Real ATC Software Responds to Avsim
Ralph Zimmerman
Of Three Real Flights
Colorado Springs, CO
November 24, 2002
Real ATC Software would like the opportunity to respond to the recent review
of our Three Real
Flights product by Avsim's Staff Reviewer G.J. Bogaerts to correct some
items of fact that are
incorrect in the review and to clarify some serious faults with the review
that was posted on
Avsim recently.While Avsim took the trouble to make sure the review hit the
font page, they would
not post the reply or even a link to it from their front page. First of all,
however, I would
like to sincerely thank Avsim and their reviewer for their time and effort
in attempting to
review the product. Total flight time for all three flights is about 7
hours and that's a lot of
time to ask anyone to give in review of a product. Real ATC Software
appreciates the candid
review and all of the good things the reviewer had to say about the Author
and the product but
there are some very serious flaws in the review.
To be fair, you can read the review on Avsim here
http://www.avsim.com/pages/1102/real_atc/realatc.html
Let's correct a factual error right up front. The product has been available
on the Internet at
simmarket.com since November 8th for direct download - nearly two weeks
before the review was
published. Saves the shipping and you get it right now. It will be available
for direct download
from our site also in about 2 weeks. The review says on CD only. Simply not
true.
Now take a look at all the factual errors. On the very first page there is
picture and a caption
that shows how the reviewer passed right over the MLA VOR without getting
credit for it. Well,
sir, either you weren't paying attention to the ATC or maybe you just don't
know how to fly (more
evidence of that in a little bit) because the flight NEVER went over the MLA
VOR. While it is
true that the flight plan for this particular flight is .....MGA1A LEMG and
the MGA1A STAR does
include the MLA VOR, the fact is that at one point you are cleared direct
to MLA, then vectors
to turn you south occur 40 DME from the MLA VOR and you never even get close
to it. You should
not have let your coffee get cold, sir.
The reviewer's comments about excuses are way out of line as are his
references to a now failed
publisher. It shows the bias that Avsim has toward a certain person and his
works and their
attempt to brand everyone that ever mistakenly had anything to do with that
person or company as
being guilty by association. While the attitude is well deserved, as is the
bias, to translate
these feelings to other individuals by way of association is a deliberate
attempt to create a
negative connotation by association and a very low and unfair blow. There is
no mention of the
publisher or person in any of the documentation supplied with the product.
There was no detailed information given to the reviewer on how we came about
the tapes of the
real flights but he takes the liberty of making this very slanderous
statement - "Ralph or one of
his accomplices climbed in the cockpit...". Webster's New World
Dictionary, Third College
Edition, defines "accomplice" as "a person who knowingly participates with
another in an unlawful
act; partner in crime". This, so far as my 58 years has taught me, is the
generally accepted use
of the word. This was either a very poor choice of words or a deliberate
attempt to steer people
away from the reality and learning experience that Three Real Flights
provides by implying
something that simply has no basis. There are very many other words that
would have worked. Just
what is it sir, that you are insinuating here by your choice of words? This
is a very serious
accusation with absolutely no basis in fact and is not taken lightly at all.
Tom Allensworth, in the public forums on Avsim, many times accuses people of
having "hidden
agenda's" when speaking out publicly against and about certain people and
companies and does not
hesitate to lock threads because of it. It is quite obvious that this
reviewer has a hidden
agenda also based on prior experiences or information that are unrelated to
the merits of Three
Real Flights.
The product was released nearly as soon as it could have been without
begging excuses. We give
reasons, not excuses. To say that it is out of date upon release is akin to
saying that Air
Traffic Control and the way that planes are moved through airspace is now
all computerized and
all we should ever hear are canned digitized voices from Tower, Tracon and
Center. These are real
flights with real pilots and real air traffic control, just the way it was
and it is obvious that
the reviewer was not up to the reality of flying. The reviewer complains
about the
invulnerability to user action or inaction - one mistake and you might have
to start the flight
all over again. How many crashes have their been in real airplanes by real
pilots for one
mistake? You at least have a chance to start again. There is a general
statement that "even if
you manage to execute the flight plans and all the other tasks flawlessly,
that's still no
guarantee that the adventures will end properly and give you the credit you
are due". How would
he possibly know this since he was over the MLA VOR when he shouldn't have
been and on the last
page of his review he makes a statement "I "couldn't finish this adventure
either" . Well, if
you're not sharp or good enough to finish, then how could you possibly make
that statement. His
statement about not finishing this flight either, is in reference to the
Piper Cherokee flight,
which he says is the last flight. If that is the case, then why, G.J., did
you email me on 9
November with this statement "Hi Ralph finished two of the three: 106 and
Cherokee Two questions
so far". What he fails again to tell you, as he did in my email, that he was
in fact able to
finish the flight but he just didn't experience all that there was because
he lacked a little
practice and patience.
A complaint about documentation lacking clarity makes us laugh here. There
is a complaint that
CTRL 1 will do one function in one flight experience but a different
function in another flight.
This is akin to saying that every switch in every aircraft (or maybe even a
car!) be in exactly
the same position and have exactly the same function. Most of us know that
this is simply not
true in the real world, in cars or in aircraft. This is yet another example
that the reviewer was
not up to the task of Three Real Flights - he wants things too easy. Perhaps
he has had too many
helpings of old meat loaf and warmed-up mashed potatoes!
The reviewer seems to think that these flights should have been integrated
into the new ABL
programming language that would allow the FS2002 AI traffic to be present.
That would be the
ultimate in reality, right? Well, to a lot of us, while flying as real as it
gets prefer NOT to
hear unrealistic names like Airwave, Gaia, Soar and Landmark . If the new AI
traffic and ATC from
Microsoft was so good at the gate there why has there been such a huge
undertaking to modify it
with real names and real flight schedules in virtually very corner of the
world. There's even a
utility to speed up the taxi in the AI so those planes would clear the
runway more realistically
resulting in fewer go arounds. The reviewer fails to tell you that these
flights will work with
all of the outstanding scenery produced for the airports the flights fly in
and out of, many of
which provide plenty of static aircraft. As for not seeing other aircraft
dynamically, with all
of the modifications that have been made available to this aspect of FS2002,
there is no way
possible to duplicate the skies as they were on the date and time that the
flights were flown,
and integrate this into every modification that countless users have done,
each one with their
own set of flights and plans and still allow for the challenge of flying the
flights at different
times of day and with more challenging weather. Depending on the time of day
and your particular
version of modified AI traffic and ATC it's still very possible to fly
FS2002 flights and see no
other traffic even in the default configuration.
There is a complaint that the flight descriptions are interlaced with
references to the possible
keystrokes but the reviewer fails to mention that there is one dedicated
page to each of the
three flights with a detailed description of each keystroke and what it does
for that flight.
These pages are very hard to miss so one would wonder what your hidden
agenda might be for
leaving out this important documentation. A quick reference sheet for each
element of the
software and you didn't see them.
There is a statement of a frustrating experience with the VOR's and tracking
past them. This
again, shows lack of practice and ability in tracking VOR's. Properly flown,
one will never
experience the turning in circles toward the VOR as he describes. This is an
indication of simply
using accelerated time to try to speed things up.
There is no workaround or cyberjump as the reviewer would indicate to avoid
VOR tracking. The
jumps are provided to enable you to practice and master some difficult parts
of the flights
without having to fly the entire flight and for those times when you might
want just a little bit
of reality and not want to tackle the whole flight. It was done primarily on
the long 3-hour
flight to shorten the flight experience while still providing the learning
experience that Three
Real Flights provides. A secondary function is to give a pilot a way of
practicing the various
aspects of the flight to improve their technique while learning at the same
time. The reviewer's
narrow mindedness and dislike for the product because of the prior
association of the author
masks his ability to review Three Real Flights for what it is and he chooses
to dwell on the many
unfounded negative things. Real Flights are just that and so to even think
that the integration
of these flights into the AI system of FS2002 so that we can hear a real
recording of "Delta 11
to Push" followed by Soar 234, Landmark 1123 and Gaia 789 just so we can
see another plane with
an unrealistic livery and hear another unrealistic digitized ATC command
as we would hear in
the default AI traffic would be like wanting a scoop of chocolate ice cream
in your beer.
The reviewer even complains that "it took some trial and error and some
restarts of the
adventure until I figured out what was expected: parking brakes should be
on...". He thinks that
a hand should be held and guide him through every step. How many of you
reading this without ever
having flown a Real Flight know enough to set your brake before starting
your engines? Three Real
Flights is about the ultimate in learning and providing the in-cockpit
experience and he missed
the point entirely. Bet he starts his car while it's in gear without his
foot on the brake.
Mr. Reviewer also has a complaint that the scoring on the end flashed by all
too quickly. What he
failed to point out and tell you about is that there is a message that stays
on the screen for
about 4 seconds that alerts you to get a screen capture of the next screen
which also stays on
the screen for at least 4 seconds. Must be that it takes him that long time
to find and press 1
key on the keyboard when you've been given ample prior warning.
The reviewer's big complaint on the last page is this: "you are supposed to
pass within 4 miles
on ground level from any VOR station in the flightplan". Apparently he has
a problem with
Federal Aviation Regulation 71.75 (b)(1) which states: "Each Federal airway
includes the airspace
within parallel boundary lines 4 miles each side of the center line. Where
an airway changes
direction, it includes that airspace enclosed by extending the boundary
lines of the airway
segments until they meet." He thinks it's too tough to demand this level of
realism which clearly
shows he was not up to the task of this review for he lacks fundamental
piloting skills and
further failed to see the value of the Three Real Flights as a learning
experience.
He complains about the unrealistic use of some help to give heading and
distance info while
flying the radar vectors on the Cherokee 6 flight but wants to add the
un-realism of unrealistic
AI planes and ATC calls. Radar vectors are very tough to both program and
fly so he neglected to
tell you that there are at least 4 keystrokes dedicated to help you get
through this difficult
part of the flight. Instead of trying your best to track the real flight he
would rather you just
wander off in the sunset complaining that you can't spot that Airwave or
Orbit flight that you
don't hear because this is real- not canned or digitized. He also failed to
mention that if you
get off in left field because of the wind that the very clever built in
flight experience
autopilot will find you and get you back on track. That's how he finished
the flight but he chose
not to tell you that. Instead he would lead you to believe that the flights
and programming are
faulty and that it is not possible to finish with a good outcome. Nothing
could be further than
the truth. Very definitely, the flights are not easy but neither is flying a
737 or a Piper
Cherokee in IFR weather, especially by yourself. Three Real Flights were
meant to be challenging
to complete while providing an excellent learning experience at the same
time.
Well, the reviewer did have a lot of good things to say about Three Real
Flights. He admits that
he liked the challenges of the flights and the charts (he uses the word maps
which we have never
heard when referring to aviation) and airport diagrams and he has some
really good things to say
about the Author and his background. Thank you, sir, and Avsim for all your
kind words and there
are a lot of them. But, your bias and making me guilty by association are
unwarranted and
uncalled for. The reviewer doesn't like the implementation because he would
rather hear digitized
voices rather than reality. If Real ATC is an outdated concept then so is
the search to improve
the AI traffic and call signs that shipped with FS2002. If a real flight is
an outdated concept
than I should like to hear the new computerized controllers and pilots with
their little
digitized voices because the reviewer seems to think that this is where we
are headed in real
life. They may do ATIS with computers and digitized voices at many airports
but the controllers
are still real people with real voices. He would rather we integrate these
flights into the
current ABL programming language and sell the products for $30 or $40 each
and give you a plane
that might not be any better than you could get for free on the Internet.
Then give you some
scenery for airports that have been done by someone else already all so you
could see and hear
things that are, and would be, totally out of place in the realistic cockpit
environment that
Three Real Flights provides.
There is also no mention of the freely included 22 hours of Real Air Traffic
Control except that
he couldn't understand the concept. Most of it has been recorded from the
cockpits of aircraft
and from official tapes and are not the home brew scanned variety that most
Real ATC enthusiasts
come up with for upload in use of great add on programs such as Enviro!
Programs of that nature
have a huge following and Enviro! recently released their new version with
support for FS2002.
We believe that it's the largest collection of Real ATC assembled into one
package and in fact
includes embedded within it two more real flights.
He also failed to mention that while for very obvious reasons of not wanting
to mix apples and
oranges and spoil the pristine real cockpit environment with "artificial
ATC" that there is a
unique experience that can be had with the free Real ATC free flight module.
Take any good large
metro area with multiple airports and start a flight at dusk. Don't invoke
the AI but wait until
you've taken off on a dusk sightseeing flight. After takeoff select the Real
ATC Free Flight
Experience and now you will see all of the AI traffic set in motion by their
lights in the
twilight and your cockpit will be filled with your choice of the ambiance
that only a Real ATC
style of chatter can provide. If you missed that bit of reality then you
missed a lot. Go ahead,
Mr. Reviewer, give it a try. Fly around a bit and head for the active at
busy airport and the AI
will wait for you to land. Real ATC will automatically clear you to land and
you could even use
any voice of your choice without having to record a whole volume of thousand
of phrases.
