|
Let me for a moment slip into a different fictional persona, reviewing e.g. the T4T Spitfire (which I personally find a very impressive FDM).
In my (fictional) review, I write 'The plane is impossible to take off, it drags to the side when accelerating - I had to cheat and start in-air to fly at all. (...) The gun is complete crap - I was firing at a target right in the crosshairs, and missed anyway (...) it's far too fidgety in the air...'
So - what I would write would be all true. Yet the review would be completely misleading.
What happens is that I (i.e. the fictional user) had the wrong expectations - not knowing about torque and p-factor, one would expect a different take-off. Not knowing about ballistics and bullets falling in Earth's gravity, one would come to expect to hit whatever is in the crosshairs no matter the distance. Not knowing that an agile plane has to be fidgety, one would come to expect an easy ride. I (the fictional I) am disappointed because my expectations aren't met.
Yet the problem is not with the plane, the problem are in fact my expectations. My fictional review would reveal chiefly my ignorance about WW-II warbirds - and probably my unwillingness to read the flight manual of a Spitfire.
(In actual reality, I think the planes I did write reviews for FG I spent a week minimum to learn, sometimes a month - I would never try to fly the Concorde for an hour and then believe I have anything meaningful to write into a review).
You might react to this in different ways - you might try to teach the fictional me about how a real warbird is. Or you might conclude that I am just not the kind of user for whom you develop and leave it at that.
|
|
