Well so much for the naysayers on this topic.When was the last time you purchased a CS airplane,Their customer service and tech support has improved immensely over the last 2 years.Check out the 707 and B52 "golden oldies".There is also a lot of member tech support for their more recent products.There is also a better approach to finishing projects, and the buyers who purchase the exterior modelsget a discount when the rest of the aircraft is released.Possibly,those who wait even longer will get an even better dealwhen the sales come along. All in all I have been satisfied with my purchases from Captain Sim. Reading Lou's stories and implementing Marcos' and others mods make me a frequent visitor to their forums.Their combination of eye candy and reasonably authentic aircraft make for many hours of simming pleasure.Go CS!!!Ron

Too bad that's all they know how to do. Their aircraft always feel incomplete and inadequate compared to other developers'. They just aren't very high fidelity. The flight models are usually awkward at best, and FPS are bad by comparison. Their planes STILL have very obvious bugs even after several versions. I guess if you like flying pretty slideshows, CS is for you.

+1 Never seen a complete release from them... You pay 60 bucks at release for their add-ons and you ALWAYS have to tweak it yourself somehow (and the system fidelity is not at the level I like' em to be) : INS, trim sensitivity, etc. For the price it's unacceptable for me.I'm still waiting for some improvement/patches for almost all the previous add-ons after months and even years : 757, 727, 707I'd rather buy a complete 737 simulation (systems, vc, soundset, support and future patches ... ) than promote/support this way of making/delivering add-ons by bits (living you with "HOPE" that they're going to do this or that) AND with no refund policy... No way. Crazy. Personal taste of course.If other people are happy with this then that's OK with me...

Are you sure you can port over the VC from the overland's 732? I didn't think it was FSX native, but a FS9 portover.

Are you sure you can port over the VC from the overland's 732? I didn't think it was FSX native, but a FS9 portover.

I think you mean Aerosim's. Overland didn't do a 732. And yes, you can simply put the Aerosim 732 in the FSX Simobjects/Aircraft folder, and the plane will work. You can't get out the VC and put it in the CS731, however, because the Aerosim 732 is, as you say, a FS2004 plane.

Does anyone know how to be able to look out of the AS's VC? I just have black windows

CS is the undisputed king of exterior models, no question in my mind (the PMDG NGX is the lone exception). When it comes to the rest of the product apart from the exterior and VC graphics, they can't compete with the big boys, and I base my assumption on their interpretation of modern glass cockpit tube liners like their 757 and 767 (and the forthcoming 777). I have never owned any CS product, but have seen plenty of reviews of the flaws in their glass pit planes, and I believe what others say about their lack of fidelity or bugs. But I've heard a lot of good things about their simulations of older "steam gauge" jets, and I think that is where they should be devoting their attention to, their niche so to speak. Such aircraft like the 707 thru the 737 classic do not have the complex FMCs and electronic glass displays that IMHO they have no expertise in modeling. To even attempt the T7 is just not going to end well for CS, unless they plan on serving the lite/medium sim market by catering to the screenshot crowd. I believe they have found their niche with the 707, 727, 737 and other older planes, and wish them all the best when it comes to that era of aviation.

Too bad that's all they know how to do. Their aircraft always feel incomplete and inadequate compared to other developers'. They just aren't very high fidelity. The flight models are usually awkward at best, and FPS are bad by comparison. Their planes STILL have very obvious bugs even after several versions. I guess if you like flying pretty slideshows, CS is for you.

Actually, I slightly disagree. I have their 727 and C130 in FSX and they are pretty darn good and excellent on framerates. They certainly feel convincing to fly. I don't think CS have ever claimed to be a 'very high fidelity' developer. That category is unique to PMDG as far as I can see. But I enjoy the roughed up, rather convincing looking VC's and the fact that they have dedicated their development (for the most part) to true classic jetliners. No-one else has yet done anything on that front of any convincing worth in a payware line.

I must respectfully disagree about Captain Sim and the more modern airplanes. Perhaps their talents shine brighter in the older airliners, but it is not because there is anything wrong with the "complex FMCs," which are quite detailed and capable in my opinion. I just learned how to program DME arcs, for example, and they work perfectly. (The flight management system's manual for the 757 is a well-written 99 pages.) I'll pass on the external-only model, though. The 727 satisfies my requirement for a classic when I feel like actually flying something. The 737 is advertised as having 4X resolution, i.e. x4 the resolution of their (already high resolution) standard. Is that like McPhat's Ultra High Definition?

If I thought Captain Sim could not make a decent steam gauge airliner, I would not have bought this, but the fact is, they most certainly can. It is absolutely true that CS sometimes take a while to patch things up and that they are not unknown for banging out stuff with some issues, but they are by no means alone in this, take a look on the PMDG NGX or J41 forum if you don't think that is true, both of which are awaiting patching. This is entirely understandable with the newly-released NGX, but the J41 is not by any means a recent release, similarly the PMDG MD-11 had lighting issues upon release and the PMDG 747 had errors in the cockpit which remained, so this is not a case of an isolated incident, more a case of selective recall when people suggest CS is alone in this regard. I do really rate PMDG's stuff, I still think their 747 is the pinnacle of systems modeling to this day in spite of their excellent NG, but to imagine they cannot make mistakes or take a while to sort them, and to do so is the sole preserve of CS, is not an accurate appraisal of CS in comparison to other developers that are held in high regard. Back with CS, their 707 for FSX is an excellent aircraft now, with very little to complain about, and it has some systems innovation in the doppler navigation it simulates, so CS are not simply about basic systems by any means, examine their innovative CS Weapon as another example of the kind of thing they can do to push the development envelope. Likewise, their 727 had some issues, but nothing that cannot be either easily sorted out, or has been patched anyway. Captain Sim is by no means a perfect developer and when I've reviewed stuff of theirs, it is absolutely true that the odd silly mistake in their initial releases has prevented me from recommending them to Avsim's reviews editor for an Avsim award of some kind, but they are definitely improving in that area, and I can tell you that their FSX 707 came damn close to getting such a recommendation from me. It is also true that CS used to have somewhat lacking customer support, so did PMDG for that matter if you go back in time a while, but whilst that is now no longer true for PMDG, who have excellent customer support these days, it is also the case with Captain Sim, which has also improved massively in that regard. All I can suggest to those who think CS are crappy developers with much work to do to improve, is to try one of their more recent releases for yourself. They ain't up to PMDG or A2As level of excellence yet, but they are not as far behind as some people imagine. But you don't have to take me entirely on trust in this matter, wait for one of their sales if you like, and grab their 707 for a tenner if you don't want to take a more fiscal gamble. I'll be very surprised if you aren't hugely impressed with it. Al

I own the C130 and 727, both are quite reasonable with regards to performance on my system. However, those were (and will be) the last items I ever buy from CS. Those were relatively "complete" aircraft releases. The whole piece-meal release (which started with the 757 "Blocks") is bogus and reeks of "We know we don't have the in-house talent or ability to fully develop the plane, so let's just release a couple parts and there will always be people out there that will shell out their money for the hope we'll finish it over time, but at least we get money in our pocket now". Whomever is doing their modelling work has some serious talent, though what they've been releasing lately belongs more in a 3DS Repository website vice an FSX Add-on aircraft sales page. On the flip side of the coin, for that they are offering (i.e. the only thing resembling a 731 is it's shape), $10 is quite a deal for the detail in the model. If I were shooting FSX videos and wanted/needed a HD 731 in the film, I'd click "buy". In the end, you get what you pay for. As someone above said "Pay for what you see, not hope to see".

Those who have it how are FPS and more importantly the FDE? In your opinion (since we are not real world 732 captains here), Does it feel right or is it a "rocket"? Yea, I was thinking of Classic Liners Vol. 1 but that's for FS9.

Flies okay, pretty convincing lift off and stall speeds, roll rate etc, and is smooth on FPS, which of course it would be when flying with the default FSX 737 cockpit, but that probably means it'll be smooth with steam gauges. Al

So long as it comes to pass, then is there really anything wrong in doing that? Nobody is forcing anyone to indulge in it, so there's no need for anyone to get upset about it if the concept doesn't float their boat. For those that do indulge, they get a model to play around with in the interim, so it's not as if any takers get nothing at all for having thrown some financing their way to grease the wheels a bit. Moreover, it can in some ways be viewed as a survey to see how much genuine (as in prepared to spend money) interest there is in that particular aircraft, and with that knowledge they might then consider planning to do perhaps a C40 variant, or the rival Mercure or whatever. With NGs aplenty now, the 100 and 200 series models are for enthusiasts of older ways, and so there is nothing wrong with demonstrating some enthusiasm for that. I know I'm certainly glad to see CS wheeling out all the classic Boeings, I just hope they keep at it and do DC8s, VC-10s, Tridents, L-1011s etc, it's a rich vein they could tap into. Anyone who bangs out a decent Tristar or DC-8 for FSX is going to coin it in. Al

Oh yeah, god I hope they make a DC-8. That's a plane that's still in cargo service. Would be awesome! Having a L-1011 would also be great, although I think that plane isn't at all in service anymore, sadly. Love how that plane looks!

I was one who purchased the eye candy. Generally i am happy with my CS purchases (767-300, 200, 737-100) there are some issues with the -100. To be true to life the -100 models had the rear boarding door with built in stairs. This door was larger than the other doors and rotated downward and the stairs folded out as shown in this diagram http://www.flickr.co...157624545005667 these stairs were standard on the -100 and optional on the -200 as seen in this image http://en.wikipedia....lines_Combi.JPG. The outboard wing landing lights should extend from the flap canoes but are fixed in place. Additionally with the CS 737-100 the right outboard slats for some reason do not extend will take a closer look later.And finally at cruise altitude of 31000 feet, the fuel flow is 5.0-5.5 per engine thats 10,000-11,000 lbs of fuel per hour..... flew from yellowknife canada to Resolute bay and landed with 430 lbs of fuel. definately an issue there. should be more around max 6000 lbs per hour. On the up side of this model it is absolutely detailed the windows are all transparent with passengers in the cabin. Escape slides and overwing window emergency exits open (great for those fs passengers emergency landings) As far as frame rates? This model provides the aboslute Best framerates of any aircraft i have in my entire collection. I have an old machine, Win XP single core 2.4 ghz processor with 3.5 g of ram, and a cheap graphics card and i still get 5-10 frames per second BETTER than any other aircraft i have in my system. but yes there are a few bugs that need to be worked out. Also if you look at the engine nacelles as you get to higher N1 settings you will notice the air inlets open up. just lots of little surprises.