Archived

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

Speedbyrd

Gotta Love those Commercial Level Airbusses!

Recommended Posts

I just invested in the A345/A346 Combi package and wow! $20 bucks for some real dream airliners! Great details, great handling! Thinking about the A330 models too, even though I have the Overland A330's that I'm pretty happy with. Any comparisons on those?The CL A330 package is $32 but comes with about 150 planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I agree, CLS gives you a good bang for the buck.Overland's and SkySim are in the same ballpark, the mid-range 'Lite' category.Though I think CLS is probably a small notch above. All are good values however IMO.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the CLS (from what I see).What do you mean by great handling, can you explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> CLS gives you a good bang for the buckOccasionally I have a hard time to understand simmers. A visual model with a bunch of textures and a panel with next to ZERO Airbus functionality at 32$ is seen as good bang for the buck. CLS apparently unable to do anything beyond the Microsoft standard SDK, declares their products as 'lite', teaches people to fly a modern Airbus with Vertical Speed Mode, after having slammed the throttle to max for takeoff. Thrust Rating ? Reduced takeoff thrust or climb power ? FBW ? Airbus Autopilot philosophy ? Where ?OTOH, Captainsim is heavily critizised for their 757. Beautiful visual models too, tons of animations, Thrust Rating computer, an Autopilot that more or less does what it should, much more complete FMC, VNAV functionality, LVL CHG Mode, etc. Sure enough it needs a patch or two to complete, but all that just costs a little more. On my FS box it says Flight simulator, not screenshot simulator ;). Oh well, at least the CLS stuff qualifies for the ISGSIM addon gauges :)Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe you've understated CaptainSim's 757 price.For what you describe (the 757 pro pack), that's sells for about $61 US.That's twice the price of the CLS A300 standalone ($29). But if youbuy the CLS A300/A310/Beluga combi pack that's only $40. That soundslike a pretty good deal to me. If you look around, you can find boththe CLS A310, and A340 separately for less than $15. Also the CLS stuff works in both FS9 and FS9, whereas for the Captain 757 you have to pay an additional $40 for the FSX version.The CaptainSim 757 Pro price seems to be the going rate for that type of product. For that price you expect a certain level of detail and sophistication and you get it. Nothing wrong with that IMO, there's many simmers who feel these sophisticated features are worth the money. The CLS Airbus is a 'Lite' product, we don't expect advanced airbus systems in it. No-one is fooling themselevs into thinking they are even close simulating real Airbus Ops. What they expect is that it looks a bit like an Airbus, it flies pretty good,it has more paints, less detail, less sophistication and a much lower price, and that's what you get from CLS. When you consider the combi packs CLS offers they are indeed a 'good bang for the buck'.Not everyone wants to spend a half hour going through the engine start sequence all the checklists and programming the FMS. These 'Lite' type products are just right for the less detail oriented simmers who don't want to pay $60+ for one aircraft model.And really from what I read CaptainSim is not criticized so much for their 757. It seems to be their product support that they seem to be 'heavily criticized' for.>Oh well, at least the CLS stuff qualifies for the ISGSIM addon gauges CaptainSim does too, thanks to their 'block' philosphy ;-).Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, seems I mixed up Euro and Dollar prices. However, if you compare development times for Microsoft Standard SDK stuff to the products with many custom and authentic parts (systems, FMC, AP, etc.), you'd probably end up at a much bigger price gap. In that regard, the Captainsim 757 is still a cheap offer. How long does the developemnet of a sophisticated Airliner product take ? Let's say three years. How many products would you get from CLS in that three years ? Maybe five, maybe six ?Nothing at all wrong with 'lite' products. But would less experienced simmers be overloaded, when they get teached, an Airliner does not take off with full thrust everytime ? And is rarely, if at all, flown with VS mode to cruise altitude ? I don't think so. That's just two examples where one would not even notice, but would have more real Airliner handling inside. Not to mention Airbus specific features.I'm really wondering a 30-40$ price tag gets accepted for next to zero Airbus feel and functionality. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean their FDE's are tweaked to 'feel real', if that's possible on a desktop computer. I've never flown an A340 but based on other models I've flown, this one has that 'heavy, lumbering' feel that I would expect from a huge jet. They lift off easily, but require a LOT of room for maneuvering and it just a pleasure to "drive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many of us have flown a real jumbo. I certainly have not, but as a hobby that makes me happy, these 'computer airliners' have a good feel to them. There are severe limits in FS9 as to what should be expected. Right now, my expectations are fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I agree with speedbird. I kinda miss flying lite packages jumping from one aircraft to another. After flying the complex aircraft out there for the past few years I cant bring myself to fly anything else, it just feels wrong. Now I have to wait years before a new complex airliner is created. Ignorance is bliss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hmmm, seems I mixed up Euro and Dollar prices. However, if>you compare development times for Microsoft Standard SDK stuff>to the products with many custom and authentic parts (systems,>FMC, AP, etc.), you'd probably end up at a much bigger price>gap. In that regard, the Captainsim 757 is still a cheap>offer. >>How long does the developemnet of a sophisticated Airliner>product take ? Let's say three years. How many products would>you get from CLS in that three years ? Maybe five, maybe six>?From the customer standpoint it is pretty much irrelevent how long it takes to produce a product. That's not a concern of the average customer. What they really care about is what features, details, and functionality they are getting for the asking price.I think if you look at what is being offered by CLS, which is a bit better than the Default planes with some features and details you don't see in most freeware aircraft, then compare the price itis a good value for the price.>I'm really wondering a 30-40$ price tag gets accepted for next to zero Airbus feel and functionality. This Airbus functionality you refer to is really an advanced feature. Its not found in many products in that price range. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect that level of functionality in a $30 airliner add-on today. It just takes a lot of development effort to implement those type of systems in an FS add-on aircraft. So yeah the only real difference between a 'Lite' Airbus, and a 'lite' Boeing is the cockpits look a little different.I've heard what AirSimmer had to say about the potential price of their product, and they said it would be "less than $100". That would seem to imply its price will be 'near' $100. I think theywill be hard pressed to deliver something that will meet the expectations of people paying such a premium price for an add-on aircraft, we'll see. Look at the Overland Boeing package. That's $30 but you get 5 different aircraft models (737,747,767,777, MD11). Are any of them near CaptainSim ,LDS, and PMDG's level ?? No, not evenclose but the price isn't near their levels either. But they are fairly decent models to fly,and there are some additional details there above what you see in the default aircraft.Anyway way you slice it, that's a good bang for the buck.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedbyrd wrote:<< I mean their FDE's are tweaked to 'feel real', if that's possible on a desktop computer. I've never flown an A340 but based on other models I've flown, this one has that 'heavy, lumbering' feel that I would expect from a huge jet. They lift off easily, but require a LOT of room for maneuvering and it just a pleasure to "drive" <

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't compare CLS with POSKY products. I have never been a POSKY fan and even today I avoid them if there is something better. Their 747's just don't do it for me. Even with their updates, the planes have problems that I just can't get past. To iron out the problems is something I just don't want to deal with. CLS, SGA, Overland, etc. have a minimum of problems. There ready to fly and I have very few problems with any of those products. SGA DC-10's fde is a bit problematic in one area, but I've even got that worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>which details are we talking about? as far as I can see there>are a lot of freeware aicraft, panels and soundsets out there>whith which you can put together an package similar, or in>many cases superior to what CLS offers.Most freeware planes don't have virtual cockpits, and the gauges in CLS are custom gauges, many freeware planes generally use the stock default gauges.But really there's nothing done in the 'Lite' category or aircraft models that isn't done somewhere in one or several freeware add-ons. I think the difference is the entire CLS package, you don't normally see it all in one freeware add-on. Like you said, you could probably put some of em together in one package, but generally the are not in one package. There are however some notable exceptions (maltby'sBAC, iFly, Project Tupelov, Yannick's Falcon 50 etc), and some of these freeware products have a few features that exceed what you would get in CLS and other 'Lite' products.Probably part of the appeal of the CLS and Overland models is the packaging. You can avoid searching the file libraries to find a good freeware 777 or DC10, etc. Just buy the CLS package and install it its pretty good.