Anyone have a mini-review for the CLS 767 ?

[brucek 38]

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.

[threelittlefish 0]

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.

[Guest Thaellar]

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

[kiwikat 506]

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)

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

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.

[Guest Thaellar]

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

[John F 2,403]

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

[ErnieAlston 33]

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.

[ofentress 0]

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.

[duckbilled 310]

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.

[yellowjack 28]

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.

I am on your side regarding the use of FMC's. However, I read over 400 pages of manuals yesterday (Level D767, CLS 767 and CS767). I came to the conclusion that it possible to fly with an FMC without using Sids or Stars. The levelD 767 FMS requires a departure airport, a destination airport and ONE intermediate waypoint. I came to the conclusion that it is feasible to fly with an FMC and still use the Standard FSX ATC (for all its faults). Time to ask a real world question, "How do you think FMC equipped aircraft arrive and depart from non towered or none procedural airports. I have one of the former 70KMS to the North of my house and one 70KMS to the South West. Both of these airports have commerical flights in and out every day. The answer must be that you don't use the FMS for the take off or approach phases of the flight. Neither of these airports have any form of localiser/glide slope aids. So aircraft are hand flown into these airports. If a destination airport is Localiser/Glide slope equipped then FMCs don't prevent the pilot from picking up and locking on to the Nav aids just as you would with a GPS equipped aircraft. I beleve this topic is worthy of a separate thread and I shall start one.

[threelittlefish 0]

Mini Review.... It's POOP!

[pmanhart 176]

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

Hi, I'm the guy from the Orbx forums with the statement about the portover and being dissapointed. I still am!I bought the plane because comparing it to the CS and LD, it's almost half the price. However, at half the price you get half the plane as well!Being a portover not only means there's no self-shadowing, it also means that little things like DX10 compatibility, aircraft animations, airport vehicle animations, using the mouse wheel on VC knobs, etc. are all compromised being an FS9 model. Most of the little things that make FSX aircraft shine (not just literally but figuratively as well) are not present in this aircraft.My personal opinion is that if you don't mind flying an aircraft with the limitation of FS9 design features, enjoy having a 'Lite' systems implementation, and only have $30 to spend, then by all means buy it and add it to the hangar. I do not have the CS or Lvl-D to compare it too, and the SkySim DC-9 is my only other payware airliner, and it blows the CLS 767 away. I still fly it and even took the time to add Shockwave 3D lights to it, but I must admit I have buyers remorse from the purchase. In hindsight I wish I would have put the money towards the CS 767, CS 727, Aerosoft A300, PMDG MD-11, or PMDG 747.Happy simming!

[flytrumpet767 68]

I just can't imagine how one would buy CLS(nothing against CLS) over LDS.When I bought LDS about 5 years ago it was my first realistic plane.It took me one tutorial flight to get it.After that I was sold.No more "lite" stuff was close enough for me.It took all but 2 hours (CYVR-KSFO) to get the hang of it,but it totally transformed my flying.I just hope other people can see the same light I saw.It's totally worth the effort....and the money.Also a mention...LDS is very good on frames,even on a modest system.Richard

[Fallap 4]

How about the CLS' INS navigation system in their DC10's and 747-200 and -300?Thats seems to be... rather complicated in terms of system depth? :( Or not?