Cls 747 Review

[kiwikat 506]

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.

[Guest DocW]

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.

[Robert W 3]

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.

[Guest Kieran_Marshall]

Will buy this soon because of this review!

[Guest jshyluk]

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

[Guest Angelique-van-Campen]

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.

[Guest Angelique-van-Campen]

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

[Plainplane 6]

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

[hypercide 97]

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

[Guest Angelique-van-Campen]

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.

[hypercide 97]

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

[kiwikat 506]

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. :(

[Guest Angelique-van-Campen]

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.

[kiwikat 506]

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.

[Benjamin J 751]

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