777 review on main AVSIM site

[Guest freelancer]

Garry,Agree with you about 100%But as we see... PSS lately behaves... strange. I don't think i need to tell you what this behavior comes close to.Norman,Just a comment about logo light. You say most of users want it lit. Norman... this is not freeware product. It is payware. It suppose to simulate things. Including small ones.Here we come to problem with a nice 757. Instead of letting your modellers and painters to create these cool visuals you could finally FIX the 777! Fix it visually too!Logo light. I want to switch it off at 10 000 feet. Yes i want that.Most of payware airliners have that. Why exactly PSS thinks it's different? Because of a price? Your price is not cheap at all for what i got here.I'd prefer to pay more to company that makes a bird that simulates real one.Not a simulating bird i can download for free here, at Avsim.Anyway, last few weeks on this forum was simply great. I fed up a lot.Don't know what will be on that patch but from what i read and hear'd... i doubt i want that patch at all already.What it fixes?What it improves?What new futures we, customers get from PSS as an excuse for unprecedented emm... thing, that we got for a lot of money.I get the feeling it fixes bugs and that's it.Excuse me, for nearly 40 U.S. Dollars i get completely unreal bird that isn't fly.Visual model of ancient history.None of modern futures that really supposed to be there. FMC that better not to be touched to evade Crash To Desktop.A few "Flight Sim firsts" that i anyway can't use because the bird is not realistic. Waiting for the patch for 4 month and GOD knows how much more.Can someone please answer me a question what exactly i pay'd 40 dollars for?Norman, i do hope i'll get answer from you on this one.Thank you.

[Triple7 1]

Hello,You want to simulate reality to nth degree? If so why on earth do you then go out of the cockpit and onto the wing at 10,000 to see if the light is on? If you want to be so realistic, flick the switch and then forget about it.It really annoys me these people who go on about how this isnt realistic and that isnt realitic and then go onto to become so hypocritical for other things they blatently disregard.Surley each time you fly the aircraft there should be wear and tear visable.The registration and the SELCAL should be visable and change with the model.Oxygen system should be modelled and when the crew don the mask your view point is limited.These are all minor points that have been missed and therefore make the simulation unrealistic and a complete waste of money? As you say yourself its meant to simulate the small things?T7

[Guest NormanB]

>What it fixes?>What it improves?>What new futures >I get the feeling it fixes bugs and that's it.It would seem your definition of patch isnt the same as mine or any reasonable thinking person. In my eyes, a patch is to fix things that are not working as we had planned. It is not to add extra features.

[Guest aarskringspier]

>>What it fixes?>>What it improves?>>What new futures >>I get the feeling it fixes bugs and that's it.>>It would seem your definition of patch isnt the same as mine>or any reasonable thinking person. >>In my eyes, a patch is to fix things that are not working as>we had planned. It is not to add extra features. No PSS has its own very limited interpretation. Those companies that care always add fucntionality and a few little extras in to their patches. (Fix page on the CDU anyone?) Of course those companies also actually produce a patch and care about the consumer. PSS is in its own universe where they have no obligations.

[Guest Davidoff]

>>What it fixes?>>What it improves?>>What new futures >>I get the feeling it fixes bugs and that's it.>>It would seem your definition of patch isnt the same as mine>or any reasonable thinking person. >>In my eyes, a patch is to fix things that are not working as>we had planned. It is not to add extra features.Norman,Didn't you announce that you were going to enable the FIX page in the patch that is coming up? If so, isn't that "adding" a feature to the a/c?

[MarkRey 16]

Personally I wish the tail splash could be turned off too, and that all lights were in fact operable as per the real thing. Yes we all have to use our imaginations to somre extent in fs, but I think our expectations have been primed by other developers, so we expect these things from ALL upper end players. I've accepted that PSS is not like them, they will blow you away in one respect and leave you scratching your head or wishing for more in another :) (all doors bladebladelah...)I think it's important to understand this is an extremely subjective hobby and we all have differing likes/dislikes, things that help our individual imaginations fill in the gaps. We ought to respect that in one another even if we just don't get it.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256p.s. - for those unaware, the T7 logo and wing lights operate the light SOURCES on the horiz stab and fuse respectively, they just have no effect on the coressponding SPLASHES, or lack thereof.

