As far as the 717 goes, PMDG should get on that with their MD-11 avionics. That'd be or***mic. I'd buy the crap out of a decent CRJ or classic 737 (200-3/4/500) with the old steam gauges (to exclude Feelthere's offering).

fuel burn is incorrect

Paul, try changing fuel_flow_scalar = 0.4 into fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0 in your aircraft.cfgBest regards

It doesn't matter what CS releases, a lot of people are still going to buy it. The 757 was bashed from the day of its release and continues to be. It is also supported by a lot of sim enthusiasts. Despite all of the negative comments about it right from the get go a lot of people still bought it. Either that or there's a lot of people lying just claiming to have it. The 767 will sell well, and since it's Captain Sim I'm certain it will look great, but probably have a lot of issues that may, or just as likely may not get worked out over time. My biggest concern will be the frame rates, but then again my computer is a few days old so I'm sure it's outdated by now.

It doesn't matter what CS releases, a lot of people are still going to buy it. The 757 was bashed from the day of its release and continues to be. It is also supported by a lot of sim enthusiasts. Despite all of the negative comments about it right from the get go a lot of people still bought it. Either that or there's a lot of people lying just claiming to have it. The 767 will sell well, and since it's Captain Sim I'm certain it will look great, but probably have a lot of issues that may, or just as likely may not get worked out over time. My biggest concern will be the frame rates, but then again my computer is a few days old so I'm sure it's outdated by now.

Concerning FSX framerates are going to be an issue and your right about your computer being old. If this thing were for FS9 there would be no problem. As to the CS complaints they were mostly valid due to the idiotic 'Block' system that was being pushed. Now it's a complete product I find very little wrong with it...

Let's be fair, though. The CS727 for FSX doesn't seem to get a lot of complaints, or perhaps that's because there are not many reviews about it still. So, for now, I think we can take off the label people so hastily put on CS saying "every product they make is crap on its release". Any problems people found until now, give or take some minor visual things and other pretty minor stuff, are mostly a question of different expectations.

Paul, try changing fuel_flow_scalar = 0.4 into fuel_flow_scalar = 1.0 in your aircraft.cfgBest regards

Thanks Rafal, I will give that a shot... Any idea on how to change the gauge programming so that the 757 burns from the center tanks first like it should? :( LOL That is the biggest thing that just kills me with this bird. Doing an 8 hour flight and landing with empty wings and all the alarms that goes along with that and a full center tank just really gets under my skin. No one ever argues that CS produces some of the most visually beautiful birds out there, I have never had framerate issues with them but to be fair I do feel some of the issues remaining on the FS9 757 are glaring issues that should have been resolved before the release, let alone just left in the product without even trying to fix them...To some of the others I will not dignify your ludicrous/irrelevant comments with a response but please check your facts before trying to throw others under the bus...From the CS website:The 2.1 is our last release for FS9. For more information on the future of FS9 products please read KB#1004.Enjoy Your Flight!Captain Sim Customer Support So yes,they have stopped producing fixes for FS9 and it has been official for over a year now...Too bad too because with another patch or two the CS 757 "could" have been one of the top FS add-ons ever :( but in its current state no matter how pretty it is it I do not think it can be compared to LVL-D or PMDG who strive for 100% simulation/systems accuracy. I hate to use this analogy but it is like choosing a partner, you have two women, one is incredibly beautiful but dumb as a doorknob, the other also incredibly hot is intelligent, smart, witty and really has it going on inside as well as out. Which one do you choose? I know I go for the hot one WITH brains.... CS is just the pretty girl, PMDG and LVL-D are the hot girl with brains :( Cheers everyone, B) -Paul

For me PSS 757 is still one of the best 757 for FS. CS is not even close to it. CS is kinda, more "eye candy" than the real thing. Quality Wings make a brand new 757, maybe it will blow away both CS and PSS, maybe not. http://www.qualitysim.com/qw.php?

For me PSS 757 is still one of the best 757 for FS. CS is not even close to it. CS is kinda, more "eye candy" than the real thing. Quality Wings make a brand new 757, maybe it will blow away both CS and PSS, maybe not. http://www.qualitysim.com/qw.php?

The PSS 757 had it's own issues. Many find it unusable. I am still certain there's a major memory leak. It also got off to a rough start.Also, Paul. I go for the dumb one so she can't figure out what I'm doing. :(

Well, Captainsim may not make the super-intense high grade Simulation like LevelD or PMDG - BUT - from a developers point of view, they make the prettiest und best 3D models and textures around! At least it looks very flawless, accurate und perfectly done... ;)

For me PSS 757 is still one of the best 757 for FS. CS is not even close to it. CS is kinda, more "eye candy" than the real thing. Quality Wings make a brand new 757, maybe it will blow away both CS and PSS, maybe not. http://www.qualitysim.com/qw.php?

Do you have or know where I can get the patch that allows the autopilot to have backlighting at night???

