Well, since no one could answer my FPS question, I went ahead and got the QW 757 to find out for myself.Bad news is when compared to the CS FPS, QW 757 is NO BETTER in FSX :( . I tried 3 airports(EGLL from aerosoft, KSFO default and KGTF default) using same weather, time and scenery settings(essentially just switching between the QW and CS 757 aircraft). Absolutely no improvement in FPS with the QW 757 compared to CS 757, in fact at times the QW was a little slower than the CS by 2-3 FPS. Very disappointing given the fact that the devs were trying to build an FPS friendly model. Maybe it performs way better than the CS 757 in FS9 but certainly not in FSX. Now the model itself is quite nice to look at and the sounds are also noteworthy. One thing that did jump out was that even though the QW was no better in absolute FPS, there was more jerkiness in the sim with the CS model C/W the QW plane. For what its worth I felt this was an ok purchase given the fact that QW gives u 3 variants(I never purchased the CS 300 or Freighter versions). I also liked the free liveries that were a cinch to add on.Alex C

I don't own it yet but I would bet that most will not base their decision off of one "rig". KNowing how FSX has acted crazy one some very capable rigs and some having luck with less likely rigs. I'm gonna wait til there is numbers.

Well, since no one could answer my FPS question, I went ahead and got the QW 757 to find out for myself.Bad news is when compared to the CS FPS, QW 757 is NO BETTER in FSX :( . I tried 3 airports(EGLL from aerosoft, KSFO default and KGTF default) using same weather, time and scenery settings(essentially just switching between the QW and CS 757 aircraft). Absolutely no improvement in FPS with the QW 757 compared to CS 757, in fact at times the QW was a little slower than the CS by 2-3 FPS. Very disappointing given the fact that the devs were trying to build an FPS friendly model. Maybe it performs way better than the CS 757 in FS9 but certainly not in FSX. Now the model itself is quite nice to look at and the sounds are also noteworthy. One thing that did jump out was that even though the QW was no better in absolute FPS, there was more jerkiness in the sim with the CS model C/W the QW plane. For what its worth I felt this was an ok purchase given the fact that QW gives u 3 variants(I never purchased the CS 300 or Freighter versions). I also liked the free liveries that were a cinch to add on.Alex C

For what its worth I felt this was an ok purchase given the fact that QW gives u 3 variants(I never purchased the CS 300 or Freighter versions). I also liked the free liveries that were a cinch to add on.Alex C

Alex,I just purchased the QW 757s. Mostly because I got tired of watching the website and preview videos. They look nice and the sounds are improved over my other payware sounds which I applied to the CS 757s. Each of the engine sounds were great improvements over the GE sounds that come default to the CS products. Even better though is:the 757 product that I previously purchased, was "757 Captain" (Just Flight) which actually contains the CS 757-200, Freighter, and 300 all in the in same box for FS9 and FSX and for a price that was slightly less than the $45 that I paid today for the QW 757s. I have yet to make a full comparison of the two products. I am sure there will be some items better on one product than on the other. I think my plan for the QW 757s will be to use them when I just want to fly and go to CS when I want to run the full check lists. Thank you for sharing your feedback. Keith

Alex,I just purchased the QW 757s. Mostly because I got tired of watching the website and preview videos. They look nice and the sounds are improved over my other payware sounds which I applied to the CS 757s. Each of the engine sounds were great improvements over the GE sounds that come default to the CS products. Even better though is:the 757 product that I previously purchased, was "757 Captain" (Just Flight) which actually contains the CS 757-200, Freighter, and 300 all in the in same box for FS9 and FSX and for a price that was slightly less than the $45 that I paid today for the QW 757s. I have yet to make a full comparison of the two products. I am sure there will be some items better on one product than on the other. I think my plan for the QW 757s will be to use them when I just want to fly and go to CS when I want to run the full check lists. Thank you for sharing your feedback. Keith

I agree. It seems to be a good purchase. Still a few bugs that come with new releases, but a stable flight. I believe it has to have the best engine sound of any sim out of the package.Nice looking cockpit but the overhead could have been sharper.Some are complaining that you can't get rid of the yokes, but that doesn't bother me because the ND has a click-spot for a pop-up panel along with the EADI and FMC/CDU, so there is really nothing obstructed by the yoke.I'm not having any problem with FPS, but I don't with Captain Sim's 757 either.I do like that the yokes move very smoothly responding to the autopilot. Some of the other airline sims that I have, the yokes move jerky when autopilot is engaged. This looks more real that way.I'll be flying it off and on, but will probably stay with Captain Sim's version more just because it is more complex and with the latest service pack, seems to fly better than ever.Also since QW757 was actually created for FS9, it doesn't have all of the bump-mapping and extra graphic perks that come with FSX native products. Not a big deal though.Bob

Well, since no one could answer my FPS question, I went ahead and got the QW 757 to find out for myself.Bad news is when compared to the CS FPS, QW 757 is NO BETTER in FSX :( . I tried 3 airports(EGLL from aerosoft, KSFO default and KGTF default) using same weather, time and scenery settings(essentially just switching between the QW and CS 757 aircraft). Absolutely no improvement in FPS with the QW 757 compared to CS 757, in fact at times the QW was a little slower than the CS by 2-3 FPS. Very disappointing given the fact that the devs were trying to build an FPS friendly model. Maybe it performs way better than the CS 757 in FS9 but certainly not in FSX. Now the model itself is quite nice to look at and the sounds are also noteworthy. One thing that did jump out was that even though the QW was no better in absolute FPS, there was more jerkiness in the sim with the CS model C/W the QW plane. For what its worth I felt this was an ok purchase given the fact that QW gives u 3 variants(I never purchased the CS 300 or Freighter versions). I also liked the free liveries that were a cinch to add on.Alex C

Maybe it's your airports causing your problem, try lowering the autogen.

