flightman
12-06-2011, 09:42 PM
I have the earlier FS9 version of this simulation but I'm attracted to the FSX version because of the promise of additional features, improved systems, etc. However it's a very expensive addon so I'm keen to know whether it's really worthwhile when I can crank up FS9 and fly more or less the same thing there. So a flightsim.com review was going to be useful and interesting, right? The reviewer is Peter Carlson, not known for writing in depth reviews, but surely for a product like this he'd make an exception? Sadly I was wrong.
About half this brief review was spent on Concorde history and early supersonic flight generally. Then a description of the reviewers first flight, subsonic only. One paragraph on sound, just two sentences on the features included in this $75 addon, then straight to the conclusions. These are generously in favour, but there's no way of knowing how and why the reviewer came to this view. It's like going to a fine dining restaurant, having hors d'oeuvres then going straight to the coffee. Where was the meat of the review? There's more information about the product on the vendors website, but buyers need independent opinions. The idea of a review is to provide potential buyers information about how well the features offered work, how useful they are, what the drawbacks are.
Even more importantly, the reviewer doesn't even mention system requirements, what system he reviewed it on and what kind of system is necessary to get the best out of this simulation. Concorde X is reputed to be resource hungry, but there's no indication the reviewer had any problems running it. FSPilot shop doesn't give minimum specs either which is unforgiveable. I know I can find a lot of this information elsewhere, but I wanted another opinion, flightsim.com's opinion.
There's almost nothing I can say good about this review, except I didn't have to waste much time reading it. I learned nothing new about the product from it. It's just not good enough and I'm amazed it made it onto this website. Why bother with reviews which have no substance?
Kevin
About half this brief review was spent on Concorde history and early supersonic flight generally. Then a description of the reviewers first flight, subsonic only. One paragraph on sound, just two sentences on the features included in this $75 addon, then straight to the conclusions. These are generously in favour, but there's no way of knowing how and why the reviewer came to this view. It's like going to a fine dining restaurant, having hors d'oeuvres then going straight to the coffee. Where was the meat of the review? There's more information about the product on the vendors website, but buyers need independent opinions. The idea of a review is to provide potential buyers information about how well the features offered work, how useful they are, what the drawbacks are.
Even more importantly, the reviewer doesn't even mention system requirements, what system he reviewed it on and what kind of system is necessary to get the best out of this simulation. Concorde X is reputed to be resource hungry, but there's no indication the reviewer had any problems running it. FSPilot shop doesn't give minimum specs either which is unforgiveable. I know I can find a lot of this information elsewhere, but I wanted another opinion, flightsim.com's opinion.
There's almost nothing I can say good about this review, except I didn't have to waste much time reading it. I learned nothing new about the product from it. It's just not good enough and I'm amazed it made it onto this website. Why bother with reviews which have no substance?
Kevin