Pessimistic or not, Paul, I AM a realist, which means that I do believe that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Nothing ever gets fixed (anywhere!) unless we speak up. IOW, I agree with everything you wrote -- as usual.Best regards!

Thanks for the updates guys, I am looking forward to giving her another shot!! Glad that this seems to have turned out positively for all of us!!!Great minds think alike Chuck, it is just a question of which of my many mindsets come forward on any given day ;)All the best guys, thanks again for all the responses!-Paul

Thanks for the updates guys, I am looking forward to giving her another shot!! Glad that this seems to have turned out positively for all of us!!!Great minds think alike Chuck, it is just a question of which of my many mindsets come forward on any given day ;)All the best guys, thanks again for all the responses!-Paul

Hey Carl/Chuck,Quick question for you...Are you getting accurate fuel predictions? I just loaded her up for the first time since the patch, loaded a f/p, set my wind predictions, init ref etc, waited for the IRS to align, started APU and went to the PROG page. To my astonishment, my predictions were 48k lbs of fuel on board, 48.0 at my first waypoint, 48.2 at the next one and then a destination FOB of 47.9...Are you guys seeing the same? I uninstalled/ deleted every reference to CS on the system, re-installed and fired it up and this is what I got...Just curious if it is just me?Thx,-P

Paul, I don't use the fuel planner supplied by any aircraft developer -- I use Dispatch Planner X, which bases it's predictions on each plane's aircraft.cfg file. I then double check the calc against my FSPassengers' PIREPs (which now include over 5,000 hours in various aircraft). It's not 100% accurate, but it's been my experience that FS9 itself does not do overly well with fuel burn performance in general, and back in the day when I first saw that PMDG didn't even take a good crack at fuel planning, I decided I needed to go in another direction . . . That being said, I'll set up a flight in the CS when I get home tonight and see what I see and report back here.Sorry I can't be of more help right now.Chuck

Paul, I don't use the fuel planner supplied by any aircraft developer -- I use Dispatch Planner X, which bases it's predictions on each plane's aircraft.cfg file. I then double check the calc against my FSPassengers' PIREPs (which now include over 5,000 hours in various aircraft). It's not 100% accurate, but it's been my experience that FS9 itself does not do overly well with fuel burn performance in general, and back in the day when I first saw that PMDG didn't even take a good crack at fuel planning, I decided I needed to go in another direction . . . That being said, I'll set up a flight in the CS when I get home tonight and see what I see and report back here.Sorry I can't be of more help right now.Chuck

Thanks Chuck,I am talking about the fuel predictions within the FMC on the PROG page... I use FSBuild with an accurate 757200RR .cfg for my Fuel Load so that I can incorporate Winds Aloft for every flight but once I have those numbers and set everything up within the FMC in the sim I cross reference those FSBuild numbers and the fuel I loaded with what the FMC says to see if my load was correct and it looks likes it is just totally bonkers on my system...Thanks again,-PaulEDIT: Now airborne and the clock shows a current time of 15:37 with 1999 mtg to EWR and an arrival time of 15:47. According to this I will hit EWR 10 minutes after my next waypoint in 55 miles... Oh yeah, I will have 41K lbs of fuel when I get there in 10 minutes. And people thought the concorde was fast!!! I wonder why Boeing stopped making these things, cross country in like 12 minutes using like 7.5k lbs of fuel, that has to be a record... This is at 1X btw.After re-installing she seems more like that really dumb ex who was really hot so you went back for one more boink and then you remembered how dumb they were and you walked away forever LOL...(After boinking them again of course!!!)

Paul, I was just getting on to say "I don't think that fuel burn deficiency was fixed. . . sorry" when I saw your post. I can't say that I agree with you about leaving her forever, though -- it doesn't bother me as much. To me she's worth a lot more "boinking". I always liked 'em a little bit dumb, anyway . . . :(

Paul, I was just getting on to say "I don't think that fuel burn deficiency was fixed. . . sorry" when I saw your post. I can't say that I agree with you about leaving her forever, though -- it doesn't bother me as much. To me she's worth a lot more "boinking". I always liked 'em a little bit dumb, anyway . . . :(

LOL... Sometimes the dumb ones are worth keeping around just in case...I agree, she is a beautiful bird, just a shame they can't seem to get these things right... On the bright side she is now burning from the center tanks, on the down side, the FMC is completely off; progress seems to show your arrival 10 minutes after whatever your next waypoint is, fuel predictions are screwed, it is just a shame. As for delivering a complete bug free aircraft CS is at the same level as PSS IMHO which is a shame because their modeling is exceptional and far superior but they just can't work through all their issues...It really makes you wonder who is Beta Testing these things for CS. I know from being a member of the MD-11 beta how diligently a proper beta program can be run and should be run and CS just doesn't seem to have anything close. It took me ten minutes with this bird programming 1 flight with the FMC to identify the issue. Either they aren't testing or just don't care... Either way it is a shame.Cheers,-P

Well, they ARE in Russia, correct? Things are a little . . . "leaner" . . . there than they are in the West. I'm surprised (scared?) that they were able to obtain as much info on the 757 as they did. :(

I'm surprised (scared?) that they were able to obtain as much info on the 757 as they did.

What do you mean, Chuck?

I mean 'I'm surprised at the wealth and detail of aircraft/high technology information readily available to anyone' these days.

I mean 'I'm surprised at the wealth and detail of aircraft/high technology information readily available to anyone' these days.

OK, Chuck, now I get it. I initially understood you're suprised 'because they are Russian'. Sorry, silly me. Too much time spent in the aviation forums. Time to come back to my maddog.And as for your question, yes, it is very interesting. I'm not an aircraft developer myself.So I also wondered not once how all these addon companies get their technical info.Sorry again for this slight misunderstanding.