>I don't know whether incomplete is the right word, because as>you say, it implies that it will be complete at some time in>the future.>At the moment, the product does not model systems as>accurately as some would like, maybe a better way of putting>it.PSS have never gone to the ends of the earth to model in-depth systems detail...they go for the 80% solution. For those who want that sort of detail, the PSS won't do. But if you want a nice looking model with a buttload of liveries, a fairly complete panel that'll take you through normal ops from cold and dark to shutdown at the gate, and good flight dynamics, it gets you there. For the others there's PMDG or the TinMouse II (shameless plug alert!).>However, the fact that we are now in January, and the load>editor has still not appeared in at least 4 months is quite>embarassing. I would imagine it's quite a simple piece of>software to write for 'professionals'.Yeah, not the greatest performance there. But that's a fringe-level aggravation that's easily overcome by spending 5 minutes with a spreadsheet and a text editor. Worthy of critique? Yep. Worthy of writing off the whole add-on, or worse getting suckered into the CaptainSim never-ending block crock? I just don't think so.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

I think the missing load/fuel editor is a very good reason to write off not only the add on but PSS as a whole. Not because its missing but because of how its handled, the BS that is told and how many times the reason its not there has changed. People seem to think FS payware companies should be sxcused from bad business because theyre small, do it on the side and isnt their main form of income. Im more inclined to believe that if theyre big enough to take my money they better deliver the goods, especially when advertised.

I think exactly the same Randy! Ralf

>I think the missing load/fuel editor is a very good reason to>write off not only the add on but PSS as a whole. Not because>its missing but because of how its handled, the BS that is>told and how many times the reason its not there has changed. >People seem to think FS payware companies should be sxcused>from bad business because theyre small, do it on the side and>isnt their main form of income. Im more inclined to believe>that if theyre big enough to take my money they better deliver>the goods, especially when advertised.You just about summed it up. If you take money, you are a professional vendor and are going to be held to the same standard as any other professional seller. ricardo

Apropos:The missing fuel planner is an advertised feature and the product is INCOMPLETE without it. Quite frankly PSS should refund everyone's money who purchased it because the law doesn't care if you deliver 99% of the product if you promised 100% you failed to deliver.PSS have given excuses from loss of Internet service in Malta to staff hurt on their other jobs, to piracy compatiblity as excuses for non-delivery. (The loss of Internet in Malta is a doozy! :-lol)I'm taking bets on "UFO" being a part of the next one.Unfortunately, a great deal of people allow this type of sophomoric and unprofessional business practice to be the norm with many vendors to the FS market therefore, the status quo remains.

Missing fuel planner loader? I use FSpassengers to load the plane. Maybe not 100% realistic but lots of fun, and thats why I fly FS, for fun. Incomplete systems? The most complete and realistic available for a 757 at this time. No the toilet is not modeled. LDS 757 will be better and I will purchase it even for FSX if my computer can handle it. Captain Sim , I don't like the block system. If they ever finish all the blocks and put it into one package (and it works) then maybe I'll consider it. Posky's nice model can be merged with the level D panel too but it flys like a very light 767 so not realistic. I have some in my hangar since there are so many liveries available for the Posky and I like to experiment. Didn't I say I do this for fun? Regards, Carlos

>Level D stated that the 757 is only for FSX.And thus sales will not be anywhere close to what the 767 did.

>PSS 757 is the best out there purely because there isn't any>other competition (or at least serious competition).>>However, I would recommend avoiding it like the plague. >It's heavy on frame rates and largely incomplete with some>missing software still not delivered since August last year. I get great FR's with it. Just need to go into the performance options and turn down the frame rate refresh rate number.

Hi"Unfortunately, a great deal of people allow this type of sophomoric and unprofessional business practice to be the norm with many vendors to the FS market therefore, the status quo remains."Well said.Pete

>Hi>>"Unfortunately, a great deal of people allow this type of>sophomoric and unprofessional business practice to be the norm>with many vendors to the FS market therefore, the status quo>remains.">>Well said.>>>Pete >Indeed! Here is a recent post of the PSS forum:"A posting by PSS has stated the guy that was making the software got in a bad accident toward the end of December. (I think it is posted as a sticky in this forum). I am sure as soon as he recovers we'll have our gods. In the meantime best we can do is wish him well."I replied to this post as follows:"Or we can insist that PSS meets its obligations by hiring somebody else to to complete the work that in Norman's own words was supposedly completed 2-3 months ago. A responsible company would have done this a long time ago. There are, as I'm sure you'll be amazed to learn, many people who could have had the utilities finished by now. Let's not give PSS any more leeway on this issue - it's gone on long enough, don't you think? "My post was, of course and in typical PSS style, quickly deleted. Heaven forbid any negative portrayal of PSS remain on their forum!!!While PSS are quick to delete posts like mine there are several questions pending in their Boeing forum that they have not answered. Some have not been answered in 4 days. Yep, PSS customer support is the best :-roll Mark

Yup. Sad but true. They must think that by deleting posts, it will improve their image by removing the negativity, but of course this has the opposite effect.IF the person responsible for making a load editor did have an accident what is the PSS excuse for the time the 757 was released (in August) and the time to his accident in December.If people hadn't paid money for it, it would be absolutely comical.

the 757 question.. this is turning almost into locating a good airbus for FS; there isn't one. Visuals go to captain sim hands down. However you need to live with default functionality, fix your flight dynamics and sounds, and assign some buttons for the missing/inoperative panel switches. Their service is abysmal, their censorship unmatched. Company wise, they should cherish their modeller as a god because he is the only reason they sell anything. So that sums it up. If that's what you are after, get it i suppose. PSS. I really do not wish to get into it but for comparison, their 777 was way better than the 757. I remember telling norman and company several times to fix the windows in the cockpit and that the textures looked flat - all i got is "it is beta, i don't use the VC, we have "people" (whoever they are!) telling us how awesome the textures look and blah blah". Come release day, the VC hasn't been touched, the avionics are flaky and generally, we have PSS type quality as usual which isn't all that good to begin with. I am sorry, but i am not blind and i can surely see when a developer flat out lies and releases despite potential customers' comments. As a package, the PSS offers the best deal at this point. Bug may or may not affect you. That sums it up, having dealt with both companies for some time now (going back several product generations).