The reviewer seems to think that the release of Three Real Flights
"evidently lowers the bar for
Flight Simulation add-ons". What we did, Mr. Reviewer, is raise the bar
apparently just high
enough so that you couldn't get over it. You failed to enjoy the flights
because you never saw
them as the learning experience that they are and admit to not understanding
the Real ATC
concept. I would guess that would be expected of someone who starts their
engines without the
brakes being on and needs much trial and error to figure it out by his own
admission!
Ralph Zimmerman
Real ATC Software
www.realatc.com
Frank Schophuizen
posting....
My conclusion is twofold:
- The reviewer (GJ Bogaerts) did not do a good job in providing facts to
support his impression
- Ralph Zimmerman cries, shouts and kicks like a little boy about it
After reading the review it seems obvious that GJB does not like the package
at all. But I agree with RZ that GJB should not insinuate or accuse the
authors of anything. Just an opinion and the arguments how he came to that
conclusion would have been the only necessary. Especially with negative
reviews, a reviewer must be very careful with his words.
On the other hand, RZ is throwing with even more mud. And although he points
out a few incorrectnesses in the review (which GJB should have verified his
information more carefully), most of the arguments that GJB present why he
does not like the package are not denied. I find the reaction of RZ very
unprofessional, which gives me an (even more) negative impression.
In my opinion, the review should have been reviewed properly by the editors
of AVSIM and the publisher of the software, before publication. If Real ATC
Software would not have given permission for publication (and they probably
would not!), AVSIM should have published only an announcement that the
package was reviewed and the tha publisher did not give permission to print
it (inclusing the reason why).
Frank.
Bill Pappert
editors
> of AVSIM and the publisher of the software, before publication. If Real
ATC
> Software would not have given permission for publication (and they
probably
> would not!), AVSIM should have published only an announcement that the
> package was reviewed and the tha publisher did not give permission to
> it (inclusing the reason why).
I don't believe anyone'd have the right to refuse a magazine (or ezine) the
right to print a review of a piece of software except under very specific
circumstances. If I had been given a pre-release version on which to do a
PREview, I think the software's publisher would be within their right to ask
that the piece be written either as "puff" or in a fashion that indicated
clearly and repeatedly that the product being reviewed was "pre-release and
subject to change."
On the other hand, if an employee of a 'zine were able to purchase software
and use whatever they'd bought, they've now got free reign, within reason.
They can REview that software based on their experiences as a customer.
They've the same right that you and I have in the newsgroups, only with a
more expensive platform on which to post it. Yes, they have to avoid
blatant inaccuracies. They should be reasonable and fair. If it sucks
swamp water, however, they also are well within their right to make the
world aware of the just how many foot/pounds of suck torque the thing
applies. Some 'zines are going to be more friendly to the authors than
others. Some reviewers are going to be more friendly than others with some
authors and software houses. For example, I'm sure that e-Pro magazine
would be much more friendly to IBM and Lotus in regard to Notes/Domino 6
than a magazine directed to Microsoft Exchange administrators.
Having read both AVSIM's review when it was posted and RZ's newsgroup-based
rebuttal this morning, I am drawn to a conclusion similar to yours. I think
the reviewer should have taken some time to work with the author, and I
think the reviewer was unreasonable in some of his statements. Many reviews
will work with the author/publisher and explain how they've been able to get
by some of the issues with a little help from the author (or will say how
much the author's support stunk). Having not bought the product, I cannot
make any comment on how accurate the review was... I just think that
perhaps AVSIM's anti Peter Tishma bias may have got the better of the
reviewer in some regards here.
I also think the author crying foul in such a fashion was overblown. An
argument which I found particularly distasteful in RZ's rebuttal was in
regard to how the product has different functions for the same keystroke
depending on the aircraft. Yes, you'd expect different functionality from
buttons in different places on different aircraft or automobiles. For
example, the little hazard blinker on my car is in a very different location
than the one in my wife's car. OTOH, they both are buttons with a red
triangle on them. They look the same. They do the same job. I would
expect that the key commands which acknowledge an ATC instruction be the
same on all aircraft. Much like I'd expect an analog pressure altimiter to
be in different spots on a B742, a C172 and a PA-28, I'd still expect them
to do the same job... I'd not think that I'd have to re-teach my brain how
to read an analog altimiter simply because I'm in a different aircraft.
AVSIM may also have given themselves a bit of positive press by allowing RZ
the opportunity to rebut in the same forum as AVSIM used for the review,
however I don't think they've got any moral mandate to do so. If the
Philadelphia Inquirer were to make a front-page error, you'd not see a
front-page correction. The corrections and rebuttals are always buried
elsewhere in the paper. That's just how journalism in the US works.