>nope, but to be honest you get a lot more bang for your buck>then with any of the CLS packages (you get 7/8 aircraft btw,>if you include the subseries they modelled as well)>One could make that argument, I have both packages and I generally feel CLS is little better quality than Overland. But I think Overland does include more quantity at a lower price.>now don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking on people using CLS>aircraft ( I have a few myself) or on CLS themself, but I>personaly see them as nothing more then Posky goes payware,>which was al fine and dandy when they releassed their first>aircraft, but their prices have gone up conciderally and the>quality (especialy on the FDE front) is not enough to warrant>these prices IMHO.I think CLS is a little better than POSKY as an entire package as most POSKY models don't have virtual cockpits (and trend that could change in the coming years). But certainly there are parts of POSKY models that exceed what is in parts of the CLS products. But the difference again is the packaging.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if PMDG LDS and pilots' testimonials etc are any standard by which to judge, that 'lumbering feel' is quite the misnomer. Large aircraft apparently do not necessarily feel like lumbering whales, but are rather surprisingly responsive. Non fbw aircraft do however require more force than most expect on the yoke. It seems Warren sought to recreate this force by reducing control surface effectiveness. But that has the effect of drastically reducing roll rates and all that entails.At the end of the day though, afaic it is all moot - if 'heavy' tickles the imagination (it did mine once) have at it and have fun :) regards,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I can fly and seen the A330-300 flown in action, I can't comment but say unless it is flown (CLS) by a real A340 pilot and compared, then I can't say you are right or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLS is absolutely excellent and is a good buy. A great alternative (and in some ways a relief) from very complex add-ons by other great developers.Their Airbus series is superlative visually and the VC rocks on triple LCDs even if it has very limited Airbus "McDoo" logic. The CLS DC-10 series is also very good.But what I can't wait for is their upcoming Boeing 747-100/200 series which promises to be totally fantastic with incredible detail and visual modelling. And probably a a great flight model to boot.JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only hope they don't forget to include Braniff's Great Pumpkin as part of the collection!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,Here's what I think, the CLS 345/346 lite package is a pretty good bargain with it's modelling, animations, VC, sounds and functionnable systems. Of course it's only "lite" but there are a lot of people who prefer this and love flying by Garmin 500's.I bought this package with great hope, yes, initially I was a little disapointed but then, it's only half the price of the PMDG 747. I believe there is an advanced 346 (346 professional) as well.I'm not much of a modelling simmer, I prefer realistic FMC, FDE and systems and I fly by charts, others give visual issues a lot of importance. Maybe it could be used for merging if it already isn't who knows?All I can say is that we are all in an urgent need of a "real Airbus" and that as quick as possible!Happy landings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main disppointment with the CLS A345/6 'lite' package was the frame rate hit. Usually, one compensation for lack of systems modelling, is easier frame rates but I found the CLS package surprisingly heavy on frames even with the lighter sound files. I uninstalled eventually as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Nothing at all wrong with 'lite' products. But would less>experienced simmers be overloaded, when they get teached, an>Airliner does not take off with full thrust everytime ? I'm really sorry, but it's my job. Please, it's 'taught' not 'teached' - many non-native English speakers post here; we 'natives' should set an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have to digress to say that I am back with the Overland Airbus and Boeing models and am happier. With the help of Bryan Betts wonderful fde tweaks, these birds 'drive' as I would expect them too. Like the CLS, they are easy on lift off if properly trimmed but require substantial room for your approach patterns. They are quite accurate on the fuel burn and they touch down like the graceful birds that they are. There are also lots of liveries for each of the models. Highly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmers come in all types. From the sooper-dooper realists who chew each other out for parking at the wrong gate http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/...-smiley-028.gif do real-time preflights, wx-checks and FMC programming to those who want to just jump in, GPS and go! Its well known that companies like CLS cater to the latter and theres nothing wrong with it. But even here there is some realism - for example I dont fly hyper-complex PMDG planes but I fly real-world routes at real-world times. As always it comes down to what *you* like as a person. You like setting the hyper-real switches and FMCs in the PMDG MD-11 or 744 - cool! Have fun :)You like picking an A346, GPS direct to wherever, cool have fun :)I think the Posky planes are excellent, yes they do need a lot of tinkering to set them up and also for updating them but it pays in the end. Their 737NGs look great!I think its variables like this that make our simming community so much fun - and productive. The simmer who flies GPS direct might be an excellent painter whose work is used by uber-simmers when they fly their Level-D 767s.Its all good its all good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Simmers come in>all types. From the sooper-dooper realists who chew each other>out for parking at the wrong gate>http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/grinser/...-smiley-028.gif>do real-time preflights, wx-checks and FMC programming to>those who want to just jump in, GPS and go! >>Its well known that companies like CLS cater to the latter and>theres nothing wrong with it. But even here there is some>realism - for example I dont fly hyper-complex PMDG planes but>I fly real-world routes at real-world times. >>As always it comes down to what *you* like as a person. You>like setting the hyper-real switches and FMCs in the PMDG>MD-11 or 744 - cool! Have fun :)>>You like picking an A346, GPS direct to wherever, cool have>fun :)>>I think the Posky planes are excellent, yes they do need a lot>of tinkering to set them up and also for updating them but it>pays in the end. Their 737NGs look great!>>I think its variables like this that make our simming>community so much fun - and productive. The simmer who flies>GPS direct might be an excellent painter whose work is used by>uber-simmers when they fly their Level-D 767s.>>Its all good its all good :)I'm a lot like you. I fly exclusively Overland Airbus, MD-11 and Boeing models but I check specific routes via Travelocity and them using exact times per FS RealTime and using weather via Active Sky. I have an excellent collection of liveries for each model and I use the livery based on my present location. As I speak I'm flying American 777-200 from PHNL-KLAX. I never had good luck with the POSKY products. Visually they were very nice, but flying them was very cumbersome to me. Their 747 just didn't fly well for me. So with Overland, Active Sky, FS RealTime, AISmooth and AI TrafficMover, I have my world just the way I want it both with regards to my user aircraft and the thousand of AI's that fly around me. I use a lot of vintage AI's such as the TWA Super Connies, BA and Air France Concorde, Eastern L-1011, etc. and all of them flying the real schedules that they flew when in service. What more could I ask for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my world just the way I want it And *that* is all that matters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,Thanks for the positive feedback and any other thoughts about CLS. There has been in the past some negative feedback about CLS product being "lite" to all the heavy simmers to the class of PMDG, CaptainSim, PSS and etc criticizes the way we aim our products to be in "F-Lite" range. Most of us at CLS are casual simmers, we don't spent 5 hours in FS following the procedures and flying just like in real life, I simply have the reason as to why, no matter how much tweaked and realism you have in your FS, it could never beat the real world flying. FS is originally developed for entertainment purpose, all the planes that comes from the package are easy to fly, they don't come with manuals on how to fly them properly. I've seen a lot of those heavy class simmers arguing and reckons our product cost way too expensive for an "F-Lite" and they all started to compare with the likes of PMDG, PSS, Captainsim and etc. Some argue back defending the F-Lite you know it is as simple as this "it's your FS, have it your way" there are different types of FS users and everyone of them have the right to have FS each to their ways. But to bash and criticizes the lite product that aims for a casual simmer is somewhat ego minded and selfish.Being a developer we push to FS capability, for instant our Boeing 747-200/300 has a very high quality VC, high quality exterior model, textures and etc, something you don't get from default FS planes, so does with the rest of our product. We aim to improve our future products as we find better techniques, better resources and etc.When it comes to price, one must know this, the price set justifies the cost to pay the developers, to pay the running cost, to profit the company and etc. It also justifies to the time we spent sitting in front of the computer developing the product.No offense to the heavy class simmers, as I too have PMDG, Level D product on my FS and it's a joy to fly them, great fun to try to simulate how it's basically done in real world flying while knowing that it can never be as close as real world flying.Just my 2 cents :DThanks Jonathan HartanaCommercial Level Simulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites