Mind the poll running on the HDG feature. http://www.captainsi...?num=1335210228

 

The difference among those two options lies in the way you can connect to the plane's autopilot. With the default FSX key bindings and controls, you could use most cockpit hardware and navigation addons like the CIVA INS. With the current implementation, the plane only reacts to mouse clicks in the VC though, so some addons and hardware can't access it and therefore fail to drive the autopilot.

 

So it's matter or personal preference and needs. When the HDG is reverted back to default FSX bindings, the CWS 'bank' feature will get lost. Although I doubt that many of the folks actually use it (I only run it in the pitch channel, which will remain intact either way), there seems to be a need for realism in their eyes.

 

My suggestion was to offer both ways of interaction. So the user can pick his favourite one, depending on the hardware, the addons and mood. Shouldn't be too hard since the current autopilot already works and the default FSX hdg feature is available and doesn't have to be reinvented.

 

I can't comment on the violently moving wings. I haven't seen that one happening so far.

So it's matter or personal preference and needs. When the HDG is reverted back to default FSX bindings, the CWS 'bank' feature will get lost. Although I doubt that many of the folks

 

The problem, as I understand it, is that the -100 and -200 really didn't have Delco INSs or anything like that fitted, even most -200ADVs were flown on pure VOR/DME tracks until FMCs started getting retro-fitted. So for the most part, being able to put a FMC or INS into a 737 original, as they were built, is mostly non-realistic. And while it's nice to offer an option to people that want to slap vasfmc into the 737, the people at CS believe that it doesn't justify damaging the usability of the existing AP system, which is 'realistic'.

 

Presumably they believe that offering an option is very difficult to for some reason, or their implementation just can't work as-is with an option. I guess they'd know better than us in terms of how it's currently implemented... Given that they've made it clear that after 1.0 they wanted to focus on the 757 v2 and other things before coming back to the 737 in the update cycle, they also may not wish to spend another few weeks adding an option for a minority of users.

 

Also, I imagine that it feels a bit of a slap in the face for everyone to demand complex realism in the systems, then turn around and say 'that's great, but VOR is hard, can we put vasFMC in it please?'. They're pretty much in a 'damned if you do...' situation, especially when the ones most vocal about needing a FMC are the same ones that rant about how it's 'not up to the NGX', I can imagine the sentiment becomes 'fine, go fly the NGX then...'

Yes, that realism topic again. It's hard to define at times while flying more or less detailed planes on a TFT monitor, grabbing some plastic yoke or joystick.

 

I think the first part to be happy about is the fact that CS is actually asking the folks on how they would like to see this special feature. Not a commonly used type of action in the business. Big thumbs up on that. Regardless of the outcome though, you may end up with an unhappy party of a certain size, as long as it's either this OR that path.

Right you are, we don't know how much work is needed to establish a switchable behaviour, but, as seen on the 707, it's possible to alter the AP drive logics on the fly for e.g. the INS. Right you are again, maybe no extra work needed if it turns out to be a wish of very few folks.

 

I, personally, am happy with the current AP feature and interaction and I would be even more happy with the extra option. So it's complaining on an already high level for me, though I see the point in the requests, which, maybe due to their numbers, actually lead to the poll.

I think what adds to it is the fact that especially the hdg interaction once got advertised as 'fixed' or being dependant of default FSX commands or something. I wasn't part of any pre-1.0 tests, so I can't tell for sure.

 

I am sure that changes on 1.0 aren't fun for any dev, but I think the software industry has already learned that 1.0 means the start of (customer inter-)actions, not the end. Same here, the FDE was changed a lot from 0.9 to 1.0, see the outcome. And the details like the PDCS may need a second look too. Apart from those 'major' aspects, I think that 1.0 already is a fine and successful release.

 

So I'd say the requests on that one feature shouldn't come in too harsh, but just as a wish, nothing more. I don't think that any possible decision on the hdg topic will spoil the fun with that addon.

Denver to be fair, the Captain Sim of 2008 is not the same as the Captain Sim now a days. SInce then they have righted much of their wrongs of the past. They are more responsive to customers, They have maintained their products well since.

Denver to be fair, the Captain Sim of 2008 is not the same as the Captain Sim now a days. SInce then they have righted much of their wrongs of the past. They are more responsive to customers, They have maintained their products well since.

Yes, They are more responsive with his customers...but compared with themselves. They had improved the Customer support, but still isn't enough to win in a comparison with other airliners developers.

 

Why is not enough? We can see here

 

2009:

- 767 Captain for FSX version 1.2 (August, released)

- 757 Captain for FS9 version 2.2 (September, released)

- 767 Captain for FSX version 1.3 (October, released)

- 757 Captain for FSX version 4.4 (November released)

- 767 Captain for FSX version 1.4 (December, released)

- 727 Captain for FSX version 2.3 (December, released)

 

2010:

- 727 Captain version 2.4 (February, released)

- 707 Captain version 1.1 (September, released)

- 707 Captain version 1.2 (October, released)

 

2011:

- 757 Captain version 4.5 (October released)

- 757 Captain version 4.6 (November released)

- 767 Captain version 1.5 (November released)

- 757 Captain version 4.6 (November released)

 

This is a business. In a business you need care your customers. All software have bugs...software is developed by humans and humans fail.

But....the key is how and when they make the corrective actions (patches).

 

Companies with good customer support (PMDG, IFly, Orbx...) release patches to solve bugs, same as CS, what's the difference? When.

