Sign in to follow this  
Guest

once again avsim loves captain sim

Recommended Posts

what a review for the CS 757, Youd think it tops the Level-D and PMDG offerings just by reading it... don't tell anyone its a default airfile with no FMC, little support, awful sounds, and a boring 2d panel and resource unfriendly VCBut just the idea of saying the words fully functional and detailed is enough to push me over the edge of sanity. Sorry guys, thumbs down.

Share this post


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

The review mentioned that there is an FMC in one of the blocks, that default sound is used in block B, that the VC gobbles up framerates - in fact, that was mentioned several times - and so on.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, Thank goodness I am not the only one who saw that. One of the best airliners ever for FS? Are you kidding me? maybe for the pilot who is more concerned with fluff than the meat of an aircraft the systems, it is incomplete! I agree, you would think it is on par with LVL-D or PMDG from reading that review and would equally think CS was on par with LVL-D and PMDG as a company in terms of support etc... This is quite a disturbing and misleading review considering all of the new folks getting involved with FS right now. There are a lot of new uninformed and easily influenced simmers out there and this review does not do them justice.As far as I am concerned, this reviewer just lost all credibility. Very sad indeed to not see an "honest" review.This is an incomplete aircraft that CS has been promising the final blocks on for months.Lets get a review when it is donw and then we can compare it to those that do full systems modelling.What a joke!!!-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Alex, I was curious if you polled the entire Avsim staff before noting that "once again avsim loves captain sim". I only ask because it seems as though you think that one reviewer's opinion reflects those of everyone else here at Avsim. You also said that the CS 757 uses a default airfile, has no FMC, has little support, awful sounds, a boring 2D panel, and resource unfriendly VC. Well, if you do ever get support from Captain Sim, then I would let them know that they sent you a corrupt package. I did not get a default airfile, my 757 does have an FMC, and if you read the review, you will notice that I commented on the poor performance in the VC a few times. (if you are refering to the lack of some functions in the FMC without the advanced systems upgrade, I did mention that in the review) As for the "boring" 2D panel, I guess I will need to ask Captain Sim why they are sending me products different from everyone else. My 2D panel is well short of boring, but than again that is just my OPINION. The same goes for the sound set in block E, which in my OPINION, is really good. And finally, if you want to join the reviewer and product bashing club that has become so popular lately, then by all means go ahead. But perhaps you might be willing to accept someone elses OPINION without declaring it the official view of Avsim. I'm sure that I can find plenty of people who dislike the CS 757, just like I have found countless people who love it. My e-mail response to this review has been strongly in favor of the aircraft. Brian Fletcher

Share this post


Link to post

>what a review for the CS 757, Youd think it tops the Level-D>and PMDG offerings just by reading it... don't tell anyone its>a default airfile with no FMC, little support, awful sounds,>and a boring 2d panel and resource unfriendly VC>>But just the idea of saying the words fully functional and>detailed is enough to push me over the edge of sanity. Sorry>guys, thumbs down.I have to agree with you! While I do see the potential of this aircraft with the much anticipated Block D and F, a review like this in it's current state is a bit premature! Time will tell if after the remaining blocks are released, whether this type of review is justified at that time, but for right now it's not!! It's not as bad as many make it out to be. It's visual detail is above reproach but without a decent flight model and systems, the statement that it's Fully functional is totally uncalled for!!

Share this post


Link to post

Its quite obvious they have a hacked version of some sort and that they don't take the time to review an aircraft themselve by actually flying it. Also it is well know that this is an unfinished product and that the systems modelling when its released will more then likely be well beyond PMDG and LVL D. If its premature to review the A/C its defnetly to early for you to bash it. And honestly as far as sounds and model and overall is concerned it is up there with level d and PMDG.>>>But just the idea of saying the words fully functional and>detailed is enough to push me over the edge of sanity. Sorry>guys, thumbs down.<<< Ok 1 its not finished that eliminates your fully functional comment. 2nd not detailed? I don't recall a more detailed aircraft sorry but its got level d and pmdg beat in that category. It erks me because his review hit you so hard you had to come to the review forum and post about it. You'd choose cubic zirconia over the real just because its bigger

