I purchsed the QW 757 yesterday as there were a number good reports here on avsim and, I have to say, I'm very disappointed.I have the Captain Sim 757 which I think is very good EXCEPT the for VNAV/LNAV systems, which is why I got the QW. The flight model of the QW version is almost 'jerky' compared to the CS, which feels silky smooth in comparison. I'd be very interested to know which is actually the most accurate. Any 757 drivers out there?Also, the graphics of the QW, although appear to be very high res and sharp, seem to be way over top - sort of 'cartoonish'.Not complaints. I'm fortunate enough to be able to purchase things to try out. just my observations.

Sounds like you may have issues on your end instead of the planes. I have both the CS and QW 757's and have 0 problems with either of them. The CS and QW LNAV/VNAV work flawlessly and the QW is not only 'silky smooth' to fly it's graphics are on a par with McPhat's. Sorry you are dissapointed but everyone I fly with loves the planes so I had to weigh in on this.

How about someone posting pics of the new FSX VC & HD repaints...there are only a few screen-shots at the QW website. How many HD repaints were actually released, no numbers mentioned at their website?

Sounds like you may have issues on your end instead of the planes. I have both the CS and QW 757's and have 0 problems with either of them. The CS and QW LNAV/VNAV work flawlessly and the QW is not only 'silky smooth' to fly it's graphics are on a par with McPhat's. Sorry you are dissapointed but everyone I fly with loves the planes so I had to weigh in on this.

Darryl

Sounds like you may have issues on your end instead of the planes. I have both the CS and QW 757's and have 0 problems with either of them. The CS and QW LNAV/VNAV work flawlessly and the QW is not only 'silky smooth' to fly it's graphics are on a par with McPhat's. Sorry you are dissapointed but everyone I fly with loves the planes so I had to weigh in on this.

The graphics I refer to are internal only - sorry, should have clarified that. In my opinion, the CS VC is much, MUCH more realistic than the QW VC. The overall 'immersion factor' I also feel is far better in the Cs version. Still, each to his own eh?I'm 99.9% sure I don't have a problem 'my end'. I now have 33 payware aircraft, so it's pretty easy to know when I have an issue with my 'my end'. The QW757 is the only one I have that behaves like this - the movements just look too sharp for such heavy iron. As I recall, the 1st version of the Feelthere Airbus was similar.

Dont write them off mate! Speak to QWSim via their forum where you WILL get excellent support.

How about someone posting pics of the new FSX VC & HD repaints...there are only a few screen-shots at the QW website. How many HD repaints were actually released, no numbers mentioned at their website?Darryl

There is a screen shot forum for QW: http://forum.qwsim.com/viewforum.php?f=24As far as repaints, there are around 125 different liveries available, I think 3 are the HD versions. However they did add something to the graphics that really improved the appearance of all repaints.

The graphics I refer to are internal only - sorry, should have clarified that. In my opinion, the CS VC is much, MUCH more realistic than the QW VC.

To me, they both look good, just a slight configuration difference in the layout. CS on the left, QW on the right.

CS may seem more smooth probably because you're just flying a Cessna 172 with tweaked flight dynamics

I have no problems with QW. They added bump mapping in the sp2 release too. I can tell you the QW model is spot on accurate. It's a hot a/c in real life. I found that out, loaded a/c to LAS, shelled #1 motor on t/o, continued to climb like a scalded cat, no problem. The CS power levers look like they rehashed them from there 3-holer.Make sure you register to get in the forum, lots of good info.

CS may seem more smooth probably because you're just flying a Cessna 172 with tweaked flight dynamics

Ouch!I take it you don't like CS then :( Thanks for other feedback guys.Will go look at the forum.

I have both the CS 757 (also the CS 767) and the QW 757. CS makes 3D models that are second to none too bad they don't care as much about the operation of the aircraft which makes using their aircraft a hit and miss affair often ending in disappointment. I've since uninstalled both CS aircraft and will never purchase anything from them again.Being a hardcore simmer I couldn't wait for the LDS 757 so I hesitantly purchased the QW757. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the level of complexity in a "medium" sim. The 3D model is beautiful and repaints by the like of non less than Cory Ford are at McPhat paint level. The flight model is a little simplistic however, it is more than adequate. With the latest patches it is pretty good indeed. With the release of the new FSX native models and the HD cockpit my jaw hit the keyboard with a thud. Now the VC and 3D model match the level of the sounds. So yeah, for me the QW 757 is keeping me happy until LDS 757 is released or I die of old age, which ever comes first.

Cessna 172, now that's funny. Probably not actually true, but it did make me laugh.One thing I will say about the real B757 though, well two things actually: Whenever I've flown on them, they actually did seem quite twitchy on approach, and I got the impression that there's a lot of pretty swift aileron response even at over the threshold speeds. The other thing which makes me think that, is that I once saw a brand-spanking-new B757 that was about to be delivered to BA getting thrown about at an airshow, and I was extremely surprised how maneuverable it was and how fast it could accelerate. I'd probably number it amongst the most fun things I've ever watched at an airshow, purely for the novelty of seeing an airliner like that being chucked about if not exactly like a fighter, then less like a ponderous big old airliner than you'd think it would be. It was damn-near doing wing-overs, honestly.Al

Mmmm.... Sounding more & more like I need to 'get use to' the look and 'feel' of the QW version.I find it very interesting how we each see things so differently. I was also among those who didn't like the Eaglesoft Citation-X VC for exactly the same reason. I was absolutely slated for that too :( Different systems and monitors probably make a big difference too.

Well, there's nothing wrong with disliking what everyone else likes. If you prefer the look of the CS cockpit and the way that is depicted, then that's just what you prefer, and if you prefer how the CS 757 flies, then there's nothing wrong with that either, it's your sim and your time. Lots of people think McPhat paint jobs are bloody great, whereas I can't stand the things myself, it's just personal preference.Al

Well, there's nothing wrong with disliking what everyone else likes. If you prefer the look of the CS cockpit and the way that is depicted, then that's just what you prefer, and if you prefer how the CS 757 flies, then there's nothing wrong with that either, it's your sim and your time. Lots of people think McPhat paint jobs are bloody great, whereas I can't stand the things myself, it's just personal preference.Al

Actually on the subject of McPhat. Its the darned piles of dirt that the put on their repaints that spoils it for me. Yes, in the real world aircraft don't stay brand spanking new for long. In the same token airlines tend to prevent their aircraft from getting to the level of filth that McPhat insists on putting on their aircraft. Dirt causes drag. More drag equals more fuel. More fuel equals less profits. Airlines wash their airplanes pretty regularly (more than you would think) for this reason.I have the McPhat LDS 767 United Star Alliance repaint. Its worn and dirty but the problem with this is that its in the NEW United Livery which has not had a chance to fade yet! I can see if it was an only grey United jet but they tend to have this weird fixation with dirt that really spoils a lot of their liveries for me. IF I could find another repaint for this livery I would use it instead.