RealScenery Oregon Review

[Daveduck]

MODERATORS NOTE:

The below thread was a long, drawn out and heated debate between Daveduck and several members of this forum. You will note that many of the replies appear to be out of place, as this post disintegrated under its own weight after about 17 postings. Because we believe in freedom of choice and non-censorship, Daveduck elected to delete his own postings from this thread. The moderation staff of X-Pilot.com had no part in this decision. If you'd like to see the explanation from Daveduck on his reasoning for deletion, please refer to the following post by CLICKING HERE.

---

A review of RealScenery Oregon, extensively documented with examples:

http://plainlyxplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/product-review-realscenery-oregon-for-x_23.html

Cheers.

---

UPDATE: Based in part on the discussion below, I've updated the Review Principles

post at Plainly X-Plane to include mention of "Pros & Cons" and business anonymity:

http://plainlyxplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/xp-add-on-reviews_25.html

As a new visitor to this thread you'll find it useful to know that "Cameron" is the owner of X-Aviation.com and the sole distributor of RealScenery products.

[woweezowee]

I have http://www.x-scenery.de/, covering germany. There also is "black night", but would there be anyway to work around this with photo scenery? Also, the colors in that product don't match excatcly and differ greatly from region to region. But still, i enjoy the possibility of flying "True VFR"; even better with OSM roads installed and the add-on forests by alpilotx.net.

[Cameron]

Dave,

It's great you've taken some time to write a review. I believe it's sensible to have someone with good writing skills to be writing something clever, however, one thing is quite evident to me in your writing: you have an agenda in all of what you write; your mind is made. I mean no offense to this, however, with your writing and assumptions so incredibly negative, it's hard to believe you had any other intentions or felt the need to be subjective/take into account varied opinions of those that may read what you have written. To me it wreaks of someone irked or feels as if the wrong button was pressed on them (you), and that's simply that. Regardless of these things, your negative writing is still good, so job well done there!

With the above said, you are most certainly entitled to YOUR opinion, so I'll also share mine.

1.) Your review clearly shows some drawbacks to photoscenery. I think it's very important you shared this, however, it appears you took in NO account to those that fly online. A great deal of users fly online (VATSIM, etc), and it's important airports line up to the scopes of controllers on networks like VATSIM. Not only for that reason, but also for the simple fact that it's nice to see traffic at your airport. X-Plane will not display online flying/moving aircraft in the correct position within sim unless lat/lon/alt all match up. This is a trade off that's made, and not entirely a fault of the RealScenery product line. Additionally, it's important to note that a good number of airports match up with the photos just like a good number don't. Of course, the bigger airfields match up more proper than those that are "in the sticks." I wish there were a way to make this perfect, as do you it appears, however, what you may think would be perfect, others will disagree with. As an online flyer myself, I appreciate the photo terrain below and the fact that my airport data has NOT been adjusted. It would drive me batty otherwise, that's for sure!

2.) You spent a great deal of time discussing the terrain coloration. I think this one is definitely an agree to disagree section. I find your preference of coloration too dark, and X-Plane's default to be as well. The RealScenery Oregon product may not be perfect, but I also feel it's not far off. Of course, unlike you (it appears), I understand one opinion is different than the next, so if darker works for you, all the power to you! All the power to you that you found an author from FS whom you feel shared your opinion just because his terrain was darker, however, I feel his is a tad too dark. There is no question, though, that FlightZone02 is a fantastic package, and I recommend all to get it regardless of terrain coloration perception!

To those interested in non-edited (minus the cropping) photos of Oregon, there are some here. It's better to draw your own opinion:

Other images:

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=183.0

Using a direct quote from a customer of all the RealScenery products posted here: http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=241.0

Just to let you know, I purchased them and have not regretted it one bit.  It adds a new dimension to flying.  I just wish they had more of the states.

3.) I'm a little dumbfounded by your fascination to dig so deeply into one's personal life (speaking on the additional column you created called The Curious Case of Eric Gillett), however, I'm somewhat pleased you did it for the comedy of the misinformation included! Typical quality journalism from an ex professional journalist though, right? It was certainly a good laugh, especially with your fantastic writing ability, Dave, and I sincerely mean that! I won't really speak more on the misinformation you posted regarding Eric, as I feel his personal details are for him to correct you on should he feel the need. In regards to hidden whois info, one word: spam. I have a lot of domains, and one of the biggest mistakes I ever made was leaving all my info in them. I've received so much spam over time through snail mail, I've finally begun to invest the extra $ to privatize such information.

