Jump to content

Archived

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

Benjamin J

I am baffled: CS727

Recommended Posts

There is this sale now at Captain Sim, and so I thought, let's go and look. I couldn't leave it hanging there in the air, so I lashed out and got hold of the Captain Sim 727 and the -200 expansion pack. I was expeting very bad performance, remembering the FPS crises I had with their FS9 757. To my astonishment and eternal happiness, I found the model was flyable at (default) Chicago O hare intl., with 300 WoAI packages and REX2 loaded. I couldn't believe it. In the external views, I get between 15 and 20 FPS, and in the VC about 10, and I can very well live with this. For me, this is fluid enough to enjoy this purchase.I'm impressed, and I'm glad I got it. I ought to look more at FSX! To my astonishment, switching back to Windows XP actually upped my FPS by 5 to 10 points wherever I fly, which enables me now to be busy with FSX aircraft and scenery, that are more complex than the default stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 727 is largely the exception to the "Captain Sim hates frame rates" rule, without losing anything of the art. Maybe the lack of an FMC. Just remember to keep your engines well spooled-up on final :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at my purchase history while buying their 767 the other day, and it turns out I've bought more Captain Sim planes than planes from any other developer by a long shot. In spite of all the criticism leveled at Captain Sim you have to concede that they get it right in the long run, and their planes really have sim appeal. Their C-130, their 757 and the 767 are quickly becoming legendary, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know competition is coming and they want to pull as many customers through the closing window as they can since there are two other 757s in some stage of development. Don't think there are not some clever heads behind the business end of Captain Sim. Some people won't hesitate to have two or maybe even three 757s from different devs, but I bet most people will stick with what they already have if it is decent enough. Plus maybe they got tired of having sand kicked in their faces and have ramped up their game. Whatever the reason, it is a positive trend that should be encouraged.I would like to seem them return to their military roots and do a Sukhoi fighter.As it is, you could have a CS-only hanger with a 727 classic, a C-130 military prop, a 757 and 767. How great would it be to see them do a classic early 737? Or a 747-200? My current system struggles a bit with most of these, but my next one will handle them with ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They know competition is coming and they want to pull as many customers through the closing window as they can since there are two other 757s in some stage of development. Don't think there are not some clever heads behind the business end of Captain Sim. Some people won't hesitate to have two or maybe even three 757s from different devs, but I bet most people will stick with what they already have if it is decent enough. Plus maybe they got tired of having sand kicked in their faces and have ramped up their game. Whatever the reason, it is a positive trend that should be encouraged.I would like to seem them return to their military roots and do a Sukhoi fighter.As it is, you could have a CS-only hanger with a 727 classic, a C-130 military prop, a 757 and 767. How great would it be to see them do a classic early 737? Or a 747-200? My current system struggles a bit with most of these, but my next one will handle them with ease.
Tim - I know of 1 company that is developing the 757 (it rhymes with Level D), which is the other company? I must admit I appreciate CS' trend towards the customer base, glad to see they are listening. Let's see where things go from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 727 is largely the exception to the "Captain Sim hates frame rates" rule, without losing anything of the art. Maybe the lack of an FMC. Just remember to keep your engines well spooled-up on final :-)
Tim,It has been many years since I last flew on a 727. I want to say it was 1991. You are not kidding about the need for engine RPMs on final. I still remember on final to KOAK and sitting window near the wing. First the pilots kept adding flaps. It seemed like the wing doubled in surface area by the time they were finished lowering flaps. And all the way to the runway it sounded like we were spooling up for takeoff. I get good frame rates with the C-130, my 757s and 767s aren't too bad either. Honestly, if things look smooth I don't bother pulling up the counter anymore. They're giving me too much for eyes to handle anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their C-130, their 757 and the 767 are quickly becoming legendary, in my opinion.
