Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest B52Drivr

Did Angelique get the same CS 757 everyone else got?

Recommended Posts

Hello all, First, to Anelique, I really did enjoy your article, you write well and seem to be most intelligent in the cockpit and a good operator.Saying that, I'm just wondering if YOU got the same CS 757 everyone else gets, or has CS finally gotten all the bugs out of the 757. I've always said CS had the most kick butt graphics in the business and some really nice touches, but the final product just didn't add up . . . Is there something new going on at CS that I don't know about?It would be a nice thought to think that such an eye pleasing aircraft finally did fly correctly with all the proper bells and whistles.Just wonderingBestClayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Clay,I couldn't agree more with your statment. I like the review, but I'm also wondering if the newest patch was released to address the outstanding issues with this product, and I just didn't know....Cheers,Petehttp://members.aol.com/pzsoulman/myhomepage/logo.gifGIGABYTE Light 3D Galaxy II Liquid CoolingENERMAX Galaxy EGA850EWL ATX 850W Power SupplyNVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel MoboCore 2 Duo E6700 1066MHz FSB 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775CORSAIR XMS2 2GB SDRAM DDR2 800GeForce 8800GTX 768MB 384-bit GDDR3 PCI ExpressSBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic 7.12 x Western Digital Raptor 150GB 10000 RPM 16MB Cache SATA Raid01 Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/sWinXP Home SP2CH Yoke/Pedals

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering about that, too.E.g. the 757-300 has still the same flight dynamics as the 757-200, the fuel consumption is off by up to 50% and the Boeing-typical pitch and power flying is impossible (or at least, a lot of guesswork).The RR versions ignore the calculated TRP values, VNAV disconnects for no reason at every tactical change.And on the glideslope I see permament STAB TRIM warnings, because the elevator trim is at the upper limit and consequently the AC can't flare. And then the braking distance qualifies it to land on a carrier ...Probably hard for a reviewer not to notice that, so hopefully we will also have the 2.1 Service pack soon :)Mike

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I'm wondering that too. I've read plenty of user comments on how crap and terrible the CS 757 is both here and on the CS forums (before being removed) and now it gets an AVSIM-approved glowing review that if it were the only thing to go on, would make me buy the CS 757 in a heartbeat.Could we get some clarification please? Cause if this review is based on the bug-infested CS757, I will never trust an AVSIM review again.

Share this post


Link to post

Same here guys. I read the report with amazement. I had deliberately purchased the PSS 757 a while ago based on all the negative stories I had read here regarding Captain Sim. Reading this review really made me wonder who was fooling who. I hope someone can shed some light on this as indeed, if this is about the same CS 757 everybody was complaining about, I will have to start reading these reviews carefully....Menno

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I think you guys are being way too nice. If someone can not figure out that a 757 is burning fuel from wing tanks first and fuel burn is off by over 50% making this one of the most UNREALISTIC add-ons put out to date then they should not be reviewing. Yes, 757's usually burn 8 tons of fuel going Trans-Atlantic and land with fuel in the center tanks when the wings are empty happens all the time...If no one is going to call CS out on these things in a major review like this then they will assume everything is great just like the review states. Let's have some brutal honesty in these reviews that yes, the model is beautiful, the VC is beautiful but the CS 757 is still suffering from major accuracy issues that prevent us from giving it a positive review at this time....This is really disappointing from the AVSIM team, I would hope they would give us true real informative reviews but it "appears" they will give a glaring review to anyone these days so at this point I can not consider their reviews accurate areas of information to make an educated decision, I would consider them a pat on the back to anyone who advertises and just words that must be taken with a whole bag of salt...Let's call it like it is, the review is a load of BS if it doesn't address the real cons as well as all the pros...Just my .02 but my days of trusting what I read from Avsim reviews are long gone!-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E8500 468X9.5 @ 4.45Asus Maximus Extreme2 gigs OCZ Reaper DDR3 @1400Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigsDual VelociRaptor 10k 3gb/s RAID-0Dual WD Caviar 500 gig Raid-0Single 150Gig SATA2 Swap Drive28 inch LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sPCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLISaitek Yoke, Saitek Rudders, Go-Flight Flap,Gear and Trim Controlhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigsIntel E6600 @ 3.2Asus P5N32E-SLI Plus3 Gigs Kingston Hyper XXFX 8600 GTAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Based on history and the comments of other forum members, I never bought this aircraft. But my bias aside, in fairness I find this review eminently informative.Warning signs: lots of emphasis on visuals, frequent ebullient praise, overuse of the word 'awesome', frequent use of the terms 'I'm not familiar with...' yet still saying such and such is 'realistic'. Plus the reviewer does indicate some glaring inaccuracies like IRS implementation and a couple other things. Plus she does wonder '...what else may not be properly simulated...' Generally too with these reviews, what's NOT said says as much as what is actually mentioned.My impression as an LDS owner is that this is a candid reviewer who is wowed by things that in and of themselves do not impress me that much. I'm not an ATP either, but I see enough info here to tell me it's not as serious a product as I'm used to at the high end. The CS757 is driven by looks, not depth - usual story.- also, anybody know the status of FMS updates? If it's still up to CS to do this :-eek that would be a showstopper for me anyway. No serious contender at this level can be stuck with old data or default plans.regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post

>Generally too with these reviews,>what's NOT said says as much as what is actually mentioned.>If we have to read what's not there to really know about a product, I for one can skip such a review.Jason

Share this post


Link to post

After reading that review I was shocked also. Made me wonder how much $$ CS paid under the table to get a positive review on a failed piece of software. Someone should be ashame for leting such a misleading review get posted.Bill M

Share this post


Link to post

"After reading that review I was shocked also. Made me wonder how much $$ CS paid under the table to get a positive review on a failed piece of software. Someone should be ashame for leting such a misleading review get posted."I don't agree with this review either, but this comment is unnecessary, fails to progress an otherwise valid topic, and is disrespectful to AVSIM and there volunteer staff. AVSIM DOES NOT receive a single penny for there reviews from anyone. Publishers make no such offers, and even if they did they would be rejected immediately and with distain for such bribary. Reviewers select a product to review and usually do there best to provide an honest, objective analysis. Sometimes the review does not align with reality, but claiming a reviewer or any AVSIM member was paid for doing so is simply ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed Bill M's comment was over the line, and just plain wrong.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post

I must say that this review had me also in doubt for a few minutes, after reading the rather negative comments in the forums. It is true that the reviewers style is very enthousiasticallybut in the end, when she wonders "what else is perhaps missing in regard of the systems", things fall into place, no? So I thought her conclusion was: graphics and eyecandy excellent but as far as the systems: under par compared to the top developpers. So, even after reading the review, I'm still not considering purchasing the CS 757. Thanks to AVSIM for the review but also thanks to the forum for reacting and getting things into perspective.JosEBBR

Share this post


Link to post

>It is true that the reviewers style is very enthousiastically>but in the end, when she wonders "what else is perhaps missing>in regard of the systems", things fall into place, no? So I>thought her conclusion was: graphics and eyecandy excellent>but as far as the systems: under par compared to the top>developpers. That's the problem though, isn't it? A professional review should not leave any rock unturned nor should it leave the potential buyer guessing. I do not accept "I didn't have the time" or "I wonder what else might be missing" as viable excuses. That's just sloppy reviewing work. If you can't commit to doing it right, don't do it at all. A fallacious review does way more damage than an absence of one.Not every user out there is going to dive into the forums and use their search function to find out what the CS 757 is like. Most of us frequent visitors have already read the horror stories, but chances are many others have not and could be swayed by a largely optimistic and positive review of - if user opinions are to be believed (and I believe them) - heavily flawed product.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know if this review was done with the latest patch? Someone made reference to that earlier but I wasn't clear on this point? Eric

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, too quick to post. Yes it included version 2.0. For whatever reason, I thought 2.1 was out. Not yet.Eric

Share this post


Link to post

In the review is stated that she flew the plane for 55 hours. That's more than enough time to find out the flaws.Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, let's not have a timely and informative thread locked due to unnecessary cheap shots. I admit that I was taken aback by the lack of reference in the review to the CS 757's flaws that have been listed repeatedly in this forum, but this thread will hopefully include lots of input from other owners of the software. John G.

Share this post


Link to post

>Agreed Bill M's comment was over the line, and just plain>wrong.>>Regards.>Ernie.I just posted my opinions just like the reviewer. If I offended anyone, I appoligize.PS I'm quite sure no $$ got paid under the table. It was maybe bad humor.Bill M

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even agree with her first line... "This is really the first MSFS model I

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if someone senior at Avsim should write out a checklist of items to review for each aircraft, and that each reviewer has to work through and tick off when tested. This way, all major bases would be covered, and offer some measure of consistency across reviews. I'm sure it would be an extensive list but worth it in order to increase the informativeness and comprehensiveness of the review.

Share this post


Link to post

>>That's the problem though, isn't it? A professional review...am I wrong or are all the review positions at Avsim VOLUNTARY positions? What exactly is "professional" about a voluntary position on a hobbyist website? I guess if you are looking for pro reviews you should go out and buy a copy of Computer Pilot or PC Aviator magazine...I seem to recall a few months ago the call went out from Avsim for people to volunteer to write reviews for the site. It's too bad some of you experts didn't answer the call...That said, I think it would be a good idea for Avsim to put a disclaimer somewhere on the review page that the reviews are provided by volunteer members of the community and that the depth of their knowledge may vary.

Share this post


Link to post

Might be a good idea but remember the reviewers are volunteers. Also agree with Bill M's post above. No need for such comments. A lot of work and detail was put into that review in good faith. On a wider picture, look at the recent PC Pilot review. It even appears to put the CS 757 on a par with PMDG's best and, until I saw this one, I also thought that perhaps PC Pilot had got hold of a different CS version.Interesting also to look again at earlier AVSIM reviews of the 757:1. Dec 2006. PSS 757 by Joe Ellwood and Kris Heslop {a current 757 FO}2. March 2008. 757 Professional by Just Flight. by Angelique. This is exactly the same PSS 757 but published on DVD.To me, a current RW 757 pilot gives credibility to a review. It was also interesting to see several 757 pilots commented in detail on the fidelity {or not} of the PSS aircraft on the PSS Avsim forum. One thing I find very noticeable is that these reviews never consider support or the developers attitude to its customers. Which is why, although I would like to try an updated 757, I shall still save my money for the MD11.In the end, perhaps the old saying still applies: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".John RPSPaul"If someone can not figure out that a 757 is burning fuel from wing tanks first and fuel burn is off by over 50% making this one of the most UNREALISTIC add-ons put out to date then they should not be reviewing. Yes, 757's usually burn 8 tons of fuel going Trans-Atlantic and land with fuel in the center tanks when the wings are empty happens all the time..."Perhaps {I hope} I am mis-reading you??

Share this post


Link to post

I gave up on PC Pilot eons ago.....if you read the avsim forums you are way ahead of PC Pilot. :)The moral of the story is..... read the avsim forums .....daily. :-hah

Share this post


Link to post

Ed Agreed ..... and I do .... daily.Point was we seem to have two totally independent reviewers coming to the same conclusion and 180 degrees out to the view on the forums??RegardsJohn R

Share this post


Link to post