If it's possible to merge the CS767 model with the LDS767 panel, I think you have a winner. Whatever you say about CS, you can't take away one thing: their aircraft models are superb. And, let's be honest, the LDS767's model is really outdated by now. I think we should give them a chance. And, I don't think their 757 failed. Not anymore anyway. The current FSX version seems to be great (of course, I have the FS9 version, but oh well). I guess CS is a bit like Microsoft: their stuff has only started getting good when the new version came out.

I'm sorry, but as far as Captain Sim models go, their civil airliner ones fall extremely short of the military ones in terms of overall accuracy, especially looking at the screenshots of this 767 they've released. The panel and vc graphics may be better than the Level-D, but that is honestly all they can beat them on, not the external model, not the sounds, and especially not the flight dynamics or systems functionality. I don't understand how the Level-D model is 'outdated' - it's still just as accurate as it was the day it was released, how is it 'outdated'? Because it's been released a few years ago? Heck they just updated for FSX to include all of the extra bells and whistles (such as bump mapping and bloom) of that platform, correct? Keep in mind Captain Sim first previewed their 767 several years ago, possibly even before the Level-D 767 was released. I doubt this model was a complete rebuild since then.I saw somewhere else too that 'it's a good idea since they had already made the 757 virtual cockpit' - no, not really, they never purely made a '757' cockpit, it seems as though it was the first 767 vc they started building those years ago, but they stuck it into the 757 and hardly changed anything (The 757 cockpit IS different from the 767, contrary to popular belief, especially with it being a fair bit smaller than the 767. Sure, most of the systems are the same but there are differences and I doubt CS paid a great deal of attention into considering the details of difference between the two). It also doesn't take long to make a virtual cockpit - to program gauges and systems, sure, but not the actual vc model.That's great that their stuff only gets good when newer versions come out - I personally am a fan of the groups that actually care to get stuff done right on the first time, instead of charging for subsequent and inevitable 'service packs' (and many of them too!) after the initial release. I've been wondering - if the CS 767 exterior model is really as good as you think it is, why are there only 2 screenshots of it (that I can find anyway) on their website?And the textures - yeah, they're pretty spectacular with the dirt and general effects, but then you get to the actual airliner liveries where it's a rarity for them to get any of the airline logos correct. Looking at screenshots of the 757 from a long time ago (regarding the US liveries that I'm interested in, I didn't pay much attention to the others) - the main 3 I looked at - United, Delta and Northwest, all had incorrect fonts and logos. It's not that hard to find this stuff, it's all online somewhere. All of the above is why I refuse to purchase a Captain Sim airliner, never have and never will until they show some real signs of exterior model improvement. (Oh but it's not fair of you to judge an add-on just by screenshots!) Sure it is, that's why they're there in the first place, it's not going to look any different in my simulator.Let me also clarify that I am obviously not looking to get into any argument of any kind, but I just had some observations with this post that I think needed some attention.- Kyle

Do you have or know where I can get the patch that allows the autopilot to have backlighting at night???

You mean those gauges that, on AP panel, don't have backlights? Yeah, that was problem on version 1.1 and 1.2, but 1.3 patch fix it. I don't know how to help you, because i downloded it from PSS site when it was alive. But i think that you can still find it somewhere on net.Or it was 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 version, i can't remember exactly.EDIT: It is 1.3, the last patch released.http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index...howtopic=138565

I'm sorry, but as far as Captain Sim models go, their civil airliner ones fall extremely short of the military ones in terms of overall accuracy, especially looking at the screenshots of this 767 they've released. The panel and vc graphics may be better than the Level-D, but that is honestly all they can beat them on, not the external model, not the sounds, and especially not the flight dynamics or systems functionality. I don't understand how the Level-D model is 'outdated' - it's still just as accurate as it was the day it was released, how is it 'outdated'? Because it's been released a few years ago? Heck they just updated for FSX to include all of the extra bells and whistles (such as bump mapping and bloom) of that platform, correct? Keep in mind Captain Sim first previewed their 767 several years ago, possibly even before the Level-D 767 was released. I doubt this model was a complete rebuild since then.I saw somewhere else too that 'it's a good idea since they had already made the 757 virtual cockpit' - no, not really, they never purely made a '757' cockpit, it seems as though it was the first 767 vc they started building those years ago, but they stuck it into the 757 and hardly changed anything (The 757 cockpit IS different from the 767, contrary to popular belief, especially with it being a fair bit smaller than the 767. Sure, most of the systems are the same but there are differences and I doubt CS paid a great deal of attention into considering the details of difference between the two). It also doesn't take long to make a virtual cockpit - to program gauges and systems, sure, but not the actual vc model.- Kyle

Kyle, I might have taken your point on the differences to an extreme and have viewed a few different photos of both 767 and 757 flight decks. I have noticed differences not only between the two but also from one 757 to another and between various 767's not counting the 767-400 configuration gauges. I don't believe Captain Sim has captured those differences with regards to gauges. While serving no functional purpose, one difference that is not captured accurately is the pilot's oxygen storage compartment in VC. I know this is detail but it appears as if the artwork in the 757 was originally intended for the 767 and the 767 in this area was not finished. But as you noted there is a difference in size of the cockpit. The VC for both of these aircraft do present this perspective of size as well as placement of the cockpit door. I know these are little things but I'm wondering if anyone else caught these and others? Keith

