Tim, I'm using 4.4 and having no "rocking or yawing" issues at all with the upgrade.

I couldn't care less what so called majority you think you fall under. You don't need to read 300 page manuals to figure out how to operate a 757 or 747. You just need to follow the tutorials to learn the airplane.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you think either. What I do care about is developers continuing to make a wide range of products - not just the uber realistic systems stuff. People have different styles and just because I want something that is a little less systems intensive doesn't mean that I should have to suffer with add ons that provide a poor visual experience.It is my $ and I have responsibility to let developers know what they need to do the get me to part with it.And yes, you can just follow the tutorial but to fly it right, you need to read the manual.In my post I was responding to your post that belittled those that like a aircraft that is a lighter in the systems modeling by stating "Whats so complicated about the systems?" Why do you think they need a 300 page manual to explain them? If it was so quick and easy, the manual could be 10 pages long.The bottom line is everybody does not think like you - "The more realistic the better." Realism and something being "better" are subjective terms and developers should not take a one size fits all approach to developing add ons. Doing so does nothing to better this hobby and in the end, it may alienate beginners and those that just want to fly rather than manage the systems of a simulated $150,000,000 aircraft.

I don't have 4.3 anymore. I guess it got overwritten.

Tim,Just curious, are you using FSUIPC for wind smoothing? If so, try disabling Turbulence effects in FSUIPC wind and cloud options, and see if the rocking stops. The PMDG birds had serious problems holding heading when wind smoothing was initially enabled in FSUIPC, and disabling turbulence effects stopped the issue. I've just kept it off in my setup, and have no rocking/rolling issues with the CS 757 4.4.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you think either. What I do care about is developers continuing to make a wide range of products - not just the uber realistic systems stuff. People have different styles and just because I want something that is a little less systems intensive doesn't mean that I should have to suffer with add ons that provide a poor visual experience.It is my $ and I have responsibility to let developers know what they need to do the get me to part with it.And yes, you can just follow the tutorial but to fly it right, you need to read the manual.In my post I was responding to your post that belittled those that like a aircraft that is a lighter in the systems modeling by stating "Whats so complicated about the systems?" Why do you think they need a 300 page manual to explain them? If it was so quick and easy, the manual could be 10 pages long.The bottom line is everybody does not think like you - "The more realistic the better." Realism and something being "better" are subjective terms and developers should not take a one size fits all approach to developing add ons. Doing so does nothing to better this hobby and in the end, it may alienate beginners and those that just want to fly rather than manage the systems of a simulated $150,000,000 aircraft.

the difference is you want a limited product to suit you, I am saying that a true sim airplane can be dumbed down, not dumbed up. you want to just get in and fly? great, load her up with engines running and take off.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you think either. What I do care about is developers continuing to make a wide range of products - not just the uber realistic systems stuff. People have different styles and just because I want something that is a little less systems intensive doesn't mean that I should have to suffer with add ons that provide a poor visual experience.It is my $ and I have responsibility to let developers know what they need to do the get me to part with it.And yes, you can just follow the tutorial but to fly it right, you need to read the manual.In my post I was responding to your post that belittled those that like a aircraft that is a lighter in the systems modeling by stating "Whats so complicated about the systems?" Why do you think they need a 300 page manual to explain them? If it was so quick and easy, the manual could be 10 pages long.The bottom line is everybody does not think like you - "The more realistic the better." Realism and something being "better" are subjective terms and developers should not take a one size fits all approach to developing add ons. Doing so does nothing to better this hobby and in the end, it may alienate beginners and those that just want to fly rather than manage the systems of a simulated $150,000,000 aircraft.

Jeff, I agree with you 100%. I simply can not get that interested in the super complex products, but I'll gladly pay for the high quality graphics and sounds of the simpler higher quality products. I have not purchased any addon ac for FSX because CLS and others have had disappointing reviews in one or more areas. I will, however, purchase this one if, after the fixes, it is deemed to be top notch in all aspects.Bruce

Tim, I'm using 4.4 and having no "rocking or yawing" issues at all with the upgrade.