Where does the FMC get its navdata from? Does it have procedures?

Where does the FMC get its navdata from? Does it have procedures?

It has its own NAVDATA and is supported by FsBuild which is current at 0912. I've had 3 flights with it now and on all but one STAR I was able to follow procedures. The one time was my mistake and my first flight. I will say it has some issues with the auto throttle & VREF but both problems are known. I'm getting decent FPS in FSX and have flown to and from UK2000's EGPF & EGBB and Aerosoft's EDDT an airport that my CS757 performed really poor at (v4.3) I haven't tried v4.4 yet.

Okay, I got it. Frame rates seem the same as the CS757. For the most part it seems a little more solid out of the box, and there is no rocking or any other weirdness going on that required considerable tweaking with the CS757. On the other hand, it is not as detailed, although I wouldn't call it lite. Graphically it is not nearly up to Captain Sim standards, but then, what is? It is a nice-looking airplane in its own right, although some of the stuff on the overhead doesn't look all that good. The panel looks very nice, in my opinion. For the graphics, I'd expect better frame rates, and they could have had a much stronger product vis a vis Captain Sim if they could have come up with Coolsky-like frame rates. The yoke blocking the view is a little annoying since I'm used to the Captain's unobstructed view. The navigation database does seem to be pretty complete.I like it. I think it will make a great alternative to the Captain Sim 757 when I want a little more relaxation. I'll be interested to see how well it plays with REX weather.

In case some of you guys don't know by now we released a hot fix today for those of you reporting extremely low frame rates. It was a gauge issue and is now resolved.

Okay, I got it. Frame rates seem the same as the CS757. For the most part it seems a little more solid out of the box, and there is no rocking or any other weirdness going on that required considerable tweaking with the CS757. On the other hand, it is not as detailed, although I wouldn't call it lite. Graphically it is not nearly up to Captain Sim standards, but then, what is? It is a nice-looking airplane in its own right, although some of the stuff on the overhead doesn't look all that good. The panel looks very nice, in my opinion. For the graphics, I'd expect better frame rates, and they could have had a much stronger product vis a vis Captain Sim if they could have come up with Coolsky-like frame rates. The yoke blocking the view is a little annoying since I'm used to the Captain's unobstructed view. The navigation database does seem to be pretty complete.I like it. I think it will make a great alternative to the Captain Sim 757 when I want a little more relaxation. I'll be interested to see how well it plays with REX weather.

I don't know, I don't think it's much behind the CS757. The exterior is as good, for sure, and CS made a HUGE, blatant mistakes in the VC. Go look at the throttle quadrant. That's a standard 767 throttle quadrant for all I know. I have looked at several real world photographs, and the 757 has quite a different throttle quadrant than the one modeled in the CS757. For the rest, I think the QW757 VC is simply more realistic, also the brown color seems better to me. That said, the switches and knobs and whatever do look more precise in the CS757.

Right now I'm having problems. Graphically, the overhead is a bit of a drag on an otherwise nice VC. I'll read through the manual to make sure I'm not committing errors on my own. I'll try the framerate fix. I'll forgive a lot if it is a significant improvement over Captain Sim framerates. I don't really have enough time with it to comment on whether it was worth the money yet, and it really isn't fair to go with first reactions. The manual looks well-done and was of a length to make printing the thing out on an inkjet printer feasible. Congratulations on those able to register at their forum! I failed to correctly transcribe the pale green Cyrillic and Mayan letters on the pale green background, so I got the "go away, you stupid blind old fart, and come back after you take your meds and get some glasses." So I can't find out why my fuel gauge tells me I have no fuel, or why my fuel pump buttons don't work. I'll try again after I have been sufficiently punished.I will say the flying characteristics seem rock solid and I like the loader that gives the correct ZFW. The frame rate fix didn't though. I'm still getting 14 fps at KMIA with no traffic at medium high settings, i.e. similar to Captain Sim's 757. This wouldn't keep me from flying it, but it doesn't put a smile on my face like Coolsky's frame rates. "Frame rate optimized" seems a bit of marketing hyperbole.

I changed my frame rates to unlimited and it seemed to help.could be a placebo though - it was 2am.

Contact box doesn't work, either, since I get an error message. If anyone has access to the forum administrator, I'd appreciate an assist. They can email me at [email protected]. I have some questions.

Tim,Please sign up on our forum.

Tim,Please sign up on our forum.

He can't, as he can't seem to see the letters in the captcha box. Or at least, he doesn't succeed in seeing the right ones. Mind you, I have ahd the problem often, and it sometimes takes me up to the times to type it exactly as the computer wants it, even though I often think I typed exactly what it says. So, Tim, I think you ought to try it again and again until it does work... I have frustrating experiences with it, but in the end it always worked for me.