Share this post


Link to post

>I have to agree with you! While I do see the potential of this>aircraft with the much anticipated Block D and F, a review>like this in it's current state is a bit premature! Time will>tell if after the remaining blocks are released, whether this>type of review is justified at that time, but for right now>it's not!! It's not as bad as many make it out to be. It's>visual detail is above reproach but without a decent flight>model and systems, the statement that it's Fully functional is>totally uncalled for!!>TomIf you are going to criticise a particular comment in a review, please be courteous enough to quote the comment in its full context, and not remove it from its context so as to give a misleading impression.What you have said above implies that the review describes the entire 757 package as being "fully functional". Nowhere does it do so. In fact, it quite specifically identifies those parts of the total package's function that are missing. Brian's "fully functional" comment refers only to the VC, as in:-"On one hand the VC is very authentic, fully functional...."If you have reason to disagree with that statement, perhaps you could supply specific detail of why you believe it to be incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post

you're right, I didn't take a poll, but I have seen basically every CS airplane get a glowing review, even if the first release is extremely buggy (the 707 comes to mind)It uses a default airfile and has no FMC except in a block that will be coming sometime this century. How the reviewer can talk about how complete it is and how fully functional it is, is just way beyond me.Having an opinion is fine, but that reviewer was basically lying through his teeth and sidestepping and using "marketing-speak" to put it on a pedestal next to PMDG and Level-D's offerings

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks to all for their comments. All comments are constructive and the experience you have with the product may not reflect the same opinion as the reviewer. Remember, this is one simmer's experience with the product. Our reviews are not a "consensus" of several reviewers and then taking the median of all comments.Please note that there is a disclaimer at the end of each review. I know most of us don't read the fine print. Here is what it says," Standard Disclaimer - The review above is a subjective assessment of the product by the author. There is no connection between the producer and the reviewer, and we feel this review is unbiased and truly reflects the performance of the product in the simming environment. This disclaimer is posted here in order to provide you with background information on the reviewer and any connections that may exist between him/her and the contributing party."We ask that if you have to "bash" the reviewer because you don't agree with his/her review, please be tactful and considerate. On that note, AVSIM is always looking for new reviewers. Any reader who has the passion and time to analyse a simming product, payware or freeware, software or hardware, please end an email to the undersigned.

Share this post


Link to post

>>I have to agree with you! While I do see the potential of>this>>aircraft with the much anticipated Block D and F, a review>>like this in it's current state is a bit premature! Time>will>>tell if after the remaining blocks are released, whether>this>>type of review is justified at that time, but for right now>>it's not!! It's not as bad as many make it out to be. It's>>visual detail is above reproach but without a decent flight>>model and systems, the statement that it's Fully functional>is>>totally uncalled for!!>>>>Tom>>If you are going to criticise a particular comment in a>review, please be courteous enough to quote the comment in its>full context, and not remove it from its context so as to give>a misleading impression.>>What you have said above implies that the review describes the>entire 757 package as being "fully functional". Nowhere does>it do so. In fact, it quite specifically identifies those>parts of the total package's function that are missing.>Brian's "fully functional" comment refers only to the VC, as>in:->>"On one hand the VC is very authentic, fully functional....">>If you have reason to disagree with that statement, perhaps>you could supply specific detail of why you believe it to be>incorrect?Sorry, you're right I should have quoted the review was stating the VC was fully functional. I do stand by my disagreement with this statement. For the VC to be fully functional would require the aircraft systems to be operational. (Block F) In particular the FMC which right now is in demo mode. Yes you can adjust setting on it, bu they have no operational function to the aicraft at this point. I can't see how the term "Fully functional" can be applied to a VC where many of the instruments on it, currently have no operational function. As I said when Block F (and E) is released, these issues should be resolved, but right now the intruments on this aircraft is no more (or less) functional than the default 737. 747. or 777.