Bob, I changed to an earlier version of FSUIPC and am having the first nearly perfect flight with the 4.4 version. I don't have a registered version, so can't try changing anything inside of it, but if this continues to work I'm golden.To get back on topic, QW is having some teething issues, it looks like from the official bug list alone. Good luck to them. Hopefully they can get an upgrade out quickly that will start resolving problems.

To get back on topic, QW is having some teething issues, it looks like from the official bug list alone. Good luck to them. Hopefully they can get an upgrade out quickly that will start resolving problems.

They are saying early Februaury for SP1. Based on their previous track record of not disclosing dates, I would imagine they are padding the date. They will also probably release hot fixes as they become available. I think the have already released 3 or 4 so far.

It takes a big set of stones to put the word "quality" in your brand. Sadly, I wish I had my $45 back. The sim world does NOT need another "beauty queen" product: great to look at, but scatterbrained. I actually jumped on the product due to the promised Navigraph support, but I suppose I should have listened to that little voice inside that screamed "WILCO!" "FT!" "CLS!" "Rubbish!" I must also admit that I thought Ernie Alston's presence on the crew would have meant greater "quality," but the product, in its released state, is just not "quality" at all. True, you do get the whole 757 line, liveries, a livery manager, widescreen 2D pits, a fairly attractive VC; however, notice that all of the positives are in the looks department! Okay, there is one thing that is nice that is not in the looks department: handflying is nice. Okay and another, Ernie's gauge work is as strong as ever (for the parts of it that work). However, with respect to how much is broken, the looks aren't enough. What I don't understand is why Quality Wings would risk their nascent reputation with such a poor showing out of the gate. Didn't they watch their bretheren over at CLS and learn? CLS is currently residing in the "where are they now" file as a result of the weak "lite" pablum they've shoveled. Okay, CLS is actually ready to spring a "lite" 767 to go along with this "lite" 757 sometime soon, so they're still truckin'. (I wonder if there is some market collusion here? Or, did Boeing leak some specs information on their 757/767 line and everyone is jumping on it? The 757/767 are getting massive top billing while Airbus projects languish)Sure, sure, many of you will now chime in and say: "but look at the service they are giving us! Look at how they talk to us in the forum." You might be fine paying some portion of money to have someone chat with you in a forum thread, but I would have rather have saved the typing on both sides by having Quality Wings hold this product off the market longer such that it could have fully baked. Christmas sales indeed. In general, I think that the presence of Project Opensky alumni might pull the product too much towards amatuer/lite status, Ernie's involvement notwithstanding. I appreciate a team having a "vision" for their product, but why bother making a manual with so many pages which describe what the sim does NOT do? The manual has lengthy explanations of systems which, in the end, are not there. Trying to be all things to all customers will make you be very little to most of them. Be that as it may, it their blood, sweat and tears and they are entitled to their "vision;" I am not charging them with too much opacity at all.Of course, we are reminded that they've shared their vision with us for months, but I don't think the problems are with the "vision," I think these are problems related to a batch of cookies not fully baked. I know every development team must do at least 1 or 2 Service Packs these days, so I hope for the best like the rest of us. I suppose I just wasn't prepared for the level of "lite" I encountered in trying to do just 1 flight, airliner-style. Register at the quality wings forum yourself to read a long litany of woes. You'll read how nearly all problems are on a SP1 list, but wow, what a doosey of a list. I just don't think "kick the tires and light the fires" goes well with airliner simulation. Why not do the Cooksky route and try to TEACH your customers how to use the bird?Don't get me wrong though: she's a looker and there is clearly a market for beauty over brains.Caveat Emptor Extremus! Especially for the impatient who are tired of waiting for the Real McCoy. I admit to making this purchase in impatience with a dash of wishful thinking thrown in (and also, like I said, Ernie Alston's involvement). I think an entire secondary market exists for those of us waiting for the real McCoy and, in some way, I guess I'm glad to keep ANY flightsim add-on market going. Maybe the Airsimmer, pay-to-beta isn't a bad idea: perhaps more bugs are found once you get the software off the dev machines of the team and into the "wild." Wel... nope, they wen't "lite" and buggy themselves. Maybe we don't need dozens of dev teams. Maybe, like with the real thing, it takes too many resources to build high-quality airliners; we'd be better off by consolidating FS developers into just a few dev houses.I do wish Quality Wings the best as I feel their heart/attitudes are in the right place. But! Make no mistake, you'll need to also purchase a can of RAID if you purchase the "Ultimate 757 Collection" in its current state. This could (and I hope will) all change with SP1.Caveat Emptor Extremus!

I know I am not alone. We are the silent majority.

Of course you are, as with all other things in life, most people want things fast, cheap and easy. The massive money goes into low-brow products across the human spectrum. So, yes, a "lite" airliner is "low-brow" as it is, by definition, a dumbing down of something that is naturally quite complex. In a primary product whose by-line was "as real as it gets" it would seem that the height of acheivement is to be able to simulate and model the thing as it is in real life. Of course, I concede that, being consumer-grade simulation software, the "game" aspects allow us to achieve whatever level of fidelity that makes us happy.Regarding flightsim: the market is actually FLOODED with that which keeps you happy. We fidelity junkies get our fix so far and few inbetween that we get duped into buying the low-grade stuff that makes so many happy. Once we get this weak sauce in our mouths, we naturally and bitterly compain (see my earlier post) at the shock of the taste. Trust me, these middling and low-brow suppliers have us impatient high-quality guys as a substantial part of their market.In any case, I suppose you have had enough with us high-fidelity lovers oppressing you, the silent majority, with our need to use a Flight Simulator to achieve maximum fidelity in modeling complex multi-million-dollar fine works of engineering, crastmanship and science. I somewhat agree. We lot really need to be paying $$$$ rather than waiting 3-4 years for PMDG to give us our fix for $$. Don't worry, my guess is that Microsoft's next "Flying Game" will give you what you love in spades and will have you rid of us noisy minority for good. You'll probably have a ball playing your "lite" products on your XBOX720 Controller. It'll certainly be cheaper than chasing the holy grail of high-fidelity like us in the crazed vocal minority.

In any case, I suppose you have had enough with us high-fidelity lovers oppressing you, the silent majority, with our need to use a Flight Simulator to achieve maximum fidelity in modeling complex multi-million-dollar fine works of engineering, crastmanship and science. I somewhat agree. We lot really need to be paying $$$$ rather than waiting 3-4 years for PMDG to give us our fix for $$. Don't worry, my guess is that Microsoft's next "Flying Game" will give you what you love in spades and will have you rid of us noisy minority for good. You'll probably have a ball playing your "lite" products on your XBOX720 Controller. It'll certainly be cheaper than chasing the holy grail of high-fidelity like us in the crazed vocal minority.

Why go there? Why must you personally attack me? I acknowledge that the desire for highly complex add ons is valid. It is just not my cup of tea. I want wonderful graphics but not the massive learning curve. Why is that so hard to understand?Well since you singled me out for special treatment, I'll say something that I have avoided until now - blame yourself because you have provided the perfect springboard. The only time I hear the term "low-brow" used is when it is used by a snob. Basically, you are a FS-Snob. Now, that isn't necessarily derogatory term and I don't mean it to be. I am a snob on many other fronts (resorts, restaurants, wine...). In fact, I'd put it in your signature and wear it as a badge of pride. :( For me, I like the Coors Light version of FS. Easy drink'n and it gets the job done. I just want aircraft that look and sound great inside and out. I'll take modest systems modeling. I am actually enjoying playing with the limited FMS the QW product has and in the end, it may make me buy a more complex aircraft in the future. :(