Interesting because that has not been my experience with it. In fact I probably have more hours on the CS 757/767 than any other birds in my hangar besides the Coolsky MD-82. Solid products.

Have you read the "most annoying issues" thread in the Captain Sim official 757 forum? The thread was actually started by a representative of Captain Sim, so they are acknowledging that it has issues. In my opinion, Captain Sim is not on the level of PMDG, Level-D, Leonardo, and FlightSim Labs when it comes to airliner simulations for FSX. Their products are not "lite" by any means, but they do not simulate as many systems and features as the previously mentioned developers, and the systems they do simulate are not as accurate as those found on the other developer's aircraft. Also, Captain Sim has a poor weight and balance program, no SDK, no failures engine, and no FO or ground crew simulations. Here is a link to the thread I mentioned:http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1288986636

Have you read the "most annoying issues" thread in the Captain Sim official 757 forum? The thread was actually started by a representative of Captain Sim, so they are acknowledging that it has issues. In my opinion, Captain Sim is not on the level of PMDG, Level-D, Leonardo, and FlightSim Labs when it comes to airliner simulations for FSX. Their products are not "lite" by any means, but they do not simulate as many systems and features as the previously mentioned developers, and the systems they do simulate are not as accurate as those found on the other developer's aircraft. Also, Captain Sim has a poor weight and balance program, no SDK, no failures engine, and no FO or ground crew simulations. Here is a link to the thread I mentioned:http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1288986636

Still a solid product. FMC works perfectly and the systems I use work perfectly including one of the best/realistic airfiles ever made for an FS airliner.Where did I say that it was the pinnacle of FS airliner development?To describe the CS 757 as the poster did would be inaccurate and that was the point I was making.All of the products you mention are not perfect/very old and or have or have had drawbacks of their own.The CS bashing grew tiresome about 8 years ago and the company has made great strides through the years as witnessed with their superb new 707.

Is this 757 going to be released while real world airlines still have it in service? If not, I am not interested.

"Nice" wording there. Find that appropriate? I myself wouldn't call any dev's work the way you did there.Well, the CS stuff is there, gets maintained and (from a guy owning the Level D 767 and the CS stuff) is being used on most of my VATSIM flights. So maybe your "junk" is (apart from the insulting sounding) a very, very personal view, Sir.Nobody at CS has to wait 3 or 6 years for a new model (or a fix for Acceleration users) at an acceptable price. 757? It's already there, the 4.5 version is coming soon and the 4.4 is working.QW also offers some nice 757 rendition, more medium system depth based but well made (had no problems with the fps there so far). So while some fans are waiting for Level D to come up, other guys are able to actually fly the stuff since years.

The CS 757 would not follow a simple STAR into Denver. The autopilot constantly screws up. (Yes I know what I'm doing, I have flown the Level-D plane for hundreds if not over a thousand hours. It doesn't have the same problems, nor does the QW 757.) The flight model feels incredibly fake compared to the Level-D 767 when hand-flying. Indeed the only thing I like about the CS 757 is the visuals. Captain Sim is pretty, but that is about all they are. It too destroys my FPS.

Not everyone is experiencing bad frames with the QW 757...I have a modest system (Q9550 o'clocked to 3.8 GHz paired with a nVidia 275GTX videocard) and the addon is just fine regarding framerate. Frames are so dependent on the other settings, including traffic, autogen, etc, that it's risky to lay blame on an addon like the QW 757. It's a fine aircraft that I do use although I prefer a Level-d or PMDQ level of complexity.

