There is definitely biased reviews regarding DCS World modules when compared to reviews of other platform reviews such as FSX\Prepar 3d
Watch as I take you on journey over the last 2 editions of PC Pilot, the most respected (and only) PC flight sim magazine in this country of Australia.
now, it is my personal opinion that ED\DCS and it's 3rd party modules that are reviewed in this well regarded magazine are a protected species when compared
to modules released on other platforms in this editorial.
Let's take an in depth look at the March\April edition where the contributor stands behind a cloud of 'Early Access' regarding Heatblur's F-14....
The contributor tests the F-14 module, at the beginning of the module the contributor states, and I quote
"The Heatblur F-14 will soon be released into an Early Access state. The developers have stated that there will be some minor missing features and some
incomplete specific funtionality in major systems, some bugs, incomplete content such as missions and a number of features that still require significant work such
as dual cockpit"
Let's pause for a minute and think about that statement.
Does that not follow the same lines as 90% of the modules ED endorse and contracted 3rd party modules?
all of them have 'some minor missing features' and 'some incomplete functionality in major systems' and all of them have 'some bugs' even in Beta or release status.
Yet with this specific module review, which happens to cost as much as 2 DCS campaigns (when on sale) at $17.20 AUD for this March\April edition of PC Pilot...
the Premier and only flight sim magazine available in Australia. I am disappointed at the contributor for not mentioning any of the "some bugs" or "incomplete functionality in major systems"
yet fails to specify any of the "some minor missing features" in the entire review.
There is a hint of a missing texture but the author fails to specify where exactly on the model that texture actually is.
The 'First impressions'
no mention of any of the above, seems that the disclaimer has been put at the beginning of the review rather than at the end. "Early Access\Beta, has bugs, incomplete blah blah blah
we all know the drill when complaining about bugs in modules that are not 'feature complete' or in Beta state, Invokes the ban hammer from Nine Line and the likes of Skatezilla and the ED cohorts.
Why doesn't PC Pilot review feature complete DCS aircraft? the author is more than happy to provide reviews for feature complete aircraft like the MD-82 etc on other platforms
like FSX\Prepar 3d and Xplane but it seems that DCS is off limits for reviews on feature complete aircraft. 90% remain in an unfinished state of affairs.
hence why reviews in PC Pilot are in Early Access\Beta. Perhaps that is as far the author will ever see the modules in question and why the reviews are always Early Access.
I will admit that being March\April edition of PC Pilot, this review was possibly carried out in December\January for submission to the editorial and print department.
out of the entire review, no mention of any bugs with the aircraft that this contributor found with this aircraft. Seems as though it is a green light from the author
and not one issue other than the "ED official NDA" regarding every review must state Early Access, bugs, incomplete etc as has been the norm for every module over the last 10 years.
"given the quality of what we've seen thus far, I think Heatblur's F-14 is going to be a stunning success"
perhaps.....perhaps, but I would rather read about the faults and flaws mentioned at the beginning of the article rather than the 'stunning success' predicted at the end of the article.
If I was to buy this module based on a respected magazine review, I would only consider buying if the author actually picked faults in the aircraft and wrote about them as well as the good points
found in this aircraft. Being an endorsed and no doubt paid reviewer for PC Pilot that the author no doubt is, I have mentioned this many times.....
"You will only see and hear good points for modules for ED, life is always a rainbow at ED and the bugs, flaws etc are dusted under the carper and not mentioned publicly.
Much like the handling of the ED Forums.
Further proof is in the May\June edition of PC Pilot.
this very same author reviews the Maddog X MD-82 for FSX\Prepar 3d.
This module is not in Early Access or Beta but a 'feature complete release'
most noteworthy, there is no ED Early Access disclaimer or the crap spewed which would see this author banned or posts removed if mentioned at ED's official forum if bugs were
mentioned specifically or features pointed out.
yet the author goes on to write a mudspike worthy review of a module for another platform and state it's flaws.
and I quote "Unfortunately, the quality of the interior sounds does not extend to the external sounds. I was disappointed that the distinctive Pratt & Whitney JT8D roar,
tinged with a bit of high pitch whine, is very underrepresented in the external views"
now what real life pilot is able to fly an aircraft externally? drone pilot perhaps? and then the sounds are muffled altogether in the bunker under ground.
Even possible flaws mentioned by this real life aviator in this review such as the following quote is yet to be seen in any ED\3rd party review.
"I was sceptical of the engine throttle response lag after flying the module for a bit, with 20 seconds seeming to be too long of an interval from initial power application to the
engines reaching the computed Engine Power Ratio (EPR),
turns out to not be a flaw\bug at all after a bit of education from none other than online video's with a stopwatch in hand.....
"but after watching some cockpit videos online with stopwatch in hand, I found the engine behaviour to be exactly right"
which makes me wonder.....did the author test the spool time for Heatblur's F-14 up to full throttle? perhaps that kind of dedicated stopwatch test wasn't carried out as the
tomcat is in 'Early Access' I am interested to know when this paid author will 'stopwatch' test the F-14 spool time to ensure an honest review of a module's suspected defect.
This review gives it's very own "PC Pilot Verdict" 95\100...not bad. No DCS aircraft in living memory has ever had a "PC Pilot Verdict" of 95\100 due to never actually being fully functional and
out of Beta\Early Access.
In the May|June edition of PC Pilot....none other than Leatherneck's Christen Eagle..(how old are the reviews, isn't it magnitude?)
not a bug mentioned relating to the module specifically. Much like the F-14 with it's disclaimer that during the review the author notes zero of what could be found in the disclaimer....
yet here the author writes with convincing enthusiasm.....you guessed it, regurgitated lighting issues with every module in the sim.
"as wonderful as the aircraft is, two small bugs jumped out at me during testing. First, with your smoke on, the cockpit floor shows the smoke outside through
the solid footwell. The second involved an unexpected taxiing accident at Sochi where the aircraft left the tarmac and 'tilted over' a non-existend edge.
Both bugs are probably related to DCS World itself rather than the Eagle but that second one was a real surprise.
No mention of the flaws in any DCS review....
seems that with DCS, you will only read the good things about modules....absolutely no specific bugs or related flaws are ever mentioned.
The author is biased.....I believe that articles in PC Pilot need a disclaimer that said "Paid review by paid actors" much like the advertisements after 10PM
convincing consume's to by piss poor products.