Archived

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

Guest Thaellar

Anyone have a mini-review for the CLS 767 ?

Recommended Posts

I found another thread asking for opinions and it quickly turned into a discusssion of the LD767. I'm interested in the CLS version. Anyone have it and can offer an opinion?thanks,Thaellar,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I found another thread asking for opinions and it quickly turned into a discusssion of the LD767.
You know there is probably a reason for that... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Systems arn't anywhere near as in depth as the LVLD. If your ok with that, then the CLS is top notch! I have the FS9 version and am extremely satisfied with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know there is probably a reason for that... :(
You bet!
Systems arn't anywhere near as in depth as the LVLD.
Systems? What systems? :( Disclaimer: This is my personal thought; not AVSIM's or anybody else's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I shoudn't have even mentioned the LD 767. :( I know the LD is a magnificent, realistic immersive addon. I have the PMDG 747 and that is wonderful as well. I am looking at the CLS as a plane I can quickly get off the ground and fly when I have limited time. I don't want lengthy cold and dark startup and I want to be able to import a flightplan into the FMC and get flying right away.Does this 767 fit the bill without being too dumbed down? Working FMC? Enough systems to be interesting? I do like their DC-10 and was assuming a similar product in complexity. Are there any issues that folks have encountered? Deltalpha, thanks for the thumbs up on the FS9 version.Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean. You want an opinion on the CLS job, not another queue of people telling you how much the sun shines out of the Level-D's jet-pipes! I may be able to help you. I've just ordered the box version of the CLS 767, and when I've taken it up for a few trips I'll give you the gen.. Of course, it's dumbed down on the systems side, but I'm keen to see how the flight dynamics are - I'm intrigued by Albert's statements in the manual. In the meantime, have you heard how good the Level-D 767 is?!!! :( Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lvd and PMDG planes don't suit EVERYONE on the market...thats the beauty of the CLS 767. :DSo they have the systems down pat...whatever. The CLS flies very well. Just don't forget the trim on takeoff! And the FMC is ok too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lvd and PMDG planes don't suit EVERYONE on the market...thats the beauty of the CLS 767. :DSo they have the systems down pat...whatever. The CLS flies very well. Just don't forget the trim on takeoff! And the FMC is ok too.
True enough, the LITE market is there for a reason.There doesn't seem to be much point in paying for realistic systems simulation if you don't use it.Not sure why some insist in pushing LDS, and PMDG on these type of Lite flight simmers. Theyjust are not in to the systems simulation.Lite products like CLS, Overland, Aerosim etc fits their bill, that's what they should use.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I shoudn't have even mentioned the LD 767. :( I am looking at the CLS as a plane I can quickly get off the ground and fly when I have limited time. I don't want lengthy cold and dark startup and I want to be able to import a flightplan into the FMC and get flying right away.Does this 767 fit the bill without being too dumbed down? Working FMC? Enough systems to be interesting? I do like their DC-10 and was assuming a similar product in complexity. Are there any issues that folks have encountered?
Quickly get off the ground? You got it; set the trim, flaps and off you go.Cold and dark startups? No need to do any of those.Import FP into FMC? If it is the default planner or FSNavigator, yes.Working FMC? Since you've already seen the DC-10, it is the same one.Enough systems to be interesting? Not a single system simulatedFlies good? You bet it doesLooks nice? Very nice. Even more, it sounds niceHope it helps. Any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.Best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input everyone. I think it is a good bet for a new addon.Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the input everyone. I think it is a good bet for a new addon.Thaellar
I don't understand this. I can have either the LDS 767 or the MD11 ready to fly in five minutes, and that's inputting the flight plan by hand. If you start either with the engines running, ready to taxi, you can be flying quickly. It's not hard. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quickly get off the ground? You got it; set the trim, flaps and off you go.Cold and dark startups? No need to do any of those.Import FP into FMC? If it is the default planner or FSNavigator, yes.Working FMC? Since you've already seen the DC-10, it is the same one.Enough systems to be interesting? Not a single system simulatedFlies good? You bet it doesLooks nice? Very nice. Even more, it sounds niceHope it helps. Any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.Best regards
Excellent review, I take it as STRONG BUY pointer, lol.Thanks,Dirk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this. I can have either the LDS 767 or the MD11 ready to fly in five minutes, and that's inputting the flight plan by hand. If you start either with the engines running, ready to taxi, you can be flying quickly. It's not hard. At all.
Same here. Doing the actual flight planning takes far longer for me than getting everything punched in and ready to go...I will never understand why someone would buy a FS9 portover over the excellent and proven LDS 767. I will also never understand why anyone would buy the buggy slideshow that is the CS 767 either. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same here. Doing the actual flight planning takes far longer for me than getting everything punched in and ready to go...I will never understand why someone would buy a FS9 portover over the excellent and proven LDS 767. I will also never understand why anyone would buy the buggy slideshow that is the CS 767 either. :(
The only reason I can see is eye candy. The 2-d panel on the Level D bird dates back to the Wilco PIC release, and the virtual cockpit is showing its age. Still a great bird though. I fly it a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CLS plane may be light but they have a nice manual. RObert
How does the CLS B76 compare with the Captain Sim version, both visually and functionally?Thanks, Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PMDG 747 allows you to save a panel state. Just put the plane in TO config save the "panel state" and you can be airborne in seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read all the comments on the LD767 (an impeccable add-on) and the MD-11 (same stunning quality), but I didn't start a "What's the best 767" thread. I simply asked for a mini-review of the CLS 767. Because those who own it say it flies well, imports FSX flightplans, looks and sounds good and only costs $30, I see no reason I should avoid adding it to my hanger. thanks to all,Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said in the other CLS 767 thread,Enjoy your portover! :(FSX has been out for what, three years now? That definitely says something about those companies still releasing portovers for FSX... (you can fill in your own thoughts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read all the comments on the LD767 (an impeccable add-on) and the MD-11 (same stunning quality), but I didn't start a "What's the best 767" thread. I simply asked for a mini-review of the CLS 767. Because those who own it say it flies well, imports FSX flightplans, looks and sounds good and only costs $30, I see no reason I should avoid adding it to my hanger. thanks to all,Thaellar
Read this thread over on the Orbx forum from a fellow who just bought the CLS bird and is "beyond disappointment", you will have to register to view it. http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=18712.0Here is a quote from the fellow and the thread goes from there."Hi, I've been meaning to expand my flying into heavies/airliners and since I value the opinion of those on these forums so highly, I was wondering what everyone's favorite heavy/commercial airliner addon is?I recently purchased the CLS 767 and have been beyond disappointed because of the numerous system bugs and the fact that it's a port-over from FS9 (years after FSX's release nonetheless!) which means no DX10 compatibility!. I should have read the product description more carefully... Please only give me your favorite aircraft and if you care to a brief synopsis why.Thanks to all and happy simming!"Good luck though whatever you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm....okay maybe I am just dense. I guess I need to find out what the numerous bugs are. I have an advanced add-on in the form of the PMDG 747 and I thought CLS would be a decent plane for $30. I like the CLS DC-10 and I don't want to spend $55+ until either the LD 757 or the PMDG 737 are available. So let me ask you a question? I see this:Flies good? You bet it doesLooks nice? Very nice. Even more, it sounds niceSo, setting the complexity of systems aside, what exactly does a portover affect adversely, other than being perceived a lazy or sneaky? Thaellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, setting the complexity of systems aside, what exactly does a portover affect adversely, other than being perceived a lazy or sneaky? ThaellarPerhaps no self-shadowing? But I wouldn't let that stop me.John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLS said its an FS9 native model for FSX.I don't see the portover issue here, you should know what you're getting.You don't like portovers, check the product description beforehand. Which the gentleman on the Orbx forum admits he did not do very well.But I would suspect many 'Lite' users could care less whether the model is a 'portover' or not. Long as it looks nice and itflies pretty good.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily a review but just comments after flying the CLS 767 for awhile. I also have the LevelD 767 but for a more infusive purpose. The CLS 767 is a joy to fly. Lite, yes, but still with enough details to make it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. There really is room in the FS community, it seems to me, for both "lite" and "heavier" versions of aircraft. After all, if everything was the same, wouldn't it be boring?I hope I don't get the usual comments about the virtue of one or the other. As I said, not a review, just one guy's experience. To each his own as they say.Jack F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand this. I can have either the LDS 767 or the MD11 ready to fly in five minutes, and that's inputting the flight plan by hand. If you start either with the engines running, ready to taxi, you can be flying quickly. It's not hard. At all.
I actually prefer to have things cold and dark when I start but I will probably use control-e to start up the engines after turning on the battery and avionics. Start up procedures differ from aircraft to aircraft and I don't have time to read the manual before each flight. Why would you every start an flight with the engines running at the gate?The reason I like the lighter add ons is because their operations are similar to the default airliners. I can switch between aircraft without hiccups - everything works as I remember it. I can go between an a330, 737, dc10, 757... and know what to do to get it off the ground and fly. When you only fly once every couple weeks and you like to switch things around, this can be really helpful. Even when I fly, the sim is left alone on ap while I do something else. As a result, the response needs to be predictable. I just don't have the time to sit in front of the computer for 5 hours. If you claim that everything must be realistic, you can't possibly be flying a 767 unless you sit there and monitor the systems. Since 767's usually don't fly 1 hour routes, you must have a lot of time on your hands.Also, this 5 minute stuff isn't realistic. You still have to decide where to fly, check weather reports, load up the sim... Using my simplified process, it still takes at least 45 minutes from the time I start the sim until I am at cruise. In addition, 50% of the time I load everything up and something is not right - AES doesn't start, the AFCAD is messed up, I forgot to change a setting in the cfg for the flight... In this case, I have to close the sim, fix the issue and restart. The point is with the weather checks and making the decision where to fly, it can be 1.5 hours from the time I decide to fly to the time I am at cruise. Once at cruise, I can go on with other business until I am 150nm from my destination.In addition to what I mentioned above, airliners that don't use default flight plans can create difficulties with interacting with the default atc. Default ATC doesn't use STARS. SIDS and they choose your runway. No atc makes things a lot less immersive for me. It all depends on what your definition of realism is, how much time you have and how much time you are willing to dedicate to a specific aircraft. If it was easy to switch between realistic aircraft at the drop of a dime, pilots wouldn't be required to be rated on a specific aircraft.So please, stop trying to inject the virtues of uber-realistic aircraft to those that want something lighter. We have our reasons and you have yours. Both are valid and attempts to invalidate those that want lighter systems almost always come off as condescending or insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites