I agree SimHQ did a tremendous job with their review. I can't speak for the Avsim Review Staff but, with the advances that have been achieved with FSX I imagine they are hard at work compiling the most comprehensive FS Review for the flight sim community. A review for those who purchased it already and still haven't used FSX to its full potential and for those who are still on the fence regarding the purchase of Microsoft's latest edition to the simulation world.

As long as Mike T doesn't do it, I'll be happy, LOL.Haha. Mike T's review would be the best of all these sweetness and light reviews. I'm not interested in some rump kissing' 'oh isn't this the most magnificent piece of software...' blah blah. Mike struggled with it in earnest finally coming to some degree of satisfaction but with a honest and concise assessment in the several postings I've seen. That's what we need.

:-roll So have you even looked at the Sim-HQ review? Are you saying that it was a rump kissing review?

>As long as Mike T doesn't do it, I'll be happy, LOL.>>Haha. Mike T's review would be the best of all these sweetness>and light reviews. I'm not interested in some rump kissing'>'oh isn't this the most magnificent piece of software...' blah>blah. Mike struggled with it in earnest finally coming to some>degree of satisfaction but with a honest and concise>assessment in the several postings I've seen. That's what we>need.>Mike has a tendency to look at FSX from about "one" angle, and has eagerly dismissed the others. A review from Mike would be complete one sided bias, and rather worthless as to the whole picture.As mentioned the Sim-HQ review is much more complete.L.Adamson

I vote Mike T to do the review. sweetness and light reviews are useless.

>I vote Mike T to do the review. sweetness and light reviews>are useless. This is Avsim you know. We can expect whoever does the review will give an honest opinion.

I daresay AVSIM have someone working on a review for FSX, but you should be aware that the AVSIM review procedures are very complex and designed to ensure a fair and relevant appraisal is the result. I know this because I used to be a reviewer for AVSIM (had to give it up when my wife became ill with cancer, which was obviously more of a priority - happily she beat it and recovered).You should see the set of rules and procedures you have to follow when reviewing stuff for AVSIM. Put it this way: when anyone prints them off, they'd better make sure their printer toner isn't running low :-)I don't know if SIMHQ follows the same kind of procedure, from the reviews I have read on SIMHQ, I get the feeling that there is probably more leeway for going about the review in any way you feel suitable, whereas the 'star rating' that AVSIM has for products it reviews (just to take one small example) is bound by a stringent set of rules which pretty much ensures that the rating a product gets is a fair reflection of its capabilities. Having said that, the SIMHQ review is very thorough and I think on the whole a fair appraisal, although criticisms of the lack of service FSX offers for fans of airliners could have been harsher in the SIMHQ offering and still have been fair, as I think this is one of FSX's weakest points, and may indeed prove a critical flaw when add-ons come into the mix (then again it may not).There is certainly an argument for holding off on a review of any version of FS, as unlike most stand-alone pieces of software, FS tends to be a 'base package' for many users, with add-ons forming much of the products' capabilities. Reviewing FSX when the knowledge of how it performs with a few add-ons would be a far more useful review for AVSIM to do, particularly when you bear in mind the following:FS generally has a much longer shelf life than other pieces of software and it is fair to say that most avid simmers probably went out and bought FSX on day one, regardless of whether or not they'd seen any reviews.So, most of the people who regularly post on these forums don't need a review to either agree or disagree with why they like it or not, what would be useful however, is a review with some third-party stuff added in there. Particularly when you consider that most 'preview' writing on FSX (which may have served to whet our appetites) prior to the release date, was a glorified re-write of the MS press release; stuff like this is still appearing in magazines even now with the product released - see current issue of Airliner World for an example, which has an article very similar in tone to the PC Pilot preview from their last issue (prior to FSX being released). This is somewhat ironic, given that airliner operations in FSX are one of the problem areas it seems, and the lack of even a basic FMC on the airliners is a glaring omission that has left many fans of the heavy metal understandably irate.Ironically for me, this sort of 'half-baked journalism' mentioned above, where press releases are virtually typed in verbatim and passed off as articles is one of the reasons why I left the daily newspaper I used to write for, as they were becoming far too keen on an editorial policy which relied on this kind of lazy approach.Therefore, a warts and all review with plenty of hard comparisons on how FSX will perform under the kind of conditions users are likely to really be using the sim, even if it takes a while to appear, would be far more pertinent for the average AVSIM devotee.With regard to who should review FSX for AVSIM, I suspect that the decision has already been made, and no doubt the reviewer tasked with the job is probably busily flying their #### off and waiting for a few add-ons, so that they can give AVSIM readers a review which serves to be useful for more than the initial release 'honeymoon period'.I think this is especially important in view of the fact that the database of product reviews on AVSIM - and the eye to having those reviews still pertinent some way down the road - is one of AVSIM's real strongpoints.So don't hold your breath waiting for the AVSIM review, but when it does arrive, you can be sure that it will be fairer and of more use than most other efforts on the subject.

