QW 757

[Tim_Capps 474]

Two things keep me from using the QW 757. As others have mentioned, we're waiting on native FSX models. The other thing is the overspeed issue. It was raised in the forum and dismissed as some sort of "advanced speed protection" issue that was unsuitable for a simplified model. I don't think not having your airplane overspeed when leveling off should be considered an advanced function, but sort of basic. If they got these two things ironed out the plusses would outweigh the minuses for me. If you aren't bothered by the occasional overspeed and are willing to wait for the FSX models, you get a lot for your money.

[American 833 Heavy 132]

Tim,In fairness not everybody is able to reproduce your problem, that's what makes it difficult to correct. Odds are the overspeed is caused by using a high cost index with little margin for error.And we all know about the glitchy FS winds and how the radically shift at will when flying at higher altitudes. Many users have corrected this by using the wind smoothing function in FSUIPC.That said, we'll take a look at the cost index tables and see if there's a way to reduce the margin between the overspeed and mach speed. No promises though.Emil

[PIC007 82]

Two things keep me from using the QW 757. As others have mentioned, we're waiting on native FSX models. The other thing is the overspeed issue. It was raised in the forum and dismissed as some sort of "advanced speed protection" issue that was unsuitable for a simplified model. I don't think not having your airplane overspeed when leveling off should be considered an advanced function, but sort of basic. If they got these two things ironed out the plusses would outweigh the minuses for me. If you aren't bothered by the occasional overspeed and are willing to wait for the FSX models, you get a lot for your money.

Tim, I lowered the CI to 80 and have never had an overspeed, have you tried that?

[Tim_Capps 474]

Tim, I lowered the CI to 80 and have never had an overspeed, have you tried that?

I've lowered it to 30. I am bedevilled by it. It is right after climbing as it starts level flight.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

I took a gander at the manuals and really liked what I saw. It looks like all the normal systems are modeled well enough for a normal SOP flight. The only problem is finding the money for it. I am currently working on my IFR ticket and that's taking a lot of my funds at the moment. $45 isn't much by any means, but for a college kid it is hahaha :( Hopefully SP2 will be out before I scrape up the cash.

[PIC007 82]

I've lowered it to 30. I am bedevilled by it. It is right after climbing as it starts level flight.

Did you go to the VNAV pages in the FMC and check what the CLB and CRZ are set to? I'm sure you already know you can adjust the speeds there but thought I'd mention it anyway.

[badaboom 0]

For those of you with the QW 757,Is the VC as highly modeled as the video presentation?Or is this just some Hollywood magic,done with the right type of lighting?I ask because the VC really caught my eye,plus the fact you can choose the newer flat panels.Thanks for any help

[Bonkster 1]

For those of you with the QW 757,Is the VC as highly modeled as the video presentation?Or is this just some Hollywood magic,done with the right type of lighting?I ask because the VC really caught my eye,plus the fact you can choose the newer flat panels.Thanks for any help

There's nothing "Hollywood" in that video at all... it's a BEAUTIFUL VC and a wonderful overall simulation! Functional and challenging, but not so much that it'll pucker your bum!One of the most enjoyable, hassle-free add-ons I've bought (and I have them ALL! LOL!) Money well-spent!

[badaboom 0]

Haha!!! "Get my Bum in a Pucker" Well Bonkster!! I certainly don't want that!!! Thanks for the info......As a real pilot who approves of the VC with such enthusiasm I'll take your advise and purchase when the new FSX version comes out.Thanks for your inputCheers!

[Mike T 208]

Just to be clear I am the hardest of the hardcore simmers and would prefer that every system in the aircraft be simulated. The QW 757 is a "medium" simulation of the 757. With that said, QW focused on the systems that you actually use during flight and pulled back on some of the systems that you seldom touch. This balance makes the QW 757 a viable simulation for even hardcore simmers, that is to say that you still get the feeling of satisfaction after you complete your flight as you would in the most complex aircraft. I was the biggest skeptic of the QW 757 but have softened my view of the aircraft and really enjoy flying her in FSX. It is more than enough to keep you occupied until the LDS 757 is released (assuming I live that long...).HTH,Mike T.

[Guest wims]

Just to be clear I am the hardest of the hardcore simmers and would prefer that every system in the aircraft be simulated. The QW 757 is a "medium" simulation of the 757. With that said, QW focused on the systems that you actually use during flight and pulled back on some of the systems that you seldom touch. This balance makes the QW 757 a viable simulation for even hardcore simmers, that is to say that you still get the feeling of satisfaction after you complete your flight as you would in the most complex aircraft. I was the biggest skeptic of the QW 757 but have softened my view of the aircraft and really enjoy flying her in FSX. It is more than enough to keep you occupied until the LDS 757 is released (assuming I live that long...).HTH,Mike T.

I didnt really consider myself all that hardcore, but reading up a bit what others feel about airplanes in fs then I guess I am. I thought everybody wanted as much realism as possible and that everybody wanted complex and complete systems. I guess not. But since we both have a pretty similar views when it comes to simulation and realism, how do you feel the qw757 compare to the cs757, that is if you have tried the cs one

[PIC007 82]

I didnt really consider myself all that hardcore, but reading up a bit what others feel about airplanes in fs then I guess I am. I thought everybody wanted as much realism as possible and that everybody wanted complex and complete systems. I guess not. But since we both have a pretty similar views when it comes to simulation and realism, how do you feel the qw757 compare to the cs757, that is if you have tried the cs one

I can give you my .02 since I have both. I love the CS 757 and have 100's of hours in it. Having said that, since I installed the QW 757, I havent touched the CS plane, it's that good. And that is with the current model, the FSX native one should be even better. Your milage may vary.

[Bonkster 1]

Haha!!! "Get my Bum in a Pucker" Well Bonkster!! I certainly don't want that!!! Thanks for the info......As a real pilot who approves of the VC with such enthusiasm I'll take your advise and purchase when the new FSX version comes out.Thanks for your inputCheers!

There's really no need to wait for the "new" FSX models to come out... you should get it now... the current FSX version performs fabulously in FSX as it is. The fact that they aren't FSX native (yet) doesn't hinder the performance in FSX at all! If I'm not mistaken, the FSX native models are going to be a free update anyway, so why not get it now and start enjoying it right away instead of waiting? I assure you you'll be glad you did!

[MindYerBeak 73]

I can give you my .02 since I have both. I love the CS 757 and have 100's of hours in it. Having said that, since I installed the QW 757, I havent touched the CS plane, it's that good. And that is with the current model, the FSX native one should be even better. Your milage may vary.

I have the cs one myself and I wondering what is the difference simulation wise.I.E; what does the cs simulate that the qw does not and vice versa ?ThanksVic

[Glynn 405]

HelloIt is a nice addon, BUT if you have any hardware that you want to interface such as Goflight stuff you can forget it.The developers have no interest in any hardware past a yoke rudders and mouse.For that reason only it is deleted from my hardrive.