Archived

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

kiwikat

Cls 747 Review

Recommended Posts

I'll start off by saying I don't own this aircraft- for one HUGE reason. A reason that the reviewer neglected to say one word about. A reason MOST reviewers neglect to say one word about, here, there, and everywhere. This is NOT a real FSX addon. It was not compiled with the FSX compiler. It doesn't have good FPS in FSX (compared to a native aircraft). It doesn't work in DX10 (which was mentioned by the reviewer). It doesn't have features that true FSX addons have. These are all big deals now that FSX addon sales have exceeded FS9 sales. I'm truly puzzled as to why, after two years, developers who still fail to design true FSX products aren't being called out on this by the community. I'm even more puzzled as to why reviewers don't bring it up. It would be nice if Avsim would raise the bar on reviews everywhere by making this a standard inclusion.

Share this post


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

Well, I liked the review and I liked it first and foremost because it seemed to be rightfully critical and not biased towards the producer in any way and it was a pleasure to read, not too long and right to the point. While I take your point that it could perhaps have been mentioned that the model wasn't compiled with the FSX compiler for good measure of thoroughness, I doubt that it would have changed the final judgments in a significant way.A good review consists of (at least) two things: Style and technical insight. The reviewer's knowledge on the actual plane is hard to measure up to, the style (I think) was good and the technical thoroughness in part of the simulation seemed adequate to me.Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
I'll start off by saying I don't own this aircraft- for one HUGE reason. A reason that the reviewer neglected to say one word about. A reason MOST reviewers neglect to say one word about, here, there, and everywhere. This is NOT a real FSX addon. It was not compiled with the FSX compiler. It doesn't have good FPS in FSX (compared to a native aircraft). It doesn't work in DX10 (which was mentioned by the reviewer). It doesn't have features that true FSX addons have. These are all big deals now that FSX addon sales have exceeded FS9 sales. I'm truly puzzled as to why, after two years, developers who still fail to design true FSX products aren't being called out on this by the community. I'm even more puzzled as to why reviewers don't bring it up. It would be nice if Avsim would raise the bar on reviews everywhere by making this a standard inclusion.
Thanks for the last comment. I'll mention this to the Review Staff, as you are correct, it should be a standard comment within the review.

Share this post


Link to post

Will buy this soon because of this review!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't use Windows Vista, so I don't have access to DX10. I cannot make any firsthand comments on how DX10 works with any product. However, I do post my system specs in my reviews, and I do pass on what the developer has to say about their products with respect to Vista issues. I think it's important for the AVSIM readers to get as much good info as possible in the reviews. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Will buy this soon because of this review!
Hey,If you can wait for - I hope - one or two weeks from now, there's another review published of the JF 747 Classic Collection, which is in fact the CLS 747 Series.Just monitor the main AVSIM page.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey,If you can wait for - I hope - one or two weeks from now, there's another review published of the JF 747 Classic Collection, which is in fact the CLS 747 Series.Just monitor the main AVSIM page.
Just published :( .Find here the direct link to the JF/CLS 747 Classic review Collection -> http://www.avsim.com/pages/0209/JustFlight/747.htm

Share this post


Link to post

I just spent an hour reading it. It is a very detailed review, and quite convincing. Makes me want to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post