>:-roll So have you even looked at the Sim-HQ review? >>Are you saying that it was a rump kissing review? I made no comment about that review. I have seen several rump kissing reviews (a certain competitor to this site comes to mind) and that's what I'm refering to.And I take it by inference your comments would be prejudging Mike's review? A pretty poor way to judge his effectiveness as a reviewer for FSX.

>>As long as Mike T doesn't do it, I'll be happy, LOL.>>>>Haha. Mike T's review would be the best of all these>sweetness>>and light reviews. I'm not interested in some rump kissing'>>'oh isn't this the most magnificent piece of software...'>blah>>blah. Mike struggled with it in earnest finally coming to>some>>degree of satisfaction but with a honest and concise>>assessment in the several postings I've seen. That's what we>>need.>>>>Mike has a tendency to look at FSX from about "one" angle, and>has eagerly dismissed the others. A review from Mike would be>complete one sided bias, and rather worthless as to the whole>picture.>>As mentioned the Sim-HQ review is much more complete.>>L.Adamson>>>Quite the contrary. He struggled with FSX on a higher end system and would very effectively be able to state how that was resolved to him under Vista. The review that is linked to here is operating a system approx. like mine (except 2 gigs to my 1) under windows XP.

My vote would be for Mike T. to do the Avsim FSX review. He's put in some serious work trying to get the sim to function properly. He's even tried all the tweaks which is more than I can say about L.Adamson.

>And I take it by inference your comments would be prejudging>Mike's review? A pretty poor way to judge his effectiveness as>a reviewer for FSX.Mike has already spent two weeks here with his five or ten times daily, mini reviews. Wouldn't you agree?It's well known, that Mike's main interest is in heavy airport enviroments and I'll suppose aircraft such as PMDG, etc. For this, FSX didn't work well. For many other areas of flight, FSX works wonders, but Mike wouldn't know, as he concentrated on the above, and has already removed the simulation.In other words, we've already seen Mike's rather biased and one-sided review on FSX. I doubt he has little to add, to what he's already said.L.Adamson

Mikes review :-xxrotflmao Mike was using a beta version of Vista. Im not sure if he every installed FSX on a machine it was made for Windows Xp.He may have I'm just dont think you can judge FSX when you have it running on Beta software.

>>And I take it by inference your comments would be>prejudging>>Mike's review? A pretty poor way to judge his effectiveness>as>>a reviewer for FSX.>>Mike has already spent two weeks here with his five or ten>times daily, mini reviews. Wouldn't you agree?>>It's well known, that Mike's main interest is in heavy airport>enviroments and I'll suppose aircraft such as PMDG, etc. For>this, FSX didn't work well. For many other areas of flight,>FSX works wonders, but Mike wouldn't know, as he concentrated>on the above, and has already removed the simulation.>>In other words, we've already seen Mike's rather biased and>one-sided review on FSX. I doubt he has little to add, to what>he's already said.>>L.Adamson>>Mr. L.Adamson we already know of your biased and one-sided views as well. I'd prefer his take on it then you and yours any day of the week. Any time someone posts a spot of negativity about FSX you're in there criticising them like you're on a major quest or mission to preserve the dignity of a vestial virgin. We get it. Let up on the one-horse parade already.

>Reviewing FSX when the knowledge of how it performs with a few add->ons would be a far more useful review for AVSIM to doI have to disagree because thst would confuse this issue. Initially, the review should be of FSX alone with no add-ons to give an indication of its own features and performance. Add-ons should be reviewed separately covering their own individual features and effects on FSX performance.

>My vote would be for Mike T. to do the Avsim FSX review. >He's put in some serious work trying to get the sim to>function properly. He's even tried all the tweaks which is>more than I can say about L.Adamson.So? I haven't done all the tweaks and I enjoy FSX. A review is supposed to be objective/unbiased with the pros and cons pointed out for new users to get an idea about the program. The one posted at SimHQ is a perfect example and right on the money. Based on Mike's posts here as of late, he has lost any credibility as an unbiased/objective reviewer for this software.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD