Hi,I know this is a light version (system wise), but the released version doesn't have a turn coordinator?.That's a little to light for me.

All I want to know is what's the functionality of the FMC and can you see the route on the ND screen. If you can see the route on the ND screen that's good enough for me versus the NAV/VOR display sitting there with no route situational awareness. 'Lite' birds have their place as you can accelerate time up to 16x on long haul flights. I'd love to see an A300, 330, 340, modeled with a VC on this level maybe even a 744 (thanks to CLS we have the 742, DC10, not too keen on their A330). If the ND screen displays the right amount of data so you can keep track of your progress then I'm all for it. I hate the hardcore heavies that offer you little options but to have your computer idle for 8 hours running Flight Simulator (no time acceleration support in the name of realism, let's save that for short haul). I may need to check but last I flew the PMDG 744 you couldn't do anything but fly in real time. The MD11 by contrast is amazing as you have a detailed heavy that's well rounded even in the time acceleration department (8x). There's too many things to mention but PMDG really got the MD11 right... We need more of than when it comes to heavy development. Airsimmers A320 can't be ran in anything but real time. That's great for the A320 series but I might have to pass if nothing changes when they dive in the long haul A330/340 series...Getting back to what I started this off with, if your going to do glass display aircraft the screens need to say something outside of default information or you may as well size this up as freeware quality. These aircraft have FMC's and detailed info on the glass displays. When doing older aircraft like the DC-10 or the much requested BAE-146, less effort is needed as these are traditional gauge aircraft (which is why I can't understand why developers don't make it easy on themselves versus the 757/767). I can't deal with CLS's 767 or this 757 if all that comes up on the ND screen is what you get with default aircraft or freeware Posky models. Posky has a great 777 with an outstanding VC giving you nothing in the way of real information on the display screens. It looks silly all those displays in some cases saying the same thing in the 777. Why pay for the same in a payware model? So I hope we have at least Eaglesoft functionality (Beechjet v2) in the display screens with some fraction of FMC functionality.

Emil:Then how about spelling out what your aircraft DOES model and what it DOESN'T. The information on your website is extremely vague. What on the overhead is not modeled. What systems are not modeled. What parts of the FMC is not modeled. How about your flight model is it based on a 757 or not. You've listed the features of the external model but really don't say much about the flight deck modeling.When you say "heavily customize" what does this mean? If the systems don't exist heavily customization won't mean much. For instance, your IRS modeling, does it have a realistic time period of ~10 minutes or is it instant on like CS 757? These are the details that people need. Help us to help you!People are going to go by the opinions of those who have purchased it unless you SPELL OUT what you product does and doesn't do. So far I am seeing posts that make your aircraft sound 'lite", and, I'm not willing to spend $45 to find out (and I suspect neither are a lot of people). Turn your marketing skills up a notch, I'm not willing to pay for a lite product but am willing to pay for a medium product.

Mike,Sorry, but I fail to see how what's included in the product is vague on our website.The overhead is the most simplified area of the product, we did however model all autopilot modes except backcourse, and have a VERY functional FMS.You can literally take a flightaware flightplan and fly it with real sids and stars, or import an FS Build or Defualt MSFS flightplan.You'll be able to perform all necessary areas in the FMS, entering vspeeds, setting custom VNAV speed and altitude constraints etc. It's all in the manual...The only areas we simplified in the FMS were removing CoGs, Temperature deviations etc. But I can assure you everything else is there. The product comes with the latest AIRAC (0912) and will be updated when we have Navigraph support which we are currently working on.I feel that a lot of this "lite" criticism is unfair and misguided, when I think of a lite aircraft I think of a CLS offering, we've simulate much more than that.

EDIT: A bit random, putting this in this post, but I think the sounds are great. Much better than in the CS757, in my opinion.

Thank you sir, those took a long time to make. I'm glad you appreciate the realism.

All I want to know is what's the functionality of the FMC and can you see the route on the ND screen. If you can see the route on the ND screen that's good enough for me versus the NAV/VOR display sitting there with no route situational awareness.

It's all there man, we have a complete EFIS control panel with all map modes modeled, you'll be able to view your route and even see your departure and arrivals runways as entered from FMC.We also have TCAS included and the retrofit panel that several cargo 767 operators use, American Airlines has signed a deal with this company to retrofit their B757 fleet.Emil

I don't have the FSX version installed and the livery installer is in FS9 mode. But still, it won't install.Edit: After installing the FSX version, which I'll probably never use, I can install liveries to FS9. Whatever :(

This because, you have probably used one of those utilities that mess your registry, to fool FS9 installers to install into FSX in order to let you install an addon made for FS9 into FSX. Now, your FS9 registry key is probably pointing to the FSX folder, which is not desiderable if you have *both* FS9 and FSX installed on the same system because now, all the FS9 installers will probably think your FSX folder is your FS9 one, and they don't have any means to find your real FS9 folder, in case you really need it. Those utilities might be somewhat useful if one has only FSX installed, but shouldn't be used if one has both under the same Windows installation.

Mike,Sorry, but I fail to see how what's included in the product is vague on our website.The overhead is the most simplified area of the product, we did however model all autopilot modes except backcourse, and have a VERY functional FMS.You can literally take a flightaware flightplan and fly it with real sids and stars, or import an FS Build or Defualt MSFS flightplan.You'll be able to perform all necessary areas in the FMS, entering vspeeds, setting custom VNAV speed and altitude constraints etc. It's all in the manual...The only areas we simplified in the FMS were removing CoGs, Temperature deviations etc. But I can assure you everything else is there. The product comes with the latest AIRAC (0912) and will be updated when we have Navigraph support which we are currently working on.I feel that a lot of this "lite" criticism is unfair and misguided, when I think of a lite aircraft I think of a CLS offering, we've simulate much more than that.Thank you sir, those took a long time to make. I'm glad you appreciate the realism.It's all there man, we have a complete EFIS control panel with all map modes modeled, you'll be able to view your route and even see your departure and arrivals runways as entered from FMC.We also have TCAS included and the retrofit panel that several cargo 767 operators use, American Airlines has signed a deal with this company to retrofit their B757 fleet.Emil

I got the plane today; it has a perfectly adequate panel and systems. We're not talking Level-D or PMDG here, but it's head and shoulders above the thinly disguised FS functions offered by CLS. The FMC appears to be derived from Ernie Alston's FMC offerings and is quite functional. For anyone except a hardcore systems fan, this one will do just fine.The model detail is incredible! Drop the flaps and take a look at the actuators and the area in the wing that is normally hidden by the flaps...DJ

For instance, your IRS modeling, does it have a realistic time period of ~10 minutes or is it instant on like CS 757? These are the details that people need. Help us to help you!

Hi Mike.Its not, it aligns in less than a minute.To be honest we just did not feel the majority of our target audience (lite to Med users) would have the patience to sit there ands wait for the IRS's toalign in real time.

People are going to go by the opinions of those who have purchased it unless you SPELL OUT what you product does and doesn't do. So far I am seeing posts that make your aircraft sound 'lite", and, I'm not willing to spend $45 to find out (and I suspect neither are a lot of people). Turn your marketing skills up a notch, I'm not willing to pay for a lite product but am willing to pay for a medium product.

I think if one compares the features in this product, then compares the features normally found in other 'Lite' Products, its fair to say this product has more features than what is normally seen in a lite product.But I think people have different interpretations of what is a Medium product , perhaps because there aren't that many examples of it.So I leave the labels up to you guys, but functionality wise, ask me a specific question about a feature and I'll give you a direct answer whether it has it or not. Regards.Ernie Alston.QualityWings 757 Gauge Programmer.

As far as I can tell this is what is what you can operate on the overhead.http://www.kitte.ax/quality.jpgThe bird is very very beautiful and the I love the sounds, but I am afraid it's just way too simplified fo me when I am used to PMDG, LevelD, Leonardo, DA Fokker 70/100 et al and like to operate by real world checklists. Now, I can't really complain since all the limitations were mentioned in the manual that was released long time ago but I am afraid this aircraft will mainly be used BY ME for taking screenshots of a gorgeous airplane model.

This plane really grows on me. The more time I spend with it, the more I like it. I'm a bit saddened still that I can't really mess with the overhead stuff, but then again, I'm also glad because it means that when I reload my saved flight, I don't have to start resetting everything there. After looking at the FMC, it really is true that it seems to be very well simulated, and so is the A/P. I will be spending more time with this bird and I'll see how it fairs on long haul flights. I do know that to me it seems better than the CS757. I mean, the CS757 has a 767 style throttle quadrant... That's very sloppy, and that's just one of the mistakes.Yes, I like it. I will continue to explore it. And the sounds... oh the sounds... *drools* The way the engines spool up is simply amazing, it sounds so utterly real!I'll add that I'm also used to LDS767 and PMDG 747 style systems. But, sometimes, I feel I need to get away from the hard core stuff, and just want to takeoff and fly. This 757 will be perfectly suited for that.

Fact also remains that the 757 is the sexiest airliner ever built, well according to me, and the number of beautiful liveries from Qualitysim is great. Hopefully it will grow on me and and I will able to look away from the fact that is simply isn't supposed to be PMDG/LevelD level.

This because, you have probably used one of those utilities that mess your registry, to fool FS9 installers to install into FSX in order to let you install an addon made for FS9 into FSX. Now, your FS9 registry key is probably pointing to the FSX folder, which is not desiderable if you have *both* FS9 and FSX installed on the same system because now, all the FS9 installers will probably think your FSX folder is your FS9 one, and they don't have any means to find your real FS9 folder, in case you really need it. Those utilities might be somewhat useful if one has only FSX installed, but shouldn't be used if one has both under the same Windows installation.

Thanks for trying to help.If I do have one of those strange things you mention, it's the first time I've heard of it. Some utility to mess my registry? What's that? I've recently installed Aerosoft EDDH and EDDT plus REX FS9 without any problems about things trying to go into FSX. They went happily into FS9. As did the QWB757. I don't buy products for FSX only.Anyway, the problem seems to have been solved after installing the QWB757 into FSX.I'm intrigued about this registry thing though. Never had a problem about installing anything into FS9 before. Could the QWB757 installer for FS9 have done something weird?Anyone?

I hate to say it, some people don't like alot of realism (this is not me), but on the other hand, if one is going to design an acrft which seems in high demand then either do it with the expectations which are in mind or leave it alone. It makes no sense to put something on the market when it fails to meet the demands that customers have placed on it. I am sure for some this acrft will suffice, but for me there are developers out there who have products which once you have used their products it is very difficult to buy into something which is not on the same level. It will be interesting to see how this bird flies in the $$$$$ skies. Maybe my comments are a bit harsh but we will see what others have to say.

I hate to say it, some people don't like alot of realism (this is not me), but on the other hand, if one is going to design an acrft which seems in high demand then either do it with the expectations which are in mind or leave it alone. It makes no sense to put something on the market when it fails to meet the demands that customers have placed on it.

I have to disagree with what you are saying.You are basically saying that if we do not meet your expectations of what the product should be we should not do it.I just do not agree with that.We aimed for a certain part of the market, that was the lite to medium user. We know some of the high end users would be outsideof that part of the market, as well as some of the low end users.The problem we have here is apparently some people interpreted 'Medium' to mean things we saw as high end.We saw medium as things like GDI+ EFIS displays (with moving map display, and multiple display modes) , a detailed Virtual Cockpit, and Exterior modelling. An FMS that has more functionality than what is normally found in 'Lite' products. LNAV, VNAV ,thrust modes, alt and speed restrictions, holding patterns, autoland etc.These are features that we saw were not typically in a Lite product that we felt brought it to medium level.Others saw Medium apparently as all those things, 'plus' a fair amount of functionality in the overhead panel, where 80% of the switcheswere functionbal and an almost completely clickable virtrual cockpit,etc, etc.To me if you include all the features I mentioned above, you basically have a high end product, not a medium to lite product.But that's all a matter of interpretation isn't it ? But who's interpretation of medium is the correct one ? The fans of the high end products such as PMDG or LDS their interpretation of medium is likely much higher than the CLS/Overland fans interpretion is.Regards.Ernie.QualityWings 757 Gauge Programmer

I hate to say it, some people don't like alot of realism (this is not me), but on the other hand, if one is going to design an acrft which seems in high demand then either do it with the expectations which are in mind or leave it alone. It makes no sense to put something on the market when it fails to meet the demands that customers have placed on it. I am sure for some this acrft will suffice, but for me there are developers out there who have products which once you have used their products it is very difficult to buy into something which is not on the same level. It will be interesting to see how this bird flies in the $$$$$ skies. Maybe my comments are a bit harsh but we will see what others have to say.

My first thought after having fired up the ac and noticed the rather lacking level of functionality on the overhead, was Refund! However, first of all Qualitysim has never stated it will be a LevelD/PMDG kind of bird, quite the opposite, and the manual has been available for a long time and there all limitations have been documented. Secondly, having now handflown it a bit, I'd rather appreciate it for its looks, sound and well behaviour in the air. I simply have to adjust my checklist, and frankly, I have at times wished for this kind of bird when I've been flying on VATSIM and noticing that ATC has left once I get my 767 or 747 fully configued. I do find it a bit expensive in comparison to what it delivers, but I certainly can afford it and if I use it for say 20 hours, I definitely think I've had my money's worth.To sum up, I do think the bird is what Qualitysim said it was supposed to be, I knew the price and accepted it since I bought it. I just have to adjust my way of flying! Did I say it looks and sounds gorgeous? :D

Anyway, the problem seems to have been solved after installing the QWB757 into FSX.I'm intrigued about this registry thing though. Never had a problem about installing anything into FS9 before. Could the QWB757 installer for FS9 have done something weird?

I think that fact the problem was fixed by installing the FSX version, and you had such issue when you only installed the FS9 version, clearly proves your registry was already messed up before installing the QW757.I'm quite sure of it, since I wrote both the Livery Manager *and* the QW757 installer :)BOTH installers will of course try to find the sim in the location pointed by the Windows registry. If everything is normal, an user that has both FS9 and FSX installed without anything messed up, should have his FS9 registry key pointing to the actual FS9 folder, and the FSX registry key pointing to the actual FSX folder.There are some utilites that, in order to allow installers made for FS9 to install in FSX a product that, wasn't for the installer, would otherwise run in FSX, change the FS9 registry keys to point to the FSX folder so, those installer will be fooled and will install into FSX, even if they were made before FSX was even conceived. To help this, Microsoft has even put a dummy FS9.EXE in the FSX folder because, many installers don't simply blindly copy files into the folder pointed by the registry, but also check for safety if there's an FS9.EXE there. The QW757 installer does this, and the Livery Manager does it as well.Flight1 has a free utility that will check and fix both your FS9 and FSX registry entries:http://www.flight1software.com/files/FS_Registry_Repair.exe

I hate to say it, some people don't like alot of realism (this is not me), but on the other hand, if one is going to design an acrft which seems in high demand then either do it with the expectations which are in mind or leave it alone. It makes no sense to put something on the market when it fails to meet the demands that customers have placed on it. I am sure for some this acrft will suffice, but for me there are developers out there who have products which once you have used their products it is very difficult to buy into something which is not on the same level. It will be interesting to see how this bird flies in the $$$$$ skies. Maybe my comments are a bit harsh but we will see what others have to say.

I have used (and continue to use) most of the high end products that are available. I enjoy them quite a bit and have learned to use them as they were designed to be used. I also have, and use, less sophisticated products (JetCity, PMDG Lite, 50North, etc...) and enjoy them as well. Each has a place in my virtual skies according to my time, mood, and whim. To declare that your expectation should be the arbiter of what is or isn't developed for the market seems a little over the top. The market will decide success. If you are only interested in highly technical implementations, I'm sure the Level D 757 will satisfy you immensely (though only in FSX). As for me, I bought the product today and expect it will fill a niche of its own - whatever its level of technical complexity may or may not be, it is a beautiful plane.DJ