Share this post


Link to post

>> Also it is well know that this is an unfinished product and>that the systems modelling when its released will more then>likely be well beyond PMDG and LVL D. >so how can a reviewer give an "unfinished product" the highest review possible when it isnt even complete?> If its premature to review the A/C its defnetly to early for>you to bash it. And honestly as far as sounds and model and>overall is concerned it is up there with level d and PMDG.>if sounds and model are what matters to you, then fine, enjoy, but detailed systems a realistic flight model and good framerates are important to realism freaks like myself, and CS has not delivered and should not be given credit for something that is not even there. And your comment about being up there with LevelD and PMDG is laughable>> Ok 1 its not finished that eliminates your fully functional>comment. 2nd not detailed? I don't recall a more detailed>aircraft sorry but its got level d and pmdg beat in that>category. It erks me because his review hit you so hard you>had to come to the review forum and post about it. You'd>choose cubic zirconia over the real just because its bigger> If its not finished then how can you support a review that claims it is finished and fully functional, accurate systems and realistic flight dynamics among other things? It has PMDG and LeveD beat in no category but pointless visuals that do absolutely nothing to the flying experience. This is a Flight SIMULATOR, right?Actually you would choose cubic zirconium over a real diamond because to you, its the outside looks that matter, not what it actually is

Share this post


Link to post

>>Tom>>If you are going to criticise a particular comment in a>review, please be courteous enough to quote the comment in its>full context, and not remove it from its context so as to give>a misleading impression.>>What you have said above implies that the review describes the>entire 757 package as being "fully functional". Nowhere does>it do so. In fact, it quite specifically identifies those>parts of the total package's function that are missing.>Brian's "fully functional" comment refers only to the VC, as>in:->>"On one hand the VC is very authentic, fully functional....">>If you have reason to disagree with that statement, perhaps>you could supply specific detail of why you believe it to be>incorrect?actually the review did mention functional and even talked about realistic flight dynamics even though in the first part the reviewer correctly says that the flight dynamics addon has not been released yethere are some quotes to show you what I mean"So, has Captain Sim continued the tradition of producing the finest quality payware on the market with the introduction of the 757 Captain? In my opinion they certainly have"and to top it off" This aircraft is the most detailed, functional, animated, and authentic jetliner that I have ever had in my collection, and, in my opinion, one of the finest aircraft on the market. "You've got to be kidding!!

Share this post


Link to post

The main point, surely, is that an Avsim Gold Award was awarded to this far from complete product. I wonder what will be awarded when the final blocks are released? Perhaps the reviewer somehow "knows" that it will be the perfection he appears to expect. It didn't take long for Capt Sim to proclaim this review award on its website (and who can blame them). Avsim must ensure that these scores and awards are meaningful and consistent. Some people put a lot of faith in such awards and scores when it comes to buying decisions.The review was not very objective and Brian Fletcher appears to have a very positive view of Captain Sim's products. I have a few, but wouldn't consider them as "front rank" payware providers. They are not in the same league as PMDG or Level-D when it comes to airliner releases. Perhaps you should lend Mr Fletcher a copy of PMDG 747-400 so he can see what a top quality payware add-on is really like.I would suggest that next time Capt Sim provides Avsim with an add-on to review, you give it to a reviewer who can be more objective. Then make sure the software is the same standard as that released to the paying public. Finally, if a reviewer decides to give a product such a high award that this should be reviewed in itself to ensure that the product really merits it.Kevin

Share this post


Link to post

Hello, although I'm not much of a poster here at AVSIM, I enjoy reading the reviews and often use them in helping make 'smart' purchases. I have never owned a Captin Sim product and after reading this reveiw I thought it was high time I did! Well I must say as some others before me, this review definitly feels a bit biased towards the captin. Owning many fine payware products most of which attained the 'Gold star award' from AVSIM I was very surprised to find this product fall far short from what I've come to expect.In the future I hope to see Gold star awards subjected to a little more scrutiny. As this one really does insult the companies that actually go the extra mile in providing a 'real as it gets' product.

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to agree. I was mislead by the review, and a Gold Star?Please... When the reviewer writes "This aircraft is the most detailed, functional, animated, and authentic jetliner that I have ever had in my collection, and, in my opinion, one of the finest aircraft on the market." compared with the actual CS 757 product (all available blocks)which is woefully incomplete, I have to question the competency of the reviewer, which unfortunately reflects poorly on AVSIM as a whole. CS 757 is far from the AVSIM "Gold Star Standard" reviews deserved by the likes of PMDG and Level D. James McGrath

Share this post


Link to post

I can't say about the 757 product, but their boxed retail 707 has a problem with the Autopilot in an ILS approach [ it will not lock ] and the customer service response of Captain Sim was a joke when I contacted them over this issue, they just told me to look in the forum, which I had allready done and couldn't find anyhing. Also whilst my computer came cope with it, I do not understand why the 707 should be much more resource harware hungry than their 727. Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this