Hi simmersI have the CS 757 for FS9 and i recently started flying again, but apon loading the 757 (version 2.2) i got a sudden CTD.....I remember when i last flew it about a year ago (i had removed FS from my PC for a while and only recently installed it all again) it was rather and annoyingly demanding on frames.....Is the QW 757 any different?

The QW is a masterpiece in its own way, I have both and fly the QW 757 more. It has a better flight model along with better graphics although it does lack the complexity which CS goes into. I haven't ever had a CTD from the QW and I have very good frames with the aircraft compared to the captain sim.

Hi bradlyThe diffrence with your system and mine is :Your processor is a 4200, i have the 5600same amount of ram, but on win 7The QW757 runs a dream on my machine, in and out of scenery area's too.30fps isnt a problem.Its got a awesome sound set, with v1, v2 rotate calls, flap retration calls, cabin announcement (when taxi-ing, seat belts on-off, decent announcement, ect) landing calls (checklist), 2 engine varients (rolls royce & pratt witney) 2 diffrent cockpit layout and HD and you can edit thiings in the cfg file to change things like what instruments are used in the cockpit (explained in manual).It looks stunning, it sounds stunning.Ok,the systems arnt full on, but the FMC can do a full flight with sid's n star's with accurate VNAV and LNAV and has a very good feel to free fly.The FMC is updateable with the latest AIRAC from navgraph.You get the 200, 300 and cargo version in 1 bundle.About 80 free repaintsi cant find any negative with it..its that good.Unless you count that it doesnt have a RAT, so if you run outta fuel, your engines die and you have no hydrolic pressure, so none of the control surfaces move..you just have pitch.But that would be the ''lite'' side of the addon showing, as it wasnt made to simulate failures..You still have control of a large amount of the overhead panel such as Battery power, APU, generators,fuel pumps, seat belts/no smoking signs, lights ect ect.You wont be dissapionted with it thats for sure.I have nothing to do with QW, im just 1 happy customer

Hi simmersI have the CS 757 for FS9 and i recently started flying again, but apon loading the 757 (version 2.2) i got a sudden CTD.....I remember when i last flew it about a year ago (i had removed FS from my PC for a while and only recently installed it all again) it was rather and annoyingly demanding on frames.....Is the QW 757 any different?

I hate to sound negative, but my impression of the QW757 is not at all positive. The external models and sounds are very good and you certainly get a lot of models and paints. What spoiled it for me were two things:1. On my system, I got unacceptable FPS in the "office" particularly in VC. I can't see why a "lite" model could be heavy on frame rates whereas the LevelD with full systems is not. You may do okay with it, but be warned that some people like myself found it disappointing.2. I get that it's a "lite" product, but IMHO it's a bit too "lite." There is very little, other than the FMC, that is functional above and beyond the default Boeings. If you have the LevelD there's a pretty good chance you will be disappointed.A lot of people love it and you may also but I have to say that I did not and for me it was a total waste of money. I flew it a few times and then uninstalled itI don't have the CS 757 because of all the negative things I read about FPS also but have you checked their website for the latest upgrades? From what I've read, they have made improvements in the past few monthsCheersIan

I have the CS 757, but i installed cleanly to version 2.2 and everytime i go to "fly now" FS9 crashes to desktop...

CS stopped improving their FS9 757 with the last patch in September 2009; the updates since then have all been for the FSX version. Of the two, I prefer the QW, although it is definitely lighter on systems and can be a little hard on frames in some scenarios (expanding EFIS windows causes a noticeable framerate hit). It's been better on frames since the last patch, and the optional glass cockpit version is also heavier on frames than the old-school panel.

The QW 757 has grown to be one of my favorite aircraft. It's 'lite', which is what I wanted, plus there are tons of free paints, there's excellent sounds, and great visuals. And their support ain't half bad either....It used to have its problems with the Addon Manager from Virtuali, but it was fixed. Like the others said, it's not a heavy systems add-on; anyone who was disappointed by it being too 'lite' should have read the reviews/product page a little more closely.

Cool, i think i may try and get my hands on the QW version.....and with that said i guess ill wait for PMDG to release their 777 rather than buy CS's half released 777

The QW 757 has grown to be one of my favorite aircraft. It's 'lite', which is what I wanted, plus there are tons of free paints, there's excellent sounds, and great visuals. And their support ain't half bad either....It used to have its problems with the Addon Manager from Virtuali, but it was fixed. Like the others said, it's not a heavy systems add-on; anyone who was disappointed by it being too 'lite' should have read the reviews/product page a little more closely.

Hi DannyActually, I did read the AVSIM review closely. Obviously "too lite" is a subjective thing - my idea of it and your idea may differ as does our experience of the product. I was just trying to give Brad my own answer to his question - not really intending a debate with the others who posted on here. I have no beef with QW - I just didn't like their product. Just a matter of personal preferences, not "right or wrong."Ian

...I can't see why a "lite" model could be heavy on frame rates whereas the LevelD with full systems is not.

Textures, and polygons would have a greater impact on frames than systems would. The more detailed the interior and exterior models the more potential for frame impact.LeveD 767 has less interior and external modelling details than CaptainSim, QW, PMDG (NGX), iFLY, CLS all of which generally have a bigger frame impact than the LDS767 does. Even though some of them have less systems modelled.

2. I get that it's a "lite" product, but IMHO it's a bit too "lite." There is very little, other than the FMC,that is functional above and beyond the default Boeings.

The QW757 FMC supports database Navaids, Airports, Airways SID/STAR's (w transitions) and RNAV approaches, V-speed calcs, en route flight plan modification, user wpt entry (via lat/lon, plc/brg/dist), coupled with LNAV, VNAV (with Legs page restrictions), holding patterns, FLCH, Cost Index, Direct To, FMA, thrust modes, autoland, EICAS messages, TCAS. GDI+ EADI (round and speed tape), Navigation display gauges with all display modes.I'm just curious what currently available "Lite" product would you consider not 'too lite' ? Cause I can't find any product classified as 'lite' has even half the features I just listed.We got it, the QW757 is no LDS767 or PMDG systems wise.But its product classification has to be higher than 'lite', medium seems more appropriate to me.Regards.Ernie.

All power to you Ernie and Tokermax et al. I'm glad you are happy with it. I really wasn't trying to start an argument, just responding to Brad's question asking for opinions from QW users. You're pleased with it and that's great - I'm not and that's a shame as I would love to have a 757 in my hangar and this one is no longer on my hard drive. Different folks, different strokes as we used to say back in the day...Ian

I can see Ian's point, I must say. The only reason I fly thr CS757 still is because there just are some things that I wish were more in kmy control. It's not that the QW757 is too lite for as far as I'm concerned, it's that too much is already filled in for me or is otherwise automated. The CS757 lets you do a lot yourself, and in that sense I like it more.However, this is the FS2004 forum. The FSX CS757 is now a mature product for as far as I understood, and overall people don't have anymore annoying errors with that plane. The FS2004 CS757 is a completely different story however as it hasn't been given the final round of fixes that the FSX CS757 got. As such, I think that the QW757 is the better one. It simulates less maybe, or to a lesser degree, but what it does simulate is simulated well. The CS757 just seems rather buggy to me... By the way, do not be fooled by CS's image of exquisite modelling! More detaild oes not equal more accuracy. The ratios of the displays in the CS757 seem really wrong to me, for example. Overall, the modelling of the QW757 is better. it might not be as detailed, but it sure is a hell of a lot more accurate.I might try to combine the QW757 model with the CS757 systems, see if that's at all doable.

The FSX CS757 is now a mature product

Benjamin, looks like you have the FSX version of the CaptainSim 757.Does it finally offer key assignment? Its lack was the main drawback for me in the FS9 version.

No, I don't think it does actually. I don't think it's something CS has done in any of their planes by the way. As a matter of fact, the CS757 also doesn't save panel states, while the CS767 seemingly does. Not sure why the technology didn't make it to the 757.

Textures, and polygons would have a greater impact on frames than systems would. The more detailed the interior and exterior models the more potential for frame impact.LeveD 767 has less interior and external modelling details than CaptainSim, QW, PMDG (NGX), iFLY, CLS all of which generally have a bigger frame impact than the LDS767 does. Even though some of them have less systems modelled.The QW757 FMC supports database Navaids, Airports, Airways SID/STAR's (w transitions) and RNAV approaches, V-speed calcs, en route flight plan modification, user wpt entry (via lat/lon, plc/brg/dist), coupled with LNAV, VNAV (with Legs page restrictions), holding patterns, FLCH, Cost Index, Direct To, FMA, thrust modes, autoland, EICAS messages, TCAS. GDI+ EADI (round and speed tape), Navigation display gauges with all display modes.I'm just curious what currently available "Lite" product would you consider not 'too lite' ? Cause I can't find any product classified as 'lite' has even half the features I just listed.We got it, the QW757 is no LDS767 or PMDG systems wise.But its product classification has to be higher than 'lite', medium seems more appropriate to me.Regards.Ernie.

Agreed Ernie. That is farrrr from too lite IMHO. In this community I really believe we throw that word out there a little too often without any thought or basis behind it.It is definitely one of those products that sits smack dab in the middle from a systems modeling standpoint. It's not a high end simulation but I feel just calling it lite really sells it short.In addition to what Ernie said, we actually spent a month studying various EPR data for the RR and PW powerplants.QW 757 actually has accurately simulated EPR for both engine variants that is relative to each engines' performance.The Thrust Mode Select Panel is also calibrated to these endless data charts reflecting different temperature, altitude and atmospheric conditions.I would consider the offerings from CLS are much more appropriate to be classified as lite. We have been honest in saying that it isn't a systems trainer, but it is without question a much more engaging and simulated offering than just a flat out lite product. It's not that many things were left out or not simulated, but rather we automated a few things here or there. But as Ernie said, the end user still has the ability to have complete control of the airplane.