.Trully, how these products even come near?I do agree that you either need to review the star rating system or abort it. Marinos KlourasAthens, Greece

>Take Flight modeling in this sim, many>think it

As I see it, the "star" system is a false metric anyway...an attempt to quantify the subjective opinions of any given reviewer into some sort of easy-reading report card to appease the mentally weak among us that can't be bothered to read the subjective commentary, assess the various strengths and weaknesses, and make their own decisions.I'd much rather that we set up some sort of standard framework for reviews...i.e. any sanctioned review would assess (subjectively) each of these themes: the flight dynamics, 2D panel, VC, systems simulation, exterior model, sounds, frame rate performance on a small but semi-standard variety of PC configurations, support infrastructure and history of the developer, and any other miscellaneous issues. And the reviewer could characterize the sum total in his own words: "An amazing must-buy." "Buy this one." "Not worth your time." "Total waste of disk space." "Peter Tishma had a hand in this one, need I say more?" All of these would mean a lot more to me than "4.54665 stars"But the idea that some sort of standard yardstick does or even can exist has, by now, pretty much been demonstrated to be in the realm of the impossible. Heck, even professional review operations like Stereo Review have a hard enough time even with a lab-grade test bench and a book full of metrics to go by.And I, for one, would also greatly appreciate the honest heads up to have a reviewer say "six thumbs down" when a truly awful offering hits the market. What purpose is served by a sugar-coated attempt to highlight the fact that there are a few positive points in an otherwise DOA project? Call the mortician and move on, please.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

>up to have a reviewer say "six thumbs down" when a truly awful>offering hits the market. Bob, I agree. But this is not going to happen. The reviewers like to stay away from trully awful products - first they have limited time and resources so they rather review something better but also they probably want to sound positive in their reviews to avoid controversy. Notice how few products ever get reviewed here - there are simply not enough reviewers. On the other hand if you or someone like you with a great deal of aviation experience managed to write a more hard-hitting review I would love to read it - and Avsim promised before they would publish it.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

I think the problem is people think everyone views an addon the same way they do. A key thing a reviewer really should do is explain what it is for them that makes a good addon. For example - for me the 2D panel is by far the most important element of any aircraft, if the 2D panel isn't good, I won't bother with it. I really don't care all that much about the model, if it looks nice - great! Just as long as it doesn't look like something born out of FS98 I don't care all that much. The panel, flight dynamics and sound all come ahead of the model for me. Many flightsimmers swear by the VC which I don't, even though I fly GA, I find them a pain in the ####. So if I wrote a review, it would be quite different than if someone else did a review on the same product. The key is for the reviewer to clearly state what is a priority for them.I think the star system should be tossed myself, for one it seems every addon reviewed gets 4 or 5 stars - perhaps they all deserve it, but as a consumer I don't find how many stars an addon gets to be much of an indicator of whether or not this addon would be good for me. Toss the stars, just give the award of excellence to an addon that would get 5 stars to show it goes the extra distance and leave it at that IMO.As for this conspiracy stuff - personally I haven't seen any reviews on Avsim that I would say are commercialized (Haven't read that A300 review though), at least I haven't seen any written by Cap Mason here lol. I think the reason some people may see a review as being just an ad is generally people only write a review about a product they really enjoy, so it will be written quite enthusiastically and may come across as "commercialized".

Personally, I think they should have a multi-star system. i.e. A star rating for the exterior model, a star rating for the panel, a star rating for the flight dynamics, etc. Then, of course, you could keep the main star rating up top, but have it tally'd up by what the rest of the stars are (keeping the original star catagories visible for viewers).And like others said in the thread, the reviews will always have some bias, and not everyone will agree, but it will add a little more insight on the rest of the features of the model.Just my opinion.. - Paul

The CLS A36R is what one would expect from a decent freeware package (pretty accurate model, sounds, basic panel) sold so that the developers make some cash off their effort.4.5 stars in comparison with reviews of other way superior products is downright ridiculous and it is quite intriguing that the review is still up.I agree that a review only expresses an individual's - that is, the reviewer's - personal opinion but doesn't it have to be somewhat objective too? Not having a go at the reviewer or anything but I felt I had to say this myself - albet a little late.