I have http://www.x-scenery.de/, covering germany. There also is "black night", but would there be anyway to work around this with photo scenery? Also, the colors in that product don't match excatcly and differ greatly from region to region. But still, i enjoy the possibility of flying "True VFR"; even better with OSM roads installed and the add-on forests by alpilotx.net.

Yet another X-Planer proving my point that everyone has their own opinion and won't always agree with you or others around, and it's not even regarding a RealScenery product.

Quite frankly, when I read this post, Dave, I already knew to expect negativity. After all, there's no fun in reading DaveDuck's blog without it, as it's become the norm. There are a few non-negative posts that have been made by you on your site, but they in no way outnumber the consistent negative opinions of our well-versed, Dave!

I could keep going and going, but this review of your review may get a bit too long for the normal person to have patience for...like someone else we know.

Oh, but before I forget, I give your review:

Let's see...according to your rating guide here: http://plainlyxplane.blogspot.com/search/label/flight%20sim%20software%20reviews

This means your review is "Monkey dung."

Oh, okay, I feel bad now. You DO have good writing ability. Much better than me, in fact, so I'll up it.

According to your own ratings guide, basically:

It's a great read but fails to deliver a great review. It's also impractical (opinions suck sometimes, don't they?), but damn is it a fun read. While your ratings state "Not Recommended," I'm going to have to scratch that little tidbit and encourage people to get some good laughs from a great writer!

Cheers, Dave. Mad respect!

[Cameron]

Dave,

I, of course, do have a vested interest, however, your perception of a sensible business model or my own again appears you want to be the final call and set an agenda. Additionally, I used quotes from topics of other users here to support my claims so that it's not just me being supportive of what I say.

In reality, I'm very open to reviews and encourage them. The goal at X-Aviation is to have the best quality products for X-Plane, and the only way to get better is to hear the criticism. This comes from all angles, be it software applications, web applications, and anything X-Plane related that we publish. The only problem I see with your review is that while it's negative, it's not very open-minded. I guess this comes with the territory on anything you write, as it's typical DaveDuck material. Opinions are certainly one thing I can't control, but trying to find a happy medium is something I CAN control. My counteraction posted above is to show that I (as a regular RS user), do not view the terrain to be too light in contrast as you, and why the airports are the way they are.

Without getting too much into it, you simply feed in the negativity and never give credit to the other side of what you speak of. It's not open-minded, but very "I have an agenda to kill." To you, it makes sense. To the person reading your review, all they take in is what you speak. You're still a great writer, but your review is more a fun read of journalism than anything accurate, or remotely open-minded to those reading. Your sidebar is also riddled with incorrect information and false assumptions. I highly disagree with the review itself in most instances, simply because you don't invest any time into discussing any type of pros vs cons. I'm not sure that's even possible for YOU to do, especially in the creative way that you write. For you it's either negative or positive, but never both.

Don't let all of this shy away from the fact that I am aware of people not always agreeing and having different opinions. This is why we encourage reviews from various publications; so that many opinions can be shed about.

Best,

Cameron

[Ben Russell]

Cameron was banned at x-plane.org because he questioned how often Nicolas flies the simulator after Nicolas had posted a series of screenshots featuring an aircraft over water.

It's disturbingly easy to get banned, black listed, suspended or censored over there, which was a large part of the motivation for providing a new playground so that we can all sit around and enjoy threads like these.

Indeed, I would go so far to say that, had you, Dave, started this thread at the org, when R.S. was a contributing advertiser, you may have found yourself black listed, banned, warned, etc. and the thread would likely have been deleted.

As an ex moderator there, resigned of my own accord, I can say that I have seen people reprimanded for absolutely absurd things.

As for your review, I am puzzled by the cling wrap effect... it's definitely rather glaring.

As I own modest hardware I haven't tried any of the scenery, so I can't make any comparison, but it is certainly of some concern.

I was going to suggest that it may be Gamma settings... but then the FS scenery you compared to is definitely designed for PC's and doesn't suffer from the same effect.

The other item that I noticed is that in your review you do a comparison of an airfield (Tillamook) pre and post some processing you applied yourself to enhance detail.

( http://tinyurl.com/n6b77f )

This seems an odd choice of images to do detail enhancement with as the majority of the enhanced detail that you're pointing out will be filled in by x-plane anyway when it renders it's own airfield representation... I think an urban area with a similar level of "line detail" would've made a better choice.

... popcorn, beer, anyone?

[Cameron]

Hi Cameron:

You've now twice asserted that what I wrote about Eric Gillett is incorrect.

Since he's not offered any corrections, could you do so?