I only bought two planes from Captain Sim, the old F-104 that I liked and the C-130 (FS9). The C-130 looks good but some small bugs really iritate me: the flight director does not operate like a real FD, when I made a comment on their forum they almost made fun of me... only one reader with C-130 experience supported me. With 24 years as a military pilot I think I know how a FD works. I can't believe any of the many reviewers never noticed that major bug. It makes it very difficult to fly an approach hands on with the FD bars, like it's done in real life a lot.The other bug is that I was unable to get exterior lights ON until the engines were running, come on! that is a non sense! I have seen C-130s with nav lights ON on APU power on gnd power many times. Maybe it was me who did something wrong...I personnally don't like that lack of attention to detail, the attitude of "good enough", that's why I have limited the products I buy from only a few like PMDG, RealAir, and a few more.I know I will probably upset many Captain Sim supporters, but it is not my intent. I respect everyones choices and preferences, we all have different priorities in what we're looking for in a product.Like I mentionned, I can't believe nobody talks about the FD on that C-130, or maybe it's not important for most users. In real life we use the FD all the time. I sometimes wonder if those bugs were fixed in the FSX version but I won't buy it to find out... or until they fix the FS9 version.CheersDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other company with a 757 in the wings (ha ha) rhymes with Quality Wings and is marketed as a lite version (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim,It has been many years since I last flew on a 727. I want to say it was 1991. You are not kidding about the need for engine RPMs on final. I still remember on final to KOAK and sitting window near the wing. First the pilots kept adding flaps. It seemed like the wing doubled in surface area by the time they were finished lowering flaps. And all the way to the runway it sounded like we were spooling up for takeoff. I get good frame rates with the C-130, my 757s and 767s aren't too bad either. Honestly, if things look smooth I don't bother pulling up the counter anymore. They're giving me too much for eyes to handle anymore.
Well, I would address both posts if I wasn't too dumb to figure out how to do that. Anyway, I can't resist airplanes that just look so cool coming in for a landing with acres of metal hanging out. That's what I really like about the 727.As for realism, the percentage of people who are real pilots of a particular airplane is vanishingly small once you get out of Cessna 172s, and while I understand fidelity is important, after a certain point it is certainly enough "C-130ish" for me. I have only ridden in the back of one. I still remember the name: "Ghost Rider" which was cause for some cracks as we boarded. I was in the Navy and I don't know if the Navy operates C-130s or if it was an Air Force one, which is my guess, since the Navy tends to be more superstitious than to name something like that, I'd imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when I made a comment on their forum they almost made fun of me... only one reader with C-130 experience supported me. With 24 years as a military pilot I think I know how a FD works.
Because their products are mostly purchased by and marketed to people who like "light" simulation, not too difficult and with a "gamy" appeal. Don't expect them to care about properly functioning FD. But I agree with you, a poorly done FD (which basically acts as a simple pointer) pretty much removes any illusion this this simulation is worth anything to someone who knows anything about real flying and aircraft avionics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that's true, but I do know I never really liked the CS forums. Not that people are not unfriendly, but it takes weeks, it seems, to respond to my questions, and if they do, it's most of the time unhelpful (so okay, I've only been there for three questions or so). needless to say, the reason I bought their 727, was because I wanted a 727 for FSX, I knew that system simulation was present to a great degree (if there is buginess, I didn't encounter it yet), and I wanted an easy to fly aircraft (easy, as