Unbelievable Captainsim

[ahinterl 1]

I admit I played with the thought to buy the 757 from Captainsim. But after reading through their forums, I find it rather a scandal what Captainsim does there.If someone reports an issue in their "report an issue" forums, the default response is the phrase "to ensure accuracy of proposed data please provide reference quotes (scan or a table) from a real flight manual even if you are the type rated pilot or engineer". Firstly, I cannot understand how someone in the FS universe can seriously think that some simmer owns a real aircraft manual, be it in electronic or printed form. Secondly, to request an excerpt from such a real world manual would certainly be a case of copyright infringement. It would be interesting to hear how the laws treat both parties, Captainsim as the requester and as such a kind of "agent provocateur", and a customer on the other hand who gives out copyrighted information. Furthermore, the phrase Captainsim uses implies that personal real world experiences, even if they exist in reality and are not written down in some book, are completely irrelevant. Instead of trying to understand what people say in their forums, Captainsim holds itself as in posession of the only valid truth by telling people that if they think Captainsim is wrong, it's the users' duty to prove this, and if that cannot be done (what is very likely given the requirements Captainsim accepts as legitimate proofs, see the section on copyright and airplane manuals above) the way Captainsim did their product is the right one. Some dictator couldn't do it better. I find it interesting that so obvious topics like a wrongly pointing HSI needle or misbehaving VNAV climb are grounded by Captainsim and not worth a 2nd thought. The 757 doesn't do it different from all the other modern Boeing planes out there, it accelerates to a certain (usually FMS calculated) speed or 250 kts below FL100 during climb and disregards v/s.I asked Captainsim for a statement, so far I simply cannot accept how they act and will not buy from them.Andreas

[Guest ha5mvo]

>There's a lot wrong with that particular requirement.>I would assume that CS themselves have all the required data>at hand from a multitude of official manuals as the serious>developer they claim to be . >>Or are they simply just too lazy to verify the wrong data on>their own???>>S

[altstiff 71]

>>There's a lot wrong with that particular>requirement.>>I would assume that CS themselves have all the required data>>at hand from a multitude of official manuals as the serious>>developer they claim to be . >>>>Or are they simply just too lazy to verify the wrong data on>>their own???>>>>S

[G7USL 117]

I wonder how many of the above complainers bought the superb C130?IMO the best CS product ever.

[Mike T 208]

HUH??!!!So if you bought a car and the power windows worked in reverse (you hit the down switch and the window rolled up and you hit the up switch and the window rolled down) your mechanic is going to ask you to back up your facts by showing exactly where in the car's technical schematic it says its supposed to work like you say? In what insane world would that be accepted? (the flight sim community not withstanding). This is the most amazing excuse-ist justification I've ever heard in my life. When I built my house last year, as it settled the master bathroom door was unable to close and needed to be adjusted. I called the builder and told him and he came and fixed it. If he had asked me where in the blueprints it specified that the door was supposed to close I would have...well, it would not have been pretty. Captainsim built a product and if someone says that the APU door doesn't open when the APU is switched on you are justifying them asking for where in the Boeing 757 technical manual it says the APU door should open? With people making excuses for them like this its no wonder that CapatinSim (and other developers like them) can get away with assinine abuse of their customers.Absolutely incredible.

[tf51d 284]

Their reputation has preceded them. Lets face it, they don't have a great track record for "finishing" what they started.Does that mean it is fair to say block F is a pile of rubbish or will always be a pile of rubbish? No, not at all.Do I understand why most people are cynical and expect it to end up that way.Actually in regards to the 757, they have finished what they started, the only problem is they took an inordinate time to do it!! I'm sure some of the problem was resources taken away to work with ACES on the F-18 for Acceleration! I actually think the Block system had something to do with it. With the old 707, and the original 727, they had their money, so there was no rush to finish them if at all. With the block system they don't finish they don't get paid! So even though, it took 2 years they didn't abandon the product in the end!

[orbmis 9]

Hi Tom,,,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have been flying with the CS757 with a LDS 767 panel merge for quite a while now in FSX. You can see it in action on a few of my YOUTUBE videos. Works pretty good.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Were there any notes, tutorial, etc. that you used for this merge?? I'm very interested in this customization, so any help you could offer would be much appreciated.Thanks,orbmis

[rhodges 6]

"I have been flying with the CS757 with a LDS 767 panel merge for quite a while now in FSX."Me too!!!!To my surprise, posts regarding this merge got little response, and it converts the CS757 into a great plane IMHO. I thought that anyone who purchased both of these birds (whether they thought one of them was a mistake or not), would jump on this combination. If someone purchased the CS757 and it has remained in the hanger, but also has the LDS767 (loves and flys it), the conversion should add similar pleasure to flying the 757. It sure does for me.Respectfully:RTH

