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.

which is too bad because all the repaint needs to do is remove that generic dirt layer and release a clean version too.

Any 757 drivers out there?

Yeah - the guy who made the QW757 FDE. Also flies 767's.

The fact that a real life pilot made the flight dynamics means nothing. A real life engineer would do a better job probably, at least when it comes to racing simulators, where I have most my simulator experience from. Simply put, building physics for a race car is not a matter of feel, its about engineering, entering correct data, understanding the concepts etc. Bulding flight dynamics by feel is wrong when it comes to simulation. Of course, the guy doing the FDE for the QW757 might of course know a thing or two about engineering simulations as well.

The fact that a real life pilot made the flight dynamics means nothing.

Perhaps I'm in the minority that it does?

No, I think the majority believes that pilots knows more about building simulations than engineers for some reason, even tho it doesnt make any sense. That said, he might be a great FDE builder, but the fact that he's a pilot shouldnt have anything to do with it, because once you start building simulators by feel its not really a simulation anymore. Then its more like fantasy

No, I think the majority believes that pilots knows more about building simulations than engineers for some reason, even tho it doesnt make any sense. That said, he might be a great FDE builder, but the fact that he's a pilot shouldnt have anything to do with it, because once you start building simulators by feel its not really a simulation anymore. Then its more like fantasy

You can't implement performance data based off of 'feel' - those come from hard facts.

In the end, I would trust a 757 pilot over a PC pilot. The 757 pilot might not know how to deal with an FDE but at least they would know that it felt right when they were finished. We, in the community, have a tendency to trust the feel of one FDE over another without any actual RW experience to back to up. We rely on reputation, $ spent on add ons and what we feel like a FDE should feel like. The bottom line is, if you have not flown a 757, you have no clue what it feels like to fly a 757. For all we know, CS could be applying the FDE of a flying brisket and selling it as a 757 FDE. Since the CS came first, everyone thinks a 757 should fly like a brisket. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. I don't know but the QW757 is alright in my book.BTW, the FPS post SP2 in FSX are fantastic!

HelloIs there any support for Hardware controls in this version (keymapping)Or any support for Goflight ect.Or is it simply mouse driven?

HelloIs there any support for Hardware controls in this version (keymapping)Or any support for Goflight ect.Or is it simply mouse driven?

Mouse Driven.Regards.Ernie.

Mouse Driven.Regards.Ernie.

HelloThanks for the reply ErnieI bought this some time ago and held out a faint hope that the FSX version may have gained some keymapping ability at the very least, but it looks like the QW 757 it will be of no use to me.Shame as it is otherwise a really nice product.

I have both and found the QW 757 to have a good feel in hand flying; different from the CS 757, but I thought it was remarkably good. The graphics are actually crisper in the QW VC. I, too, thought they looked a little too "drawn in" or "cartoonish" until I turned off the panel lights, which, I believe. default to on. What I was seeing was the backlighting, so it looked more natural with the lights off in the daytime. Both airplanes have excellent VCs, but the CS guys are simply artists. Even so, there are things I like in the QW VC like fuel in pounds (and more readable) that make it strong competition. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, CS should be pleased, since QW looks to have wanted to go "one better" on the things CS already did, e.g. their passenger announcements, which are automatic in the QW 757.Ultimately, I had to uninstall the QW version because of the overspeed issue. It was otherwise just too nice and would tempt me into trying it again only to be frustrated by the throttle running to up 400 knots after reaching 10,000 feet or something else. (Disclaimer, while I am not the only one reporting this issue, devs have said it doesn't affect most people.) The CS version works fine for me and is a nice airplane. Without the overspeed problem I would probably fly the QW more than the CS, though.

I have both and found the QW 757 to have a good feel in hand flying; different from the CS 757, but I thought it was remarkably good. The graphics are actually crisper in the QW VC. I, too, thought they looked a little too "drawn in" or "cartoonish" until I turned off the panel lights, which, I believe. default to on. What I was seeing was the backlighting, so it looked more natural with the lights off in the daytime. Both airplanes have excellent VCs, but the CS guys are simply artists. Even so, there are things I like in the QW VC like fuel in pounds (and more readable) that make it strong competition. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, CS should be pleased, since QW looks to have wanted to go "one better" on the things CS already did, e.g. their passenger announcements, which are automatic in the QW 757.Ultimately, I had to uninstall the QW version because of the overspeed issue. It was otherwise just too nice and would tempt me into trying it again only to be frustrated by the throttle running to up 400 knots after reaching 10,000 feet or something else. (Disclaimer, while I am not the only one reporting this issue, devs have said it doesn't affect most people.) The CS version works fine for me and is a nice airplane. Without the overspeed problem I would probably fly the QW more than the CS, though.

Tim check your PM's

HelloThanks for the reply ErnieI bought this some time ago and held out a faint hope that the FSX version may have gained some keymapping ability at the very least, but it looks like the QW 757 it will be of no use to me.Shame as it is otherwise a really nice product.

A friend of mine uses the Precision Flight controls with the Bendix radio stack and except for a problem with setting the heading from the stack, it works fine for him.

Ultimately, I had to uninstall the QW version because of the overspeed issue. It was otherwise just too nice and would tempt me into trying it again only to be frustrated by the throttle running to up 400 knots after reaching 10,000 feet or something else. (Disclaimer, while I am not the only one reporting this issue, devs have said it doesn't affect most people.) The CS version works fine for me and is a nice airplane. Without the overspeed problem I would probably fly the QW more than the CS, though.

That's unfortunate Tim. We would have looked into your problems but you decided to quit instead. There were a few support threads where we asked you to follow up on, but you just report the bugs and leave.... it's a 2 way street when reporting bugs man. We need participation from both sides to get it fixed.If you just report a problem and leave how do you expect that we fix it? In one particular thread I asked you if you could take a screenshot and Ernie asked you to save a panel state in your overspeed condition, you never responded and now I just learned that you decided to uninstall the product.Ultimately it's your loss, if you ever want to come back you'll know where to find us.

In the end I guess FDE work will come down to a matter of interpretation. Based on my experience in flying the B757 I "interpreted" as best I could what I thought the flying qualities of the B757 were and more importantly what some of the unique qualities are as well. I've played the role as FDE advisor and given people exact data to input into FDEs and to me they could never get it as close as I could because theyhad never flown the plane. While it's true when you put exact data into a simulator (after all they are all just computers) it's nice to get the feedback from the driver..."yes I know the conditions say such but I'm telling you I still have oversteer" for example. At my current company we have four simulators for the aircraft type I'm on and all four fly a little differently than each other...and different from the aircraft itself. And I agree with FDE accuracy is in the eye of the beholder statement. There is a well known addon our there that I love to fly to this day that had what I thought was a great FDE...until I flew the real aircraft. That's not to say it's a bad FDE, it is very close. But there are always things thatcan be fine tuned. And this addon will remain one of my favorite ones to fly for time to come.So I guess people can take my word for it on whether the QW757 FDE "is real or flies like the real thing" or don't. The reason I got into FDE design in the first place was to increase my personal enjoyment in FS. In the end I am proud of the FDE I created and even though I don't fly the B757 anymore sometimes I can take a trip down memory lane with an old friend.Nick

Ultimately it's your loss...

Please STOP doing that :(