Buyer beware.I jumped on the JustFlight/CLS747 on the basis of the Avsim review. Whoops!: I'm getting, at best, 9-10fps (turning off all AI, scenery complexity at normal). I run FSXSP2 on Vista32. I own LevelD767 and Coolsky MD80 Pro and Aerosoft F16, Twotter, and Bush Hawk, and all run consistently at 17-24fps (planes and cockpits maxed; AI at 40%; scenery at normal). Because I enjoy that performance with those addons, I thought I could pop this "Lite" 747 onto my harddrive and go flying. Nope.My rig isn't a jet fighter, by any means; a DellE520, with nVidia 8600GT, all drivers always updated. But, on the basis of the comparisons in the review, and the performance of the aircraft in my hanger, I thought I was good to go. This isn't a criticism of the review, but of the product. In FSX, this JF/CLS747 has all the characteristics of a bad port from FS9 (for those who remember the JF "FSX" Tiger Moth, this 747 has the same sort of feel in FSX, very "stuttery" fps); suggestions that it will run smooth as silk in FSX should be accepted very guardedly. (not completely beside the point, but I downloaded the latest iteration of Dino Cattaneo's absolutely gorgeous Goshawak earlier today: why do so many of the payware guys still have so much to learn from this very generous and painstaking craftsman??)Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Buyer beware.I jumped on the JustFlight/CLS747 on the basis of the Avsim review. Whoops!: I'm getting, at best, 9-10fps (turning off all AI, scenery complexity at normal). I run FSXSP2 on Vista32. I own LevelD767 and Coolsky MD80 Pro and Aerosoft F16, Twotter, and Bush Hawk, and all run consistently at 17-24fps (planes and cockpits maxed; AI at 40%; scenery at normal). Because I enjoy that performance with those addons, I thought I could pop this "Lite" 747 onto my harddrive and go flying. Nope.My rig isn't a jet fighter, by any means; a DellE520, with nVidia 8600GT, all drivers always updated. But, on the basis of the comparisons in the review, and the performance of the aircraft in my hanger, I thought I was good to go. This isn't a criticism of the review, but of the product. In FSX, this JF/CLS747 has all the characteristics of a bad port from FS9 (for those who remember the JF "FSX" Tiger Moth, this 747 has the same sort of feel in FSX, very "stuttery" fps); suggestions that it will run smooth as silk in FSX should be accepted very guardedly. (not completely beside the point, but I downloaded the latest iteration of Dino Cattaneo's absolutely gorgeous Goshawak earlier today: why do so many of the payware guys still have so much to learn from this very generous and painstaking craftsman??)Tim
Hi Tim,You could always try and ask JF or it's an idea to dump your question at the dedicated CLS website forum - http://www.commerciallevel.com/forum/index.php?showforum=93 - and see if they can help you. If you want, you can also send an e-mail to info@commerciallevel.com.I know that the CLS 747 Classic is a ported version and therefore not optimised for FSX, but these FPS are indeed very low and thus I'm wondering why or what else could be wrong.Give it a shot at the CLS forum or via the mail.

Share this post


Link to post

Angelique,Thanks. Indeed, I dropped a note to JF's tech services just before I posted to this discussion. I'm interested in what they have to say. I can never quite decide whether to treat payware producers as "one of us," the people who really enjoy this hobby. Or "one of them," clever entrepreneurs who prey on our passion because by the time you've clicked "yes yes yes" on the eula, and downloaded the software, you've no recourse but flaming forums all over cyberspace. I've been simming MSFS since I discovered it in the late 90's, and I think there might be only 4, maybe 5 (far fewer than half of the total), addon producers who, a) produce a product that is really, really up to the standard of FSX (let's face it, cruising along in the default 172 over default scenery with all the sliders way up is a pretty enjoyable experience); b) are completely forthcoming about the strengths and limitations of the products they market, and c) price their product in a way that realistically reflects (a).My earlier mention of Mr. Cattaneo's work bears repeating in this context: he does flawless work and he is open about its challenges (see his blog about the upcoming F14). He does all this for free. Any payware company that makes excuses the pricey failures cluttering our harddrives, and then just carries on, should be boycotted out of business.All that said, I really enjoyed the long review of the CLS747. When reviews are often the only way a potential customer can size up the worth of an addon, reviews like yours are really important to the community; the software that brings these lovely illusions to life has become extraordinarily complex, and someone needs to take responsibility for honestly communicating both strengths and weaknesses. Plus, I think we simmers like tinkering with FSX, reading about FSX, watching FSX videos on youtube (new personal passion), as much as we do actually "flying" it; a long and detailed interview is as satisfying as a good flight.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
I know that the CLS 747 Classic is a ported version and therefore not optimised for FSX, but these FPS are indeed very low and thus I'm wondering why or what else could be wrong.
That IS the only thing that is wrong. There are no complex systems like the PMDG -400 offering has. It simply suffers from performance issues because it is a FS9 model INCORRECTLY labeled as being for FSX. CLS has been persecuted over this before by customers (not mentioning names...), but they refused to change their advertising or add something saying that their product is merely a portover and will suffer the performance issues previously mentioned. It is time to call out any and every payware developer who misleads customers by irresponsibly (and even knowingly) mislabeling their products. I've been waiting for reviewers all over the internet to start doing this but they simply don't seem to care. :(

Share this post


Link to post
That IS the only thing that is wrong. There are no complex systems like the PMDG -400 offering has. It simply suffers from performance issues because it is a FS9 model INCORRECTLY labeled as being for FSX. CLS has been persecuted over this before by customers (not mentioning names...), but they refused to change their advertising or add something saying that their product is merely a portover and will suffer the performance issues previously mentioned. It is time to call out any and every payware developer who misleads customers by irresponsibly (and even knowingly) mislabeling their products. I've been waiting for reviewers all over the internet to start doing this but they simply don't seem to care. :(
I think you're judging a little too quick!My "low FPS" remark was based on Tim's low FPS and thus it could be that there's something else - like FSX settings, FSX.cfg, video driver or other hardware related items - and not only the fact that it's ported FS9 software, so it had nothing to do with the previous postings. BTW, as far as I can recall, CLS/JF only say that the Boeing 747 Classic model is compatible with FSX but not designed from scratch for FSX.Looking to your last sentence "It is time to call out any and every payware developer who misleads customers by irresponsibly (and even knowingly) mislabeling their products. I've been waiting for reviewers all over the internet to start doing this but they simply don't seem to care" it woulde be great when you're able and willing to help the flight sim community and become an AVSIM reviewer. Just give it a try and you never know, it could be that we can learn something from you.