I have almost exactly the same system (Q9550 + GTX280) but my FPS are bad, only a little better than what I get with the PMDG 747. Ugh, stupid FSX. It still amazes me how two nearly identical computers perform so differently. I will have to mess around with it some more and see what is causing it to bog down my system. I enjoy the plane a lot (minus the fps). It is a million times more reliable than the Captain Sim model. It is just unflyable on my system... :(

I have almost exactly the same system (Q9550 + GTX280) but my FPS are bad, only a little better than what I get with the PMDG 747. Ugh, stupid FSX. It still amazes me how two nearly identical computers perform so differently. I will have to mess around with it some more and see what is causing it to bog down my system. I enjoy the plane a lot (minus the fps). It is a million times more reliable than the Captain Sim model. It is just unflyable on my system... :(

Unfortunately, there are so many variables in FSX that affect framerate that it can be very frustrating to track down an issue. All I can offer is that I've tuned my system and FSX as per NickN's suggestions and have kept the scenery and traffic sliders at low-to-moderate levels. The sim still looks great, and my scenery and airport addons (like FTX NA and FSDT/FlyTampa) work just fine. Good luck!

Congrats, Kiwikat, way better description as on the first attempt. It simply lacks the insulting stuff and therefore becomes a valid personal statement in my eyes.Can't copy your problems mentioned though as I'm very happy with the hand flying, the AP and the following of procedures. I had it once or twice (couldn't reproduce it clearly) that some altitude constrains weren't respected after changing the STARs more than once, but, so far, this doesn't happen regularly. In fact, I'm very happy with the FMC and the whole feel of the aircraft. That's the reason why I prefer it over the LD.But I wasn't up to hijack the thread with talking about CS or QW stuff since some guys around really seem to need a Level D sticker on their box to be happy. So lets hope for the 757 from this dev too. :( It's all about preference in my eyes.

All the CS products have less realistic flight models than Carenado. Carenado at least is changing their ways and listening to the community. The CS75 and 76 are completely unrealistic and nothing but eye candy. if that's your thing, fine, but please don't mention them in the same sentence as Level-D and PMDG

The QW757 fits the bill nicely. Its currently the only thing I am flying. Good for short our long haul. It offers quite a bit. The FDE is pretty darn good and frame rates are not am issue. The only thing I need to look into with it is the landing lights dont quite look good to me.

All the CS products have less realistic flight models than Carenado. Carenado at least is changing their ways and listening to the community. The CS75 and 76 are completely unrealistic and nothing but eye candy. if that's your thing, fine, but please don't mention them in the same sentence as Level-D and PMDG

Sorry for stating my preference and viewpoints, while still staying tolerate towards, for example, yours. Seems like we're both members of a public forum, huh? :wink:I don't use the Level D and fly the CS instead. On the 757 side, there even is no Level D, so why waste energy on wishing, praising and demanding things that may happen, but, so far, did not?Look at the QW and/or CS customers and read about their fun (and sometimes problems) when enjoying the available products. Talking about the LD later, when she has arrived. I don't doubt that she will. All other things are just fictional and lack of facts, not of emotions though.

<br />Sorry for stating <u>my</u> preference and viewpoints, while still staying tolerate towards, for example, yours. Seems like we're both members of a public forum, huh? <img src='http://static.avsim.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /><br />I don't use the Level D and fly the CS instead. On the 757 side, there even is no Level D, so why waste energy on wishing, praising and demanding things that may happen, but, so far, did not?<br /><br />Look at the QW and/or CS customers and read about their fun (and sometimes problems) when enjoying the available products. Talking about the LD later, when she has arrived. I don't doubt that she will. <br />All other things are just fictional and lack of facts, not of emotions though. <img src="http://static.avsim.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/Big%20Grin.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />Did anyone question your preference here?

All the CS products have less realistic flight models than Carenado. Carenado at least is changing their ways and listening to the community. The CS75 and 76 are completely unrealistic and nothing but eye candy. if that's your thing, fine, but please don't mention them in the same sentence as Level-D and PMDG

I'm not a pilot, so I'm not qualified to comment on the CS757's Flight model characteristics myself, and unless you are an airline pilot yourself, neither are you! That being said, I have read posts commenting on the FM of the CS757's on some forums from real 757 pilots. They say the feel of the plane feels right to them. I did read one, that did state some of the EICAS gauges showed incorrect values for some flight conditions.

Did anyone question your preference here?

Good job! Another stupid remark like this one and you'll get your exit visa for free