As I've stated earlier, that's Eric's decision.

Speaking of Downey High School, its academic standards must have improved since I lived in the Bay Area.  As you wrote on airliners.net barely six months after you graduated in 2004, "I'm going to spare you the boring discussion and just say that I myself run a large business and large forums. I know what mods do."

I'm not completely sure how Downey's standards are, nor do I recollect talking of it. Yes, I'm from the same town, no, I didn't graduate from there. If you really want to dig into the correct, deep information, I'll hand it to you. That would be Modesto High School, and it wouldn't be 2004. The forum spoken of would be X-Plane Freeware Project. The business is none of yours, nor is this the appropriate place to speak of not only mine, but anyones personal life.

Those of us handing over our credit card numbers and PayPal details to you are curious--which large business were you running as a recent high school graduate?  And how concerned should prospective customers be that you've been blacklisted from X-Plane.org?

I'm not recent, and number two (if you want to talk about age in general), I guess more people should be concerned about handing their personal info over to "recent" graduate Mark Zuckerberg's company too? Maybe the guys at getdropbox.com as well? The X-Plane.org issue has been explained, it appears.

This whole thing is quite simple, Dave. I applaud your writing ability, however, I don't agree with your method of review. It would be nice to see the pros and cons to each section you review, and I don't say this for just a product I may sponsor. I mean this for anything you review, be it freeware or payware. You would rather take this personal and I won't play that game with you. Yes, you're entitled to your own opinion, and I'm also giving mine. You seem to be getting pretty defensive for someone who likes to shell out the bombs to others.

[Cameron]

Hi Cameron:

You have it backwards.  You've twice posted lengthy defensive statements, including assertions of inaccuracies in what I've written.  

Dave,

Okay, so attempting to make personal life attacks on any individual doesn't count as being defensive. Got it.

I don't believe I've been twice defensive in great length, unless you consider the following statement such:

I'm not sure that's even possible for YOU to do, especially in the creative way that you write. For you it's either negative or positive, but never both.

If this was perceived as being defensive, or anything that was contained around it, this was not the intention. It was simply my view of your pattern and choice of writing time after time. I can understand how it could be perceived as sarcasm though.

I continue to wait for your specific corrections.

As I've stated, It's not for me to do. While I am aware of some misinformation, I would not be the appropriate party to let out info on someone's life or accomplishments in time. You have accuracies and inaccuracies in the sidebar, and that's all I will allow myself to say. It's better to have definitive, accurate info if you're going to get personal (like you misinforming which high school I went to) I think, or else it may cause personal damage on someone. No one knows anyone's life better but themselves. I am not Eric, and should he perceive the info to be damaging, maybe he'll come to you and let you know.

Side note: Now that you've decided to edit your post to state:

Speaking of Modesto area high schools, their academic standards must have improved since I lived in the Bay Area

Should you really have a genuine, vested interest in this, you can read up on the I.B. program. I'm unsure of the overall performance of valley schools these days, but I don't believe it was too bad during my time there. Many of us went to Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA. Not too bad, I suppose, but it doesn't speak for the overall performance of area schools.

[hobofat]

It's disturbingly easy to get banned, black listed, suspended or censored over there, which was a large part of the motivation for providing a new playground so that we can all sit around and enjoy threads like these.

... popcorn, beer, anyone?

Not to derail this thread in anyway, but I do find it refreshing that this type of discussion can be had here.  It's very enlightening and healthy, I think.  There are many satisfied users of RealSCenery's products, and there are some users who undoubtedly are more in line with the review posted on Dave's blog.  Understanding why people feel either way is both useful for getting a better understanding of the product before dropping $40 on it, and for future scenery development.  I do think that negative assertions should be balanced by positive ones (i.e. scope of coverage is a good point), but ultimately I think that reviews such as this can serve to improve the quality of payware products.

I was personally annoyed at the misalignment of airports with the underlying terrain, but I also see Cameron's point about online flying.  I also understand the way that X-Plane moderates all its airport data (and updates it) makes it difficult to change things.  I do not think it unreasonable however for the author of RealScenery to provide optional airport overlays aligning airports with underlying textures, so those who wish to use default data for online flying are happy and those who wish for continuity between the airport and underlying scenery are pleased as well.

That's just my two cents, for what it's worth, take it or leave it, beer is on me.

[Cameron]

Hobofat,

Thanks very much for your contribution to the thread. Your thoughts and opinions are very welcome!

Not to derail this thread in anyway, but I do find it refreshing that this type of discussion can be had here.  It's very enlightening and healthy, I think.

I completely agree. While some may see it as a downer, allowing people to speak freely without harm is always a good thing, I think.

I do think that negative assertions should be balanced by positive ones (i.e. scope of coverage is a good point), but ultimately I think that reviews such as this can serve to improve the quality of payware products.

This is essentially what I am trying to get across here. Dave is most certainly entitled to his opinion, as am I to mine, and you to yours! However, I do feel pros and cons are good things to list in reviews. You find this most anywhere.

I do not think it unreasonable however for the author of RealScenery to provide optional airport overlays aligning airports with underlying textures, so those who wish to use default data for online flying are happy and those who wish for continuity between the airport and underlying scenery are pleased as well.

This is something I can appreciate and understand, and is the kind of constructive criticism I can work with as well as look for to try and improve products. The goal here is to not skimp out on customers and give them their dollars worth. I feel RealScenery provides a great package for it's cost (especially when you compare MSFS' MegaScenery at expensive rates per state), and we'll definitely look into furthering the products. We want customers to return, and in order to do that, we have to be willing to listen. Some things are not as easily accomplished as others, but we will always investigate reasonable requests!

Thanks again for chiming in!

[Ben Russell]

Clarification:

Nicolas informs me that the reason posted above is apparently not why Cameron was banned.

However, from an outsiders point of view it certainly seems that way because up until that post was made Cameron had access rights.

The straw that broke the camels back...

As Nicolas did not mention exactly why Cameron was banned one can only guess at what could lead one to ban someone on the premise of something as trivial as a light jab at ones use of the flight sim.

[gilbenl]

This thread seemed like so much fun, I couldn't help but chime in.

First off, Dave, you are a great writer, not to mention one heck of an investigator. That being said, why are you expending so much effort on "exposing" the details of the author of RS? WHO CARES? Now, if it was some southeast asian drug cartel stealing images from a US military satellite, it would be a different story...but it's not. When I buy things for XP, it's not my concern how or why the product was made, only that the transaction is secure and legal FOR ME. If he's misusing his company's data, that's his problem; not yours, mine, or anyone else's. The fact of the matter is all you have seemed to do is insinuate some sort of deception and/or misuse of his company's resources, yet you have no concrete justification to come out and say, "(this) isn't appropriate because of (this)." You say at the end that you are not insinuating this, but if that where the case, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN WRITE ABOUT IT? Sure, legally you're free and clear (presumably), but everyone who reads it knows EXACTLY what you're trying to say. I liken it to calling torture "Enhanced interrogation"; cover your intentions and cover your ass, right? Where I come from, this is called slander. As a professional journalist, you would probably know more about what constitutes such a title.

As for your actual review of the product: It is very well written, articulate, and full of demonstrative and detailed evidence to back up your claims. Unfortunately, your dislike of the product seems to have overshadowed your ability to write a fair review. In my opinion (I do not own any RS products, but I speak from experience with the Oregon demo), I think RS oregon has a lot to be desired, yet nevertheless provides a key improvement over the OEM scenery; that being that it actually provides real-world landmarks from which one could fly VFR should one desire to do so. Also, for the purpose of achieving an environment suitable for VFR flight, it does this at a price far less, and far more easily than the alternatives (which cameron pointed out to me). On the downside of things, the color is off on some systems, some runways don't line up quite right, and the joining of the ortho images aren't 100% perfect. That being said, none of that matters with the primary goal in mind of creating scenery suitable for VFR flight.

Now...Cameron. You were a bit brash in your response, and definitely invited escalation of the issues. That being said, at the end of the day, this is his site, X-Aviation is his business and meal ticket, and quite frankly I don't think anyone here would be so bold as to look down from their pedestal and condemn his efforts to refute the claims against his products and business. You must also keep in mind that he could have easily pulled a ".org" and trashed this whole thread right away. The fact that he didn't exemplifies his ability to take one to the chin and keep on rolling. Not only did he let the thread stand, but HE MADE A NEW FREAKING FORUM FOR IT AND FUTURE REVIEWS!

So, at the end of the day, I would suggest to you, Dave, that you step back from your firm opinions, and try to see some positives in products that you may not like, or feel are not up to par. I will remind you again that maybe RS falls short in certain cases of being breath-taking scenery, but it nevertheless achieves if not supercedes its goal of being VFR-capable scenery. Also, I would suggest not digging into developer's personal lives. This is a no-no. We are not politicians, and we sure as hell do not want to be. Even those of us who produce payware still do so (for the most part) as a hobby. We do this as a service during OUR OWN FREE TIME BECAUSE WE ENJOY DOING IT! So, ask yourself this: If being a payware developer makes you open to public criticism of your personal life, do you really think too many of us are going to continue to do this? In my case, I have no problem with other's unyieldingly blasting my work, but they better not make the mistake of trying to nose into my personal life. It's just not fair.

Now, I know I began this reply harping on unbiased reviews, but it seems it has ultimately come down to Dave this, and Dave that. This is simply because the thought of having MY personal life posted on the internet makes me a little ill...I mean c'mon man, what does your wife do for a living, HMM?

I'm done with this cat. Peace, I'm out.

*Drops Mic*

-Nick

[Cameron]

Dave,

I've consistently told you here I would like to see pros vs. cons. I've also stated I don't know if it would be possible for you to do with your method of writing. If it's not, so be it, and expected at that. You've tried to state above that it's essentially an irrelevant request. This is, of course for you to decide as well. I gave my feedback, and so have others. There's nothing more I can do there. It is your blog, after all. Lastly, I've clearly stated multiple times that we are all as individuals entitled to our own opinions. The fact that you disliked the product yourself does not bother me at all.

It is my opinion you've crossed the line with your sidebar, though maybe that's a good thing for reasons of your credibility. We'll always disagree on this. The fact that you went as far to even try and investigate Eric and make mention of anything another person in his family does is uncalled for, and not pertinent to anything X-Plane or RealScenery. I've not argued this up until now. Regardless as to whether it pertains to the review or not, it shouldn't be there. At least, not in the manner you have it.

From personal experience, Eric is a very honest person. I wouldn't be doing business with him if he wasn't. Let's face it Dave, some people get along with you, and some people don't. If Eric made the decision to stop talking to you, that's his choice. You aren't exactly easy to get along with unless one agrees with you. The same goes for virtually anyone in this world. With that said, Eric has always answered fair game questions, and while his name may not be plastered over the website as an "Eric" product, so what? It doesn't mean much of anything. RealScenery is the name of the business who makes the products. As such, this is the information posted.

You've made mention that I was somehow "haunted" by your bringing up of a past statement I made (on a website non-related to X-Plane). I've read my posts over, and I don't see a response in any manner that states I would be haunted over it. What you got was a response that informed you the business pertains to nothing any X-Plane user would use, thus it's of insignificance to this arena. I DO agree with you in that such claims should never be made if you don't want them ever brought up. The forum you questioned was pertinent to information regarding X-Plane, and you were given that info. Additionally, we can go ahead to agree to disagree on the PR issue. It's not even worth getting into. I've maintained honesty, and I welcome your views. This thread stands, and I have nothing against it. It's up to the people to decide on credibility at this point.

Thanks for posting, Dave.

[gilbenl]

Dave-

I am glad you feel so open in discussing your personal matters. Fact of the matter is, although you may be willing to be so candid and even if Eric is in the same boat, many of us are not (including myself). I was simply illustrating the point that just because YOU are okay with it, doesn't mean everyone is. I am in the process of developing some payware content, and when it is released, I can promise you that the only contact info you'll find is a similar info@whateverdomain.com; do you plan on investigating me? I can assure you I am not as interesting as my products will be. See the point? Quite frankly, "sidebar" or not, it simply isn't pertainent to the business anyway. He provides a legal product at a fair market price of his own choosing. There is no history, as far as I know, of any inpropriety of any kind. So, why "investigate" him? Think of it: In the time you took to write something completely irrelevant to the product, you could have reviewed another product. While certainly biased, as I said earlier, your reviews DO provide great comparisons and relevent facts. Cameron can have his issues, but mine are only concerned with the dip into a private man's personal life, and a fundemental bias in the review. Thus, I suggest this dog be put down, and we go about our business. When the next review comes out, we can see if anyone gained anything from this shit-show.

Now where's the beer we were talking about?

-Nick

[Daveduck]

After discussing much of all this by email with an X-Pilot member and with Ben Supnik, I've been blessed with a flash of insight: both of these men were putting their words together in coherent sentences.

Here are my lessons-learned from the "shit-show," Nick:

1.  In future, try harder to let Palin-esque language mangling (Sarah not Michael) pass like water off a duck's back; and

2.  Let the blog speak for itself as much as possible.  To that end, I've unburdened your eyes with previous posts here.  

I've also eliminated any reference to Eric's partner in the sidebar.  While the partner's website was previously RealScenery's owner, and details about both sites are now concealed from public view, in retrospect I can see how mentioning the partner could be misconstrued as simply an irrelevant personal detail.  It was imprecise phrasing, no one's fault but mine.

Cheers.