Share this post


Link to post

I help the flightsim community by making repaints and spending hundreds of hours beta testing products. Due to my affiliation and involvement with many companies, I couldn't make reviews. I am happy to share my opinion and facts when I feel they add something though ;)It isn't a quick judgement. Portovers have terrible performance compared to native FSX planes. That is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an important point. I'll include this in my upcoming review!

Share this post


Link to post

The most important thing to note since the review is that the poor documentation has been corrected. Angelique has produced what may be the best manual ever. It is well-written, comprehensive, entertaining, and uses plenty of relevant pictures. It not only has a first-rate tutorial (that sneaks in a lot detail beyond what you normally expect without detracting from the tutorial) but a wonderful navigation appendix.Frame rates were not bad on my screaming MacBook Pro ;-) I wonder if the "lite" label is good marketing. As a RFP veteran, I still found that most of what a pilot has to deal with is well represented. (I am more than happy to let the flight engineer fiddle with fuel levels in various tanks. That's why they had more than one person in the flight crew.) I don't think experienced simmers should shy away, unless you're just not going to be happy without detailed failures and managing the packs. Please note I am not suggesting a similar level of detail, only that I liked both.As a former user of the excellent (and free) CIVA INS I really appreciated the fact that you can import a whole flight plan, not just nine waypoints at a time. You can still program them manually if you're a purist. And if you like aligning them on the fly using radio navigation (which I'm not sure you can do with the supplied INS) I have no doubt someone will soon be posting a panel config to add the wonderful, beautiful (and did I say free?) CIVA. I think I'll stick to the stock model and imagine that my co-pilot is doing all that tedious stuff.There are rough spots, to be sure. I cringed every time I had to change a NAV frequency on the radio panel. You would think it would be easy to program logical methods for something so essential and easy as turning knobs. Nope. You can adjust the frequency in one window with a click spot under another, numbers go one way using the mousewheel but not the other, and, in, general, tuning a frequency is about as certain and quick as using a Ouija board. I can only imagine that whoever it was that was developing this and testing it got used to the idisyncracities and just didn't bother to fix it. Tuning your NAV radios should not be such a problem, but, oddly, this is not the first product I've seen that makes it something of an adventure.Please fix this.The INS works, sorta. I cannot get all three aligned, although two are basically very fancy dummies, as FSX has only one autopilot. So you are flying for a company that knows two out of three essential navigation units are broken and blithely clears your to head off across the Pacific with alerts on and alignment lights flashing futiley. The one that works, however, works beautifully.Here's my comment about non-native FSX add-ons. If I removed all the ports from my library, I would be flying... what? Is even the PMDG MD-11 completely FSX native (since they've been working on it a long time, and you can get it in either flavor. Pure or not, it is a great airplane.) All my ports work fine. This could not be more of a non-issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Is even the PMDG MD-11 completely FSX native (since they've been working on it a long time, and you can get it in either flavor. Pure or not, it is a great airplane.)
Yes, it is. That is why I can get 36 FPS in the VC at any city at nearly maxed FSX settings. No way I could get that with a portover.

Share this post


Link to post

Might I just add that the Ready for Pushback B747-200 is completely FS9 compatible and FREE in the avsim library. It will beat anything that CLS does and all this I know just bij reading the review.Unfortunately It doesn't go well with FSX so I'm hoping that some inspired developer does a proper job.jasper

Share this post


Link to post

The panel may be good, but I think the rest of the plane is just plain ugly. If you can somehow combine the RFP panel and the CLS model, then it should be a great experience.

Share this post


Link to post

RFP was one airplane I loved, and what I miss most about FS9. On the other hand, I don't know that I would want to go back to so much fiddling around with the INS and fuel tanks. It was great then, but some experiences have their time and it is a mistake to try to repeat them.When I really want to manage an airplane, I'll start re-acquainting myself with the A2A B377.I haven't reinstalled the CLS 747 on my new computer yet, but I am sure I will get around to it. I want to do some classic Virgin routes, and also some flights into my Kai Tak scenery. I don't think the CLS 747 is a bad airplane. And the service equipment feature really sets it apart. And if you want a tape 747, that's about your only choice for FSX.

Share this post


Link to post