REX review response...

[Ragtopjohnny]

Why have someone with no internet connection do a review on a weather program?

That didn't make much sense to me - figured for a review, you would want the reviewer to have full capabillities to enjoy such a program.

While there are themes - it just doesn't give you the capabillities to match real time weather to what your area is doing at the momment, etc...

Seems a little short on the reviewers at Flightsim.com.

Sorry if I seem a little harsh about this, but If you are going to review a product, you will want to do so to the most of the Software requirements...

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[JSkorna]

John,

Does a reviewer of a plane or scenery HAVE to use every feature of said plane or scenery for a review?

He is pretty up front about the fact of his lack of an Internet connection and points readers to where they can get more information about the weather portion. What more do you want?

[Ragtopjohnny]

John,

Does a reviewer of a plane or scenery HAVE to use every feature of said plane or scenery for a review?

He is pretty up front about the fact of his lack of an Internet connection and points readers to where they can get more information about the weather portion. What more do you want?

To get a complete scope of the product being reviewed, if I were a magic 8 ball, my answer would be, "All Answers Point to Yes..."

All I ask is for a THOROUGH reveiw Jim, is that so much? Think you'd want that for Active Sky, right?

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[JSkorna]

Hi John,

You will not find a single review of any Active Sky product that includes a comment on every single feature of said product.

Here is some help:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/review#Verb

Thanks,

[Ragtopjohnny]

Obviously then I guess my expectations are higher than most. Sad to say. I guess I have to lower them to other standards. NOT. And NEVER will.

Remember Andrew Herd? He touched base on every feature, and supplied extremely detailed analasys on no matter what he looked at.

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[JSkorna]

If Andrew didn't have an Internet connection, would he have commented on an Internet feature of a program?

[Ragtopjohnny]

Jim, I see I'm getting no where in my point with you on this, and therefore, choose not to continue this petty debate with you any farther.

This is sad, they should have made sure the reviewer had all the approprate materials needed for the software....

All I have to say is, whenever a review is done on my Starship when it is released, I expect quite thorough and well done review, regardless the outcome of it for the community, being a negative or positive one, I can live with the facts of what the aircraft will bey, though I know personally it will be great.

My last word on this topic.

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[RRN1988]

Perhaps this is a question that is meant to be answered by a reviewer himself.

Why have someone with no internet connection do a review on a weather program?

That didn't make much sense to me - figured for a review, you would want the reviewer to have full capabillities to enjoy such a program.

While there are themes - it just doesn't give you the capabillities to match real time weather to what your area is doing at the momment, etc...

I agree with the first and second paragraphs. John, there's an option in the REX main menu called 'I just want to fly' & 'I want to follow a flight plan'. Inputting some infromation in this makes REX install textures relevant to the RW weather in the areas you have specified. I'm sorry if this is redundant as I haven't read the review.

As a reviewer, you're expected to have some resources that are essential to reviewing. A review is usually expected to be complete and to the point about every aspect of the product. Kevin has done a good job with this but it seems he has decided to 'let go' of key points that readers will be interested in. Not something right. I have contacted Kevin and have offered to help him with his internet connection. Waiting for a reply now.

I have messed up similarly in my review of the Carenado C172N. But I've learnt my lesson well and my current review which I am doing is EXTREMELY detailed and I mean it. It's already so long and I'm barely half way through.

Kevin should've thought twice before reviewing it. I agree with that. A review is what people read before deciding they want to buy a product. Therefore, it's essential it covers all parts of the product and the merits and de-merits are clearly highlighted.

A reviewer is expected to do his job professionally and review his product responsibly. This is what John really meant.

Don't be surprised if don't respond to any comments for a couple of days as I am out of the forums...

[Ragtopjohnny]

Thanks for agreeing Rohan! That's a good idea on your aspect with the active connection.

Glad to see that you at least agree on that point...

John Thuot II
A+/Network+

[KevinGlover]

Hello gents,

I do not normally comment on the reception to my reviews, but hey, there's a first time for everything.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Rohan for contacting me. I haven't had a moment to read through your email yet, unfortunately.

Secondly, a kind soul contacted me with a compliment on my review. It's very rare for any reviewer to receive positive feedback as people will only usually write with complaints (funny how that works). Unfortunately a slip of my mouse caused me to delete this, and so I cannot write this good Samaritan back. I hope he's sees this post and knows that I am very grateful.

