I have the Legendary 707 from years ago and it wasn't very in depth if I remember correctly. Is the overhead and flight engineers panel fully functional? Also, what about the performance numbers in flight ie fuel flows, epr's etc? Thanks in advance.David

It's not bad. It's medium quality... As long as you stay in Normal Ops you'll be OK... But if you dig a little deeper and if you are looking for PMDG/Level-D/FSL/Leonardo depth you'll be disappointed... You'll find for example that you're able to start all 4 engines at once... Just don't dig...

Well, it's usual CaptainSim product. "Anyhow it is a game" being their motto, don't expect miracles.If you're looking for systems depth of PMDG, LH Maddog or Level-D you'll be very likely dissapointed. IMVHO, of course.

If you're looking for systems depth ... you'll be very likely dissapointed.

What exactly dissapoints you in the 707 systems programing depth please? We'll try to dig it deeper in the next update.

I really think the list the list would too long IMHO... But maybe if you really want to "dig deeper" you would start by changing/cleaning some obvious stuffs like : - being able to start ALL engines at the same time... - engine parameters [EGT/ Oil temps/ ...] decreasing from hundreds degrees to zero degree in 3 seconds when shutting down engines... - Try some more advanced nice Dual FD/AP stuffs- Independent instruments for CPT and FO : ADI, HSI, ... - Tie all external animations to their respective systems. Your beautiful 707 for example have reversers that can be actuated without any AC/DC/HYD/PNEU... - more interconnection between systems : should a 707 equipped with INS be able to have its ADI working when INS is not aligned and in NAV mode??...You know, obvious stuffs... Other companies have been doing those for years now as basics... But eh you know... I really don't expect system with CS so that's no big deal 4 me.

What exactly dissapoints you in the 707 systems programing depth please? We'll try to dig it deeper in the next update.

Hey, Captain Sim.... Good to see you paying attention and intereacting with customers. We've been asking for this from for years, and it looks like you're finally raising your own bar.Well done!

I really think the list the list would too long IMHO... But maybe if you really want to "dig deeper" you would start by changing/cleaning some obvious stuffs like : - being able to start ALL engines at the same time... - engine parameters [EGT/ Oil temps/ ...] decreasing from hundreds degrees to zero degree in 3 seconds when shutting down engines... - Try some more advanced nice Dual FD/AP stuffs- Independent instruments for CPT and FO : ADI, HSI, ... - Tie all external animations to their respective systems. Your beautiful 707 for example have reversers that can be actuated without any AC/DC/HYD/PNEU... - more interconnection between systems : should a 707 equipped with INS be able to have its ADI working when INS is not aligned and in NAV mode??...You know, obvious stuffs... Other companies have been doing those for years now as basics... But eh you know... I really don't expect system with CS so that's no big deal 4 me.

you showed him!!!!!!! lol Ron Hamilton

It's good though that CS is taking it positively as constructive criticism. I hope they do update it to be more realistic. And maybe the 727 too.

Yea props to CS to show an interest in customer support and satisfaction. CS has the potential to be one of the "big boys", but doesnt quite reach that level imo.

They need to hire one more programmer who knows how to program the gauges and systems and a FDE master.

After seeing a few of the replies here, I just have to add:The 707 is one of the most beautifull planes available for FSX, and it has enough system depth to keep anyone busy for the entire flight......except for those who just cant fly without a FMC or GPS doing the work for them Folks should wander over to the CS forums and see what 'Lou' has to say about it, he flew the real ones and has a lot of input on it.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree with the comments about how systems are not completely realistically interlinked and react with one another, I do think we have to bear in mind that rather a lot of users are never really going to be that concerned with such things. It might be true that you could start all the engines at once, but if you are following the normal procedures, you wouldn't be attempting to do such a thing anyway, thus, much of the time, it's only when stepping outside of what you should be doing, that such things would manifest themselves, which to be fair, was also pointed out alongside the shortcomings.But given that is the case, one has to say that the way things are programmed ultimately is adequate for a lot of users, and that is especially true when such a method also caters for users who might just want to press Control+E and get going, because what is worth also keeping in mind, is that when systems aren't programmed in an overly complex way, so that you actually can start the engines in a simpler fashion, it makes it easier to market the product to a wider audience. Moreover, that broad capability might very well be what is the deciding factor on whether to go ahead with producing the thing in the first place. So whilst I do number myself among the few who would prefer it to be completely realistic, I'm aware that such a wish might prevent me from getting any 707 at all to be greenlit for FS, let alone a completely realistic one ever showing up for a desktop PC. Or if it did, then it'd not be available at the kind of price which it presently is pitched at.Which brings up another related point. When it comes to an ethos of making something which is 'priced to own' and pitched at a wide range of users, Captain Sim tend to get a bit of stick for wheeling out the 'just a game' excuse, but what rarely gets appreciated, is the fact that they are one of the few developers who periodically make their stuff available at real bargain bin prices with regular sales, and it is clear that they do so in order to make things commercially viable by going for a low margin on shifting high numbers, which would be a marketing strategy unlikely to succeed if the products only appealed to those few who know how to operate the real thing. So we can, and do, benefit from the way they choose to go about things, in actually having old clunkers like the 707 and 727 available, by virtue of this way of widening their appeal.That's certainly not an excuse for poor or lackadaisical programming of professional products (professional in the sense of hoping to sell them that is), but we should be careful what we wish for in many ways, lest we wish such things out of existence. Being that it is not a shiny new aeroplane like 'crowd pleasers' such as the A320 and 737NGs are, the 707 is a niche product in an already niche market, and as much as I would like it to be true that it would sell in huge numbers when priced at the 100 Bucks it would need to be set at to justify the work, I cannot believe that a completely realistically programmed 707 would garner enough sales to do that. Sure, I'd pay it, me and about five other people on this forum, but at half that price in a sale, it probably wouldn't pull in the required numbers to make it worth doing a real number on the systems programming.I don't know all this for sure of course, but I think it may explain a lot about where CS is coming from.Al

Whilst I wouldn't disagree with the comments about how systems are not completely realistically interlinked and react with one another, I do think we have to bear in mind that rather a lot of users are never really going to be that concerned with such things. It might be true that you could start all the engines at once, but if you are following the normal procedures, you wouldn't be attempting to do such a thing anyway, thus, much of the time, it's only when stepping outside of what you should be doing, that such things would manifest themselves, which to be fair, was also pointed out alongside the shortcomings.But given that is the case, one has to say that the way things are programmed ultimately is adequate for a lot of users, and that is especially true when such a method also caters for users who might just want to press Control+E and get going, because what is worth also keeping in mind, is that when systems aren't programmed in an overly complex way, so that you actually can start the engines in a simpler fashion, it makes it easier to market the product to a wider audience. Moreover, that broad capability might very well be what is the deciding factor on whether to go ahead with producing the thing in the first place. So whilst I do number myself among the few who would prefer it to be completely realistic, I'm aware that such a wish might prevent me from getting any 707 at all to be greenlit for FS, let alone a completely realistic one ever showing up for a desktop PC. Or if it did, then it'd not be available at the kind of price which it presently is pitched at.Which brings up another related point. When it comes to an ethos of making something which is 'priced to own' and pitched at a wide range of users, Captain Sim tend to get a bit of stick for wheeling out the 'just a game' excuse, but what rarely gets appreciated, is the fact that they are one of the few developers who periodically make their stuff available at real bargain bin prices with regular sales, and it is clear that they do so in order to make things commercially viable by going for a low margin on shifting high numbers, which would be a marketing strategy unlikely to succeed if the products only appealed to those few who know how to operate the real thing. So we can, and do, benefit from the way they choose to go about things, in actually having old clunkers like the 707 and 727 available, by virtue of this way of widening their appeal.That's certainly not an excuse for poor or lackadaisical programming of professional products (professional in the sense of hoping to sell them that is), but we should be careful what we wish for in many ways, lest we wish such things out of existence. Being that it is not a shiny new aeroplane like 'crowd pleasers' such as the A320 and 737NGs are, the 707 is a niche product in an already niche market, and as much as I would like it to be true that it would sell in huge numbers when priced at the 100 Bucks it would need to be set at to justify the work, I cannot believe that a completely realistically programmed 707 would garner enough sales to do that. Sure, I'd pay it, me and about five other people on this forum, but at half that price in a sale, it probably wouldn't pull in the required numbers to make it worth doing a real number on the systems programming.I don't know all this for sure of course, but I think it may explain a lot about where CS is coming from.Al

Well said! Also bear in mind, the 707 is a 3-man crew cockpit, as it doesn't have the automation that modern jets have, so it would be unrealistic for a single pilot to be able to fly it correctly, but that is what we are limited to in FS for the most part, so they have to make some compromises!