[Guest freelancer]

>You want to simulate reality to nth degree? If so why on earth do >you then go out of the cockpit and onto the wing at 10,000 to see >if the light is on? If you want to be so realistic, flick the >switch and then forget about it.>It really annoys me these people who go on about how this isnt >realistic and that isnt realitic and then go onto to become so >hypocritical for other things they blatently disregard.Mr T7 i would like to remind you of something Norman forgot to remind you, sign your posts please. Its forum rules. I'm surprised Norman didn't reminded you of it.Besides that, all top players added full control of the lights system to their models. Why exactly PSS should be different?>In my eyes, a patch is to fix things that are not working as we had planned. It is not to add extra features.Norman, if that's the definition of patch in your eyes after all damage that was done by PSS to itself, it is truly regretful.Randy agree 100% with you.>Didn't you announce that you were going to enable the FIX page in the patch that is coming up? If so, isn't that "adding" a feature to the a/cNo it's not adding a future. It's meeting customers demands.PSS announced their bird will be closely modelled to real one.From one side its completely impossible... LR version is still in Boeing's development and not flying for airlines, so how exactly they modelled it i don't know. From other side... they forgot to add so many things that actual T7 have it can hardly be called payware, not speaking about exact model and even not touching visual model issue. Visual model is a complete joke.They don't even thought to rework it. What a shame. :(Just a comment: Did you noticed how many people merged visuals from other freeware developer that released product in 2003 with PSS bird?And how many new paints got released not for PSS but for that freeware developer bird that was developed in 2002 and released a fix in 2003?Can you imagine that same situation with other top players?I can't.PSS was once a great company that made revolution in Flight Simulator environment. Unfortunately i see that these times is really gone and not so much left to expect from PSS these days.It is greatly unfortunate. PSS was one of my favorite developers for its care for details, frame rates and customer support at the same time.Any plans to return to these exellent days when PSS products was greatly expected and met customers expectations?Respectfully

[Iain Sealey 1]

>Norman, if that's the definition of patch in your eyes after>all damage that was done by PSS to itself, it is truly>regretful.PATCH= (n.) Also called a service patch, a fix to a program bug. A patch is an actual piece of object code that is inserted into (patched into) an executable program. Patches typically are available as downloads over the Internet.I don't see anything in the definition about adding features or anything else, that would be called an "Upgrade".PSS are rightly calling it a Patch, and yes it will do exactly what it says on the tin, by patching the problems people are having with it.> LR version is still in Boeing's development and not flying for airlines, so how exactly they modelled it i don't know.PIA are currently operating 2 777-200LRs in commercial service, and the systems are identical, all that is different is the EFB and slightly different computer systems, which pilots don't see, otherwise its pritty much identical from a Flightdeck POV and it handles much like all the other T7's, hence you can fly all of them, after 1 day in the class room!>Visual model is a complete joke.>They don't even thought to rework it. What a shame. :(Yes there are a few niggly bits, like the landing gear being to long and a few other things, otherwise its a pritty good model, and the 757 model looks a #### of a lot better, so PSS are getting somewhere with thier models.>Did you noticed how many people merged visuals from other freeware developer that released product in 2003 with PSS bird?PSS released thier first 777 ins 2001/early 2002 for FS 2000 PATCHED for 2002, the visual model was NEVER EVER going to be of the standard we have today, and what they did for 2000/2 was the best you could do at those stages, when new better models came out it was a logical choice to merge, you don't expect a developer to go back to thier 200/2002 package and make a new model as it would take months to do!>they forgot to add so many things that actual T7 haveExcluding the FIX page on the CDU and a TA/RA TCAS, what was missed?I have an accurate PFD and ND, EICAS does its job, the E Checklist is that of British Airways, the overhead panel does what it needs to do, exclding the logo light, I'm not fussed as you fly from the flightdeck, not spot plane view.Cheers

[Guest Phoenix 1]

we have never said that the Fix page would be added, there is Far too much programming and dev time involved to make this "addition" therefore it will NOT be added

[Guest aarskringspier]

And that is why your nothing close to the top developers. How can you even consider the CDU complete without something such as the fix page modelled? Its something I use on every flight.

[RanDeMan 7]

>we have never said that the Fix page would be added, >there is Far too much programming and dev time involved to>make this "addition" therefore it will NOT be addedWell, that's it for me!I'm not the posting kind of guy and I have been silent all this time but now I'm fed up with this. Not including a Fix page after all the time you have had to make something up with your paying customers is the last straw for me. I was under the impression it took you so long to bring out a patch because you were including such a feature. It isn't like a Fix page was invented yesterday you know.Look guys, you priced and marketed this aircraft like it could compete with other top notch add-ons. Well, the other top notch add-ons included a Fix page ages ago! That's not my opinion, that's a fact.Now if there's a way to get my money back please let me know. If not, well the #### with it. Do something nice with it.Either way you lost me as a customer period.Is this type of criticism constructive enough for you? If not, feel free to delete it. But take this in mind: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the freaking kitchen!!!Randall

[Guest NormanB]

David,>Didn't you announce that you were going to enable the FIX page>in the patch that is coming up? No. I have said, albeit Im not sure if I did in public, that I would like the 757 to have a fix page with the potential to retro fit to the 757. As to whether that comes to fruition I don't yet know.>If so, isn't that "adding" a feature to the a/c?It would be but isnt in the scope of the patch we are currently testing.