I don't think anybody is denying that CaptainSim makes a good visual model. They are very beautiful. It is the functionality of it that is an issue. Sure it works, but it doesn't work like it should. Us as the end user should not have to go in and mess with the Aircraft.cfg to fix fuel flow. The maximum TOGA epr is 1.42. That equals out to about 90% n1. In reality, that epr would equal out to around 80% n1. A realistic TOGA epr would be 1.65-1.72. You can fix this by changing the inlet area from 34.2 to a higher number, but then it will not climb after 26,000ft. There are issues with every payware aircraft, but the issue lies with the statment from CaptainSim is done with fs9... This person on the CaptainSim forum put it perfectly: Re: v2.2 Reply #4 - 20.05.2009 at 18:53:41 Captain Sim wrote on 20.05.2009 at 15:23:17:rb211 wrote on 20.05.2009 at 02:38:57:Nope - they gave up on us. No, we just "gave up" on outdated and having no prospects FS version (FS9) and sincerely hope all of you will use FSX one day. I just want to make sure I understand Captain Sims official position on a final upgrade to the FS9 version of the 757...Customers, like myself...who orignally may have bought the 757 way back when, using your nearly incomprehensible "block" system...before there even was a 757 for FSX, I might add...and thereby providing you with the capital for the research and development of a fully operational version for FSX...are not going to have access to the same upgrades provided to the customers who bought the FSX product yesterday? This seems to be a very disrespectful and heartless way to pay a loyal customer back...and an ultimately self-defeating business practice...because no matter how great a product you produce in the future I for one, will never buy another CS simulation. In more legal terms...you failed to make me "whole" as a customer, after promising a fully functional product...because it isn't economically viable for you to do at this time...and after you have accepted payment. Sounds like a breach of contract that is turning into a "bait and switch" business tactic to me...Not very pretty. By the way,I am not saying you did this on purpose, I'm only trying to convey how it feels.But more importantly, from a customers point of view, it is at the very least...a breach of trust.I made the commitment to support your development of the original 757 project with the expectation that I would eventually be flying a really great addon...for FS9...not FSX!!! Customers like myself who are willing to take a chance on an "unfinished" product in its early developmental stages are not as easy to come by as you might think... Think long and hard about your next complicated project that may require years to complete...who is going to want to take that chance again and end up with an incomplete product simply because a new version of flight simulator (in what ever form it will take) has been released.Please say that you will reconsider your official position. Complete the FS9 757 project and then end development for the platform.Do the right thing...don't leave loyal customers with a "half baked" product. Finish what you have started! Respectfully,Robert M. DeLorenzo Captain Sims response:Captain Sim Administrator Offline Posts: 845 Re: v2.2 Reply #7 - 20.05.2009 at 20:18:33 We do understand and share FS9 users' feelings, but we announced the Block F (757 2.0) to be the last FS9 release years ago. So there was no tricks or surprises. Our clear message was(is): Keep current - switch to FSX!We even released version 2.1 extra. Unfortunately we cannot afford working for two quite different platforms anymore. So development for FS9 is over (long time ago), all FS9 titles are at bargain sale for 9.99 as is. There is no way back, we have to move forward. Thank you,Enjoy Your Flight!And his response: You've got to be kidding me...We're not asking for 3.0 for goodness sakes!! 2.0 to 2.1 is basicaly the same release very few bug fixes fixed anything...the FMC is still a mess etc.Your position is totally illogical and patently ridiculous...once you put out a version of something you have to support it!!! Imagine if Mercedes Benz put out a car and many of the transmissons didn't work correctly...would they say: sorry we can't afford to work on two different model years at the same time, you'll have to purchase next year's model if you want to stay current and have a working transmission, this year's production run is over, we must move foward...they would be laughed right out of business...a fate that just may befall you in the very near future, by the way.Really now, how many man hours would it take to transfer the bug fixes from FSX to FS9 so you keep your customers satisfied?...Ahh...I might as well be talking to a wall...you'll be moving foward alright...with a lot less customers...good luck!Sorry for the bitter tone...it takes ALOT for me to communicate so sarcasticly...but you finally provided me with enough frustration.With as much respect as I can muster,Robert M. DeLorenzoI rest my caseMatt

I don't think anybody is denying that CaptainSim makes a good visual model. They are very beautiful. It is the functionality of it that is an issue. Sure it works, but it doesn't work like it should. Us as the end user should not have to go in and mess with the Aircraft.cfg to fix fuel flow. Do the right thing...don't leave loyal customers with a "half baked" product. Finish what you have started! Respectfully,Robert M. DeLorenzo

I agree with these points in particular. Until about 2 months ago, I never took time to enjoy sim flying anymore because I was too busy trying to fix and improve everything. By the way I need to stop hijacking the forum. This was an FS9 discussion and I took off with a bunch of FSX stuff several times back. My apology to those who are trying to get the FS9 CS stuff right. I'm done and shall say no more in this thread.Keith