Wonderful text, Alan. Absolutely agreed on it and nice to read such things from time to time.I have to admit that I had mixed emotions as the Captain Sim official showed up in this thread and politely asked about exact values to be changed . "They'll eat him alive" was my thinking and one of the first posts after his question was one of those "eating" ones.I think we all agree that

Other companies have been doing those for years now as basics... But eh you know... I really don't expect system with CS so that's no big deal 4 me.

transports some emotions too and might lack of facts.I was confused because Epikk seemed to be one open minded fellow and he was showed in another thread that at least one thing from his list of complains was solved in the 1.1 update of the plane (the current one is 1.2). I even showed pictures to him and if my memory doesn't play tricks on me, he said something like "ah, there it is".I could do huge lists about lacks and flaws in some of the Captain Sim birds (in fact, I did some of those lists over there with some other guys) and I could be very disappointed on their beta testing process too, because some flaws shouldn't exist anymore in my eyes. But, I have to admit that they for example still update their "old" stuff while I can see some other companies drop off their products after one or two service packs (and they are not flawless then). I also have to admit that they react on wishes and comments and even complains towards their products in a timely and customer friendly manner, not the most common thing in customer support today as some of you might agree."Love it or leave it" would be the opposite of this and I had such experiences in the past at other devs (might be a pure personal experience though).There's no doubt that the system depth award goes to other devs while we should ask ourselves how much detail the average flight sim user wants to have (if there is something like an average user here). As I mentioned in some other threads around, the realism and system detail guys are very prominent in forums but I really doubt that they make the market numbers and therefor represent any majority of users.So, as Alan said, it might be a disappointing detail that e. g. all engines on the 707 can be started at at once but for 95% of users this isn't a problem and will never be. But those 95% applaud on the low fps impact of that detailed bird while some other "super extreme detailed and realistic" ones (which I own too) even keep your 4Ghz very busy.I'd like to mention one last thing concerning the customers approach on product flaws, not only on the CS ones.I really get the impression that a large number of fellow Captains complain about things in front of their monitor, a smaller group then puts these complains into words and posts them in e. g. support areas. A much smaller group is able to do this emo-free and with enough details for a dev to get a picture of some flaw.What I want to say is that I read about complains, often very emotional ones, all the time while the constructive part of at least describing things more detailed is missing. In the CS case, I can see some forum posts over at their site but the users that wrote tickets on some items (which is the only way at CS to get support and trigger an interaction from the devs) seems to be unused.What does one expect then? An overwhelming applause towards his "it isn't working" posts? I don't know ..A good beta testing phase should literally rule out any major flaws and if we just look at this sentence, the CS beta phase has to be improved (and, by the way, the Aerosoft Airbus one too). But the rest of constructive work on a todays detailed flight sim product comes from the users. Strange or disappointed fact, but every dev would agree that after the release some detailed and non emotional bug reports are needed to get in shape. These things, together with some wishes stated, form the future and maybe final product then.I think that this phase is another lack (besides the beta phase) on especially the CS titles and I think they can manage this if some people start writing what they want and what they expect. As this demanded intention isn't a Captain Sim special but a todays mandatory item, it can't be wrong to develop it.

Well said! Also bear in mind, the 707 is a 3-man crew cockpit, as it doesn't have the automation that modern jets have, so it would be unrealistic for a single pilot to be able to fly it correctly, but that is what we are limited to in FS for the most part, so they have to make some compromises!

I fly the A2A Accusimmed B377 a lot, and the workload is indeed a bit heavy for one man. Their latest product, the B17, has fine tuned this a bit.What amazes me is the pricing for the 707. What sets this so far above other products that can justify that price? Yes it is a niche product but so is the 377 (which I'd hardly heard of before I heard of the A2A product). My point is that by pricing it this high, they'll absolutely make sure it STAYS a niche product. A lot of those who, like me, "might like" a 707 for FSX will be scared off. I want it, but I don't want it THAT bad.I guess that's off topic though, the focus being on this 707 systems modelling depth.