[Brian Doney 127]

I unfortunately agree.I've been waiting semi-patiently since release in the hopes that PSS would do something, anything to make up for this fiasco.I understand now that I have been waiting in vain, as PSS clearly does not feel obligated to do anything but that absolute bare minimum to bring the aircraft into compliance with the advertised hype.A patch that does nothing but fix issues that should have never made release does not cut it for me.I can do without that sort of treatment in the future, for sure. As we wear on into April now, I find I no longer have the patience to deal with such an obtuse ethical standpoint, and with the current crop of developers out there, I don't have to, as we are luck to have a growing number of outfits that will do the job right, and give their customers satisfaction.No one expects perfection, and people will always demand more no matter how good we start out, but the 777 falls too far short for the price, in many areas to be given any leeway here.Egg on my face for defending PSS early on, I don't have any excuse for that other than to say that I obviously had more faith in them than they have shown they deserve.I do appreciate Graham's candor, however; as it makes the 757 choice much easier to make.Finally, I would suggest that if you are unwilling/unable to get with the times and produce at current standards of quality, that it might be better to bow out and find something better to do with your time, or at the very least, stop charging top-drawer prices for software that belongs in the bargain bin. Truly disappointing, though at least it's one less forum to check.

[Guest Knikolaes]

I think from reading this thread from beinning to end, it would be important to note that FS has he limitations of limited features per product in the SDK. A product modeler is limited insofar as to how many features they can put into the add-on product because of these limitations. Thus it becomesa choice of, "What do we add that sacrifices us adding other features"?On the modeling and flight stability issue, that has to do with many factors -- one would be your particular system, and the other would be your settings. I have to speak on BOTH sides of the fence when i say it is silly to call each other naive or ignorant because they do not see he problems others are having. I was guilty of this as well, until I got smart and decided to actually RESEARCH into the Microsoft documenttion available for FS and realized the many factors that go into this.I personally do not have these wobbling issues users report - HOWEVER -- my system and realism settings are set up a particular way, and when i mess with certain settings, the wobbling IS there on my computer. However when I return to my settings that I prefer, the wobbling goes away. Fortunately for me, this is a good thing as the wobbling is not present at the settings that I actually prefer for all of my aircraft.Back to the features issue (Logo light, Fix page, etc.), it is a drawback of aircraft developers to have to make many decisions as to what they can include in their aircraft. Scenery developers do not have to contend with these limitations, because although there ARE the ame limits on amounts of features to be included in the scenery SDK, scenery just doesnt have NEAR as many features as aircraft (scenery is just a matter of "put x-amount of objects here, decide weather or not to include animated objects, decide weather or not to animate jet docks, decide the lighting and lastly decide the amount of detail to go into the features listed above).A prime example of this is another developer who releasd an airliner simulation (which I have) with a VC only. A lot of users on thei forum have been asking for more features, such as wing views, flexing wings, etc. The developer, though, crammed so much into eye candy that they ran out of their limits on features more commonly expected in today's FS add-on. One such feature is the presence of 50,000 little 2D panels (something I thought was completely unneccessary, but oh well **shrug) which took out of teir list of available functions to allocate elsewhere.Norman can, of course, correct me if Iam wrong, but I am certain these are major considerations as to why certain things such as the logo lights, FIX page, etc. were put aside for other features.Though I do have to say, I also do wish they would have made the main door seperate, as that is weird looking at the gate LOL. Ah well, too late now.For those with the wobblign issue, try adjusting realism settings, as well as checking memory usage and display settings (both in Windows and FS). I have decided NOT to include my settings in this post because EVERY system is different, and NO two systems run even close to the same, thus it is better to play around and experiment. I will say, on the realism sliders in FS, that they are maxed. Even though everything else varies by system, Realism settings I have noticed tend to remain similar in results.Hope this helps at least someone cure the wobbling issues.

[Guest jinzo012]

#### I don't even know what the #### a FIX page is. Just give me the bloody FDE- KevEDIT : Mmmmk just found out what it is.....Why is everyone ######? It's a bloody FIX page? Who cares? (Don't answer Please)