[rhodges 6]

Hello Orbmis:Tom, please forgive me for buttin in. I know Orbmis asked you where to find information on the merge, and I did not see his question before my other reply to this thread.For what it is worth, I respectfully suggest that a place to start would be in this forum with the following thread:"I just merged level-d and captainsim with great successTopic started by xender, Apr 09 2008 (27 replies)Last modifed by Trelane, Apr 05th 2008"I would suggest reading through the entire thread as there may be added tweaks to the original post which may be desirable (been too long since my merge to remember the progression).I personally feel that it is a great merge which makes a deficient bird great to fly.Good luck:RTH

[rservice 4]

Anybody have problems with the CS757 on Vista?CS says the aircraft does not work on VistaRon

[Mike T 208]

Ron:It is "working" on Vista. To prevent any issue:1) Do not save your flights with the CS 757 as the default aircraft, it will crash FS92) When preparing a flight, start with another aircraft and once FS9 is loaded and where you want it to be, then load the CS 7573) When you exit FS9, you will get an error message if the CS757 was the last aircraft you flew.Other than that, I've experienced no inflight crashes or incompatibilities, its just a buggy in Vista as it is in XP.Mike T.

[Guest over and out]

There may be people who make inaccurate claims about the CS products or other addons. I imagine some of those people may just be inexperienced and, yes, some people are just trying to be malicious with "bold" statements.However, I believe most people are just trying to get some help or clarification. It should not be the burdon of the legitimate customer, to have to "prove it" with official technical information. CS should not paint all of it's custumers with the same broad brush and assume everyone is out to bash them. It is their responsibility to be polite and responsive and professional to all of their customers. If they feel a customer is "wrong" then they can post the correct techcnical information they used to develop the product. And then they can feel comfortable that they are accurate. Or if they made an error, admit it and fix it.Here's a question, does anyone actually know of a case where someone did provide CS with correct technical info? Did CS respond and fix the problem?I value my time and money, and I won't give any of it to a company that assumes from the start that my question is wrong or malicious and can only be reponded to if I provide technical references.

[orbmis 9]

Hello,,,Thank You Very Much for the help and the info on the forum thread. There is obviously some thought put into this merge, and it's certainly something I will begin. It seems to be one of those things that must be followed precisely, so I'd guess that one needs to have a block of time available to work thru the various setups.As I was reading thru the thread,a poster asked the question of whether the complexity of the CS757 was necessary, if one was not interested in the VC. Normally, VC is not high on my list of priorities, as I prefer the intricacies of the gen'l simulation & FMC, thus I'm satisfied with a 2D world. Your thoughts?? Or is the CS757 merge worthwhile even in a 2D world?? If not, is the CS757 still preferred over the PSS 757?Thanks for your help, as I look forward to getting into the 757 world.orbmis

[Guest over and out]

I have their C-130 and F-104. I like them both.

[Mike T 208]

I have both and while the CS757 looks 1000% better than the PSS757, the CS757 has a lot of issues. The problem is that once you've flown the CS757 you don't want to fly the PSS757 because it looks so cartoonish in the VC and 3D external mode. But then the CS757 has so many totally stupid obvious issues that its very frustrating.Just off the top of my head.1. Fuel feeds from all tanks at once, instead of center and then wing, so you always land with fuel in the center tank which is a BIG no-no.2. Engine start is incorrect and requires bleed air to be on from engines that are not running to start.3. Fuel burn is WAY, WAY, WAY off! I flew for 4 hours with a headwind and only burned 10,000 lbs of fuel when my fuel planner says I need 46,000!4. Fuel quantity is shown in litres only!5. Crossbleed engine start is broken.6. You cannot start engines while airborne by selecting FLT. You have to start the APU and select GND! That is not possible in the real world. 7. FMC always gives the wrong trim setting for the given %MAC variable.8. When slow on approach, the AP trims full up elevator which often causes the aircaft to stall and crash on full autoland.9. Fasten seatbelt, altitude alert, no smoking and fire tests sounds are either wrong or missing.10. No terminal procedures are included, and no AIRAC updates. This should be remedied shortly per captain sim11. APU doesn't burn fuel.12. IRS aligns in 10 seconds even from cold and dark which should take upto 10 minutes.13. Autopilot speed selector skips certain speeds, for instance 250kts not selectable, but 252kts is!14. ACE doesn't work for selecting specific 3D models, it must be done manually by editing the panel.cfg15. No fuel planer or proper load manager that shows aircraft weights and C0G. Plus the load manager doesn't load the aircraft according to what you select so the weights are often different than what you think they will be.And these are just the things that I can recall off the top of my head. Sure, if you don't care about realism and just want a pretty flight model, the CS757 wins hands down as the best looking airliner ever released. However, if you want it to work the way its supposed to then the PSS757 does much better.