Now, to address the issue at hand. I do not have an internet connection and as such could not utilize the real-world weather and Wx radar features.

I acknowledge that this is not ideal, but I hardly think that it demerits my review to the extent suggested in some of these posts. To say that I have 'let go' of certain points is, I feel, somewhat unfair criticism of my work. I supplied commentary based on my knowledge of the features that I could not cover through my own experience by trolling through posts on the REX forums, mostly trying to find common threads and issues. In the end, I felt it most pertinent to refer my readers to other sources which supply more information on these particular issues. If nothing else, I could have said, 'works as advertised'. Naturally, however, this is unacceptable for a reviewer of any quality.

Having said this, I want to acknowledge again that I am not disagreeing in any way whatsoever that my review was lacking in this area. However, I rather fancy that you could not find a more complete review of REX 2.0. No other reviewer has taken the time to go into such depth on this landmark product, so I hope that you will look past the flaws in my review to the valuable information it holds.

This review was written based on the experiences of one complete year with the product. As a matter of fact, it was published literally 365 days after I first had the product (this was the original publishing date, not the Flightsim.com release). I hope this will give you an idea as to how intense it is to write a truly detailed review on a product of this depth.



Now, this review was first started as a project for my reviewing group. I was not aware that the review would ever be published on Flightsim.com. However, when Nels Anderson expressed an interest in my review of it, I gladly obliged him the use of it. This is ideal in many ways because, on one hand, it offers unparalleled views into many of the aspects of the product, excepting, of course, the features which rely on the internet. It would take other FlightSim.com reviewers many months to create a similar work, and as such I was able to serve the public interest by allowing FlightSim.com to publish what insight I could offer much sooner after the product became available on Fspilotshop.com; as such it is better for customers because most people will not wait many months for reviews to be published. What I'm trying to say is simply that I gave what insight I could to those who were interested in it, and I was able to do it sooner after the product became available than if another reviewer had taken the product.



I won't say that I am not trying to defend my review; admittedly, I have been doing this long enough that I am not unduly bothered by public reception to my reviews. It's just that I rather fancy that you do not understand the amount of work that goes into a complete review. I believe Rohan will agree with me when I say that it is not like how you fly the simulator; when you are a reviewer, you are constantly taking notes as to product behaviour. Each quirk must be noted and finally you must decide what all to put into a review. You see a collection of over 200 shots here as well; these were hand-picked from among the thousands of screenshots my trigger-happy self has taken to give a broad scope as to the visual capabilities of the product.

If you think about reviewing in the seriousness that the position deserves (after all, what I write may influence how someone spends their money) you will realize that I and every other legitimate reviewer does this essentially for free and as a service to the community. Keeping in mind that most reviewers get products for free in exchange for their work, read the following:

The average product costs around $20. This will get you a reasonably simple aircraft or scenery. It is essential to spend time 'getting to know' products, and as such I average about 20 hours with a product of this complexity. So, that equates to something like $1 per hour? A pittance. Naturally, time spent with the product will increase greatly with the complexity. I almost wish I'd kept track of my hours spent on the Piper Cub that I recently covered.

REX costs around $40. I spent a year on this product; I can't even estimate the number of hours I flew with this product. What does that mean? I sacrificed what might have been relaxed flying time for a large amount of 'reviewing' flying time. Unless you have the passion, you will realize that reviewing is hardly a productive exercise for the reviewer. If you look at it from a financial standpoint, it is practically unrewarding even though you get the product for free. It is work, and large companies would pay staff to do what I do.

I do it because I love it, and I am sorry that my review has fallen short of your standards. Additionally, I would like to recognize your appreciation of Andrew Herd's reviews; he is certainly the best reviewer FlightSim.com has seen, and although you do exaggerate somewhat, I agree that he certainly did an excellent job during his time here.

However, I do hope that you will read my opinions and realize that they are coming from a human being like yourself and see that, if you look past the issues, I hope you will appreciate the review for the wealth of valuable information it has on other product features. I say this because I know what the internet does to people; we see illuminated pixels and do not mentally connect that there is a living breathing brother behind those pixels, and as such we answer inhumanly.


It is always a pleasure to hear comments on my reviews as they help me get better, and please recognize that I have the greatest respect for my readers. I say this without a trace of sarcasm; in this I am sincere because I respect the power words hold, and the knowledge that my reviews could perhaps determine the one product someone might buy in many months is always on my mind.

Again, my greatest respect and sincere regards,

Kevin Glover