I don't think subjective opinions are as valuable as comparing specfic features. It is not light weight when it comes to starting procedures, the functional FMC, fuel usage, etc. It is modelled well for normal flight operations. I would not put it on a par technically with a deep sim like the Maddog. It is definitely not light weight for modelling, and a great vc and extra animations are Captain Sim's strong suits. I don't think it is meant to be a competitor to the Level D 767 as far as abnormal operations go. If configurable surprises and abnormal operations are what you are interested in, this is probably not the product for you. If you are interested in a 757 that is a faithful representation of the airplane for enjoyable flights in a beautiful environment, then it is very good. I think they are both good products for their different audiences. It is like trying to compare the Maddog and the Super 80 Pro. Both are very nice, and I enjoy both, but one is going to be better for some people than the other one.

I still think it's among the best as far as I am concerned and it's not a light one as the original poster assumed asking.Thanks,Dirk.

I have a question. Since there is not an option for different MFDs such as ones with speed tape, are there any actual 757s still flying with that type of setup?

I have a question. Since there is not an option for different MFDs such as ones with speed tape, are there any actual 757s still flying with that type of setup?

Since almost all of the 757s ever built are still flying, I would bet yes, unless they've been swapped out somewhere along the way.

Ok I broke down and bought her... one question. How do I figure out my CG%? There is no regular load utility. but the loading process is really cool! Heavy frames in VC as expected but otherwise a solid addon. I can't seem to get the right engine started though

See this tutorial for an explanation of how to get your FMC set up with CoG:http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1220997876Pretty sure it is in the manuals actually, but since there are five manuals, looking at that tutorial will be quicker.If you can't start the other engine, you might want to try loading up a default aircraft first, or manually switching the fuel valves with the FS command, control+shift +F4 if I recall correctly. Or you could cheat and do Control+E, which will start both engines up on the CS FSX 757, doesn't work on every fancy add-on aircraft, but it will on this one.Al

Engine start should be pretty easy. APU on, check for steady run light just to the left of the switch, APU button pushed on your bleed air panel, L & R engines bleed air open, too. Push the isolation valve button on bleed air and make sure your air pressure is up and both needles match. Make sure packs are off (pressure should go up a bit if they were on.) Make sure your fuel pumps are on. Turn your right engine start knob to GND, confirm valve light comes on jut above it.Look at your engine gauges now. Your right engine should be spooling up. After three or four seconds flip your right fuel lever up (below the throttles). The engine should catch and run up.There aren't many gotchas in this process. Your engine needs enough bleed air (APU provides this, and you have to make sure the packs aren't on to suck too much of it up), ignition (the start switch on the overhead) and fuel (pumps on with PRESS lights out, the levers under the throttle).As for the CG, if we're supposed to use the one given by the FMC, mine is always 27, requiring 5.75 up trim no matter how I load. I dont know if ACE just always distributes the load the same way or the CG isn't being calculated. I suppose I could load up the back of the airplane and see if that made a difference!

CoG is one of the things where matters depart from reality a little with Flight Simulator. In real life, the pilot usually gets handed a 'zig zag' - more properly called a load sheet - from the ground personnel. It's called a zig zag because of the line which gets drawn on it through the various boxes on the graphs when calculating the load; the line usually ends up zig-zagging across the graph, hence the name.The loadmasters, ramp dudes, cargo agents and all those other essential people are the ones who should supervise the order in which the individually weighed LD3s and suitcases get shoved into the aircraft holds, and from that they provide a sheet with the CoG on it which the pilot signs and of course also uses the data on it for the CoG he or she puts into the CDU. As far as passenger weights go, most ailines just use an 'average figure'. The zig zag is the thing you simulate 'signing' along with acknowledging the fuel that has been loaded when using FS2 Crew add-ons, if you've ever had one of those.There are actually one or two airliners where the loading process is really critical, the ATR-72 - being quite long - is one, it even has a special support pin to stop it accidentally sitting on its tail when cargo is being loaded, and several other aeroplanes have similar arrangements. I've been on taildragger airliners in the past (DeHavilland Dragon Rapide for example) where the loadmaster specifically seated passengers in exact locations from rear to front, to avoid the thing tipping onto its nose! One or two really fancy FS add-ons actually reflect the CoG and weight on the external model, the Ariane 737 is one that does that for example, with a flag on the front cargo door if it is badly loaded.Some aircraft and airlines have more sophisticated systems than the paper load sheet, such as laptop data that can dump an accurate figure into the FMC, but generally speaking that paper sheet is the way things go, so you have to work around that if you want to do stuff 'properly'. You can work out the CoG from the little graphic display in the FS fuel and payload menu. The default 27 percent value on the CS 757 is one that will probably work okay in most cases, but I have found that putting a proper value in made the aeroplane fly the ILS approach better, so I reckon it is worth changing for the correct value.The percentage value reads from the nose backwards on the FS menu display, i.e. if the little black and white target thingy is halfway down, you would have a 50 percent CoG (not recommended, unless you have some aerobatics scheduled, but probably top notch for fuel economy if you could keep it under control!). But, to get more precise, you can actually count the number of ticks. Since there are 32 tick markers in total, you can get reasonably close by simply multiplying things by three, since 32 is pretty close to a third of one hundred. But for a really accurate CoG percentage, it would make sense to divide it properly to get an accurate figure.Shame we can't just have a coffee whilst pretending to do the walk around and tell the co-pilot to do it for us :( Al

As for the CG, if we're supposed to use the one given by the FMC, mine is always 27, requiring 5.75 up trim no matter how I load. I dont know if ACE just always distributes the load the same way or the CG isn't being calculated. I suppose I could load up the back of the airplane and see if that made a difference!

Tim,In real life the CG of this old lady is between 32 and 40% depending on the load.5.75 up trim will never been used because of the risk of tail strike :--)I have noticed that the CS757 is much more accurate than other heavies regarding CG/trim adjustment and it seems that their algorithms are pretty serious on that point.

I realized what I was doing wrong with engine start... I never activated the pack bleed air crossfeed valve. doh! so no air was getting pushed to the right engine

Anybody know when or if the fuel burn logic is gonna be fixed?

What's wrong with it? (asks a concerned potential customer) Still a few bugs here and there I take it? I've been checking JustFlight's website like 5 times a day waiting for them to get the package back in stock because I've decided I'd rather purchase it from them.

For one thing it is supposed to empty the center fuel tank first but drains it only after the wing tanks. That is a matter of concern for me as brings into doubt the attention to detail. The LDS 763 does this correctly and is documented as such.

dammit....interesting though. Maybe I'll wait a little longer and get the MD-11 or something in the meantime... I flew the PSS package in FS9; never thought it was great but good enough. I love the 757 and have been dying for a good one to come out for FSX, and it looks like CS is almost there.

LDS is currently working on a 757 and *THAT* one I am eargerly awaiting as it will be the pinacle, the benchmark for 757s.

For one thing it is supposed to empty the center fuel tank first but drains it only after the wing tanks. That is a matter of concern for me as brings into doubt the attention to detail. The LDS 763 does this correctly and is documented as such.

It also incorrectly displays the fuel burn for each engine on the lower EICAS. Total FF is being shown for each engine. In effect the display is telling you the engines are burning twice as much as they are in reality.