in "not having to deal with a FMC all the time. Do some handlfying!).I will add that I own both the CS Legendary 727, but I quickly switched over to the Dreamfleet 727, for three reasons:1) I wanted a better visual experience (at least I wanted working buttons in the VC!);2) When asked, people praized the Dreamfeet as a better choice, which brings me to the final reason:3) I wanted the systems to be as accurate as I could get them. I was determined to learn this plane, because I always loved its design and its feel. Plus, I see it as a very good "precursor" to other, more advanced aircraft. So when I understand the 727, I will move on to the Classic 747, Probably the Tinmouse 737, and I also want to learn the Project Tupolev aircraft. it is not coincidence most of these are FS9 only; I use FS9 still for a great deal of my flying, but I'm very curious how the CS727 compares to the older Dreamfleet 727 in system simulation.By the way, how's the CS727 upon saving and loading the flight? I guess that it'll just start up in the way it would start with any flgith, without a ny regard for any instrument settngs you made, right? That said, is there a way to make a "default" cold and dark save for the CS727? See, that's what I never liked about CS products. They could have added some sort of option for start up in that ACE utlity very easily, yet they didn't. It would have made so many things easier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ported the old CS 727 over to FSX with a few ajustments and it gives me better framerates than the default 738. The old one still looks good. I hope they will use the work on the 727 to make a classic 737 once, from 200 to 400. Even though I have Feelthere's, I would buy a CS version. Feelthere's is not quite accurate on the outside model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest firehawk44
I'm impressed, and I'm glad I got it. I ought to look more at FSX! To my astonishment, switching back to Windows XP actually upped my FPS by 5 to 10 points wherever I fly, which enables me now to be busy with FSX aircraft and scenery, that are more complex than the default stuff.
Sometimes reinstalling FSX or deleting the FSX.cfg and letting FSX rebuild the config will clean up your system and make things work better. I assume when you switched back to XP you reinstalled everything. 5-10 FPS isn't much of an improvement but any increase is a plus. I seriously doubt it was the OS itself that improved your FPS though. Sometimes I get major increases whenever I defrag but it doesn't last long. The best increases for me are when I set my config to the default settings or rebuild the FSX.cfg but over time, those increases dimenish. I hope you continue to get 5-10 point increases with XP. I read on tech sites that Windows 7 is going to be a gamer's OS but I suspect that will happen only if you also upgrade your hardware. Hope you continue to enjoy the CS727!Best regards,Jim Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previously I had an installation of Vista. FSX was a clean install, and it ran less well than now, and I optimized it the same way as I did now. I think the difference is quite big between XP and Vista, if I see these performance increases, although I should add my Vista installation was 1 year old and full of crap (although I don't think an OS should be bogged down like that after 1 year...).And I'm completely obsessed with the CS727. it certainly was money well spent. Heck, I even dreamt about it last night, can you imagine...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only bought two planes from Captain Sim, the old F-104 that I liked and the C-130 (FS9). The C-130 looks good but some small bugs really iritate me: the flight director does not operate like a real FD, when I made a comment on their forum they almost made fun of me... only one reader with C-130 experience supported me. With 24 years as a military pilot I think I know how a FD works. I can't believe any of the many reviewers never noticed that major bug. It makes it very difficult to fly an approach hands on with the FD bars, like it's done in real life a lot.
One would have to work very hard to screw up the FD operation...There are only three token variables involved:FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_ACTIVE Bool TRUE=yes. FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_PITCH Float Degrees. FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_BANK Float Degrees. The only possible way to "screw the FD up" would be to not properly calibrate the pitch and bank... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 413X3

I wish dreamfleet was still around and updating their aircraft to fsx. would be really great to have the b58, a36 and 727 among others in fsx in their full glory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have bought the original FS9 727, C130, and 757 from Capt Sim. I don't fly any of them. I really wish more "light" add ons were produced - their 727 would qualify as light IMO. I just don't have the time to lean the complex systems for each aircraft - when I feel like flying, I just want to fly. Call is "gamy" or whatever... People sim for different reasons - I like the immersing quality of good add ons. Immersing for me is the visuals, sounds, scenery and weather - not programming an FMC or navigating as in real life. I just my opinion. I can definitely see why many people prefer complex aircraft.The QW 757 is going to be less light that originally planned. I do believe it will have a working FMC form what I have read. I think they are toying with offering different set ups to appeal to the broadest audience. You may think I'm crazy but the CLS747 was perfect for me. I'd love to see them do a 757 or update their older packages with better VC textures.I just got to stop buying these aircraft that I will never fly. The CS stuff looks so good in the screenshots it is sometimes hard to resist. I bought the 757 thinking that I could doctor it up (down, I guess), add in the default GPS and make some changes but the panel design is too complex for me to change out a few gauges and adjust the views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish dreamfleet was still around and updating their aircraft to fsx. would be really great to have the b58, a36 and 727 among others in fsx in their full glory
Hello,The 727 is available for FSX. As far as the Dreamfleet planes for FS9 are concerned, I've been doing some gauge replacements and getting my A36 to fly in FSX. It was one of those planes I wanted so much for such a long time. I did not want to have a fully dedicated FS9 just to keep some of the old planes around but that has almost been the case for me and the DreamFleet stuff. The Baron is not quite there yet and I have not had the same luck with re-working the panels in the Piper Archer III as I have had with the Bonanza. It would be nice if CS had a few GA planes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One would have to work very hard to screw up the FD operation...There are only three token variables involved:FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_ACTIVE Bool TRUE=yes. FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_PITCH Float Degrees. FLIGHT_DIRECTOR_BANK Float Degrees. The only possible way to "screw the FD up" would be to not properly calibrate the pitch and bank... :(
Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I can say their FD is "screwed up". The vertical bar acts like an track deviation bar, not a FD. The horizontal bar only levels at the selected altitude instead of centering at the appropriate pitch attitude. On the ILS, it gives g/p indications!!!I know nothing about gauge programming but I know a lot about real world flying. Their FD is like a repeater of the HSI. That is NOT the way a real world FD works, I have been flying and using FDs for 24 years so I think I have an idea how they work.Thanks for he comments,Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure it's not Flight Simulator at fault here? They might be simply using the default FD, which might be completely screwed up. I won't surprised if that's the case...I agree that the CLS747 is perfect for a lot of people, including me. Although I will be trying to merge that model with the RFP panels, because I really like to have the ability to do complete startup procedures. Anyway, it's exactly because of the fact that I don't have the time or patience to learn complete aircraft again and again, that I have the Overland World Airliners package: a wide range of aircraft that are easy to fly (and save well!), precisely for those moments that I don't feel like medling with all the buttons.I tell you one thing I miss from the Legendary 727, which is not present in the CS727 Captain, not in the Dreamfleet 727: all the great cockpit voices. I used to love those automated voices when you taxi around, takeoff, descend, prepare for landing etc.I should add, by the way, that my FPS is quite poor when I set weather to anything heavier than "Fair Weather". I flew with that once with this aircraft, and never again. During that flight, I changed the weather back to fair, and my FPS shot up with 20 points. it's a pity, really, but that's just the way it is, I guess. I'd rather fly it in good weather with good performance, than bad weather and bad performance. For bad weather I'll simply stay with FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other add-ons, I believe I use the degree, not the horizontal bar on the FD (which is usually too high) so I don't think this is by any means unique to the C130, nor would I characterize it as a "lite" add-on relative to other add-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sure it's not Flight Simulator at fault here? They might be simply using the default FD, which might be completely screwed up. I won't surprised if that's the case...
I've used the FD tokens in over twenty gauges. Not once has it failed to be accurate once I calibrated it properly. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I can say their FD is "screwed up". The vertical bar acts like an track deviation bar, not a FD. The horizontal bar only levels at the selected altitude instead of centering at the appropriate pitch attitude. On the ILS, it gives g/p indications!!!I know nothing about gauge programming but I know a lot about real world flying.
It wasn't a complicated statement. The default FD tokens work perfectly in any gauge I (or practically every other gauge programmer) have ever coded, provided we take the time to calibrate the pitch and bank...Since you say that the horizontal bar acts like a g/s deviation indicator, clearly they did not program it properly... :(I know quite a bit about both RW flying and gauge programming... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't a complicated statement. The default FD tokens work perfectly in any gauge I (or practically every other gauge programmer) have ever coded, provided we take the time to calibrate the pitch and bank...Since you say that the horizontal bar acts like a g/s deviation indicator, clearly they did not program it properly... :(I know quite a bit about both RW flying and gauge programming... :(
Thanks for the explanation, I guess I'm a little slow sometimes. :( Happy flying,Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ported the old CS 727 over to FSX with a few ajustments and it gives me better framerates than the default 738. The old one still looks good. I hope they will use the work on the 727 to make a classic 737 once, from 200 to 400. Even though I have Feelthere's, I would buy a CS version. Feelthere's is not quite accurate on the outside model.
I am curious...how did you get the old FS9 727 to work in FSX? I would certainly do this if I could get it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...