CS still fix bugs 2 years before the release of his CS757/767 and the CS727 still waiting for the 2.5 patch...and as you can see, the CS727 waiting for a patch since 2010!!!! But since 2010 they release more products. From the customer perspective...this is a joke. They haven't time for patch his products but miracle!!! they have time to develop new products....They lost many potential customers and lost old customers. His market each day decrease....And his business model is only supported by his ###### and a few new customers.

 

Here, we have a heavy non-conformity....I can't fly an aircraft with bugs during 2 years...It's ridiculus...It's a business, if the company can't give a good customer support, my money is spent in good developers...Where i only choose my favourite and know, the quality is guaranteed. Quality is too the customer support, is very important and the good companies (professionals developers) spend much money to care his customers and care his products.

 

I Wish they change is business model and we can fly soon the best Boeing 727 for FSX.

Ryan I dont even know if you were part of the team back then, this was a year or so after FSX was released. I'm not going to rehash it these many years later. I was simply pointing out to someone that ALL devs have their issues at one time or another.

 

Ah sorry, I misread what you said - I thought you said it *was* an NGX issue. I wasn't on the support team yet when the 400X came out.

Denver to be fair, the Captain Sim of 2008 is not the same as the Captain Sim now a days. SInce then they have righted much of their wrongs of the past. They are more responsive to customers, They have maintained their products well since.

 

Maybe they slipped up a little right when I made a purchases. :Thinking:

 

Ce Zeta explained it a little better than I did maybe. Sometimes I let my emotions get the better of me. But yes there is a standard implemented by the market as a whole and CS is still far behind. Part of the perspective here is that the good companies are getting better quickly as well so it is sink or swim now. And if you cant stand the heat, well than, you know how the rest goes. I understand completely if some people want a light aircraft instead. But in other cases I think you can spend 70 bucks on a really good airplane with good service or 50 on quite a sub par with poor service. The extra 20 bucks seems well worth it. Unless again you are just primarily interested in a visual model and do not want to sit down and read 1000 pages first, which I totally respect for those people. I for one love reading the 1000 pages before I even fly the thing as I sit in the VC with the APU running, I could do that all day, almost. Than again I am probably one of the weird few who think it is a vacation to get sent to Simcom in Scottsdale AZ for recurrent training every year.

 

But in a nutshell it is the Support, Release quality (amount of bugs and severity), and advertising that I am griping about just to make it specific again. Still just does not hold a candle to other companies out there right now.

And which model did you buy, Marc? In which year again?

 

 

I Wish they change is business model and we can fly soon the best Boeing 727 for FSX.

I have no doubt that some bugs may annoy you more or less, but why do you keep writing as if the plane doesn't fly at all? Looking in the CS forum section, I can see a lot of folks being a fan of the plane, flying it in FSX. On the bugs, I wrote a list about them, so lets say I'm aware. 2.5 would be great, count me in.

 

I know that the dramatic value of this thread is hugely increased with emotional statements, but I wonder if the single person viewpoint stating 'unflyable' really applies to all human beings actually using the CS 727.

 

Besides, the thread is about the 2012 CS 737, hence the title. The stage improvements (0.6, 0.7 and so on) on the 737 came within a few weeks and they are currently collecting items for 1.1. Not much to complain about speed and progress so far.

Maybe they slipped up a little right when I made a purchases. :Thinking:

 

Ce Zeta explained it a little better than I did maybe. Sometimes I let my emotions get the better of me. But yes there is a standard implemented by the market as a whole and CS is still far behind. Part of the perspective here is that the good companies are getting better quickly as well so it is sink or swim now. And if you cant stand the heat, well than, you know how the rest goes. I understand completely if some people want a light aircraft instead. But in other cases I think you can spend 70 bucks on a really good airplane with good service or 50 on quite a sub par with poor service. The extra 20 bucks seems well worth it. Unless again you are just primarily interested in a visual model and do not want to sit down and read 1000 pages first, which I totally respect for those people. I for one love reading the 1000 pages before I even fly the thing as I sit in the VC with the APU running, I could do that all day, almost. Than again I am probably one of the weird few who think it is a vacation to get sent to Simcom in Scottsdale AZ for recurrent training every year.

 

But in a nutshell it is the Support, Release quality (amount of bugs and severity), and advertising that I am griping about just to make it specific again. Still just does not hold a candle to other companies out there right now.

 

I'm not aware of any $70 737-200 models... At any rate, you're comparing apples to oranges. To be more accurate, you're comparing 5 year old apples to brand new oranges.

Just a HU for the folks in doubt. CS runs a list like this, being accessible through their Knowledge Base.

Product: 737 Captain

Category: On the list for next SP

7 items and counting so far. So, when in doubt about the quality of 737 1.0, wait for 1.1. No harm done on either side.

Whatever. I am over it. Where is the beating dead horse emicon? If your going to read more into what I am saying than this is not going to work. The $70 dollars is for the NGX! which is a 800-900. If you want the whole package it will be more than that. Your right though it is apples to oranges. Or shall I say rotten tomatoes to Caviar.

 

I am done now.

I am done now.

 

We can only hope

Whatever. I am over it. Where is the beating dead horse emicon? If your going to read more into what I am saying than this is not going to work. The $70 dollars is for the NGX! which is a 800-900. If you want the whole package it will be more than that. Your right though it is apples to oranges. Or shall I say rotten tomatoes to Caviar.

 

I am done now.

 

I purchased the NGX at 9PM, moments after it was released. It had more bugs than I could shake a stick at for the first 3 weeks... As a matter of fact, I couldn't complete a flight because of CTDs or the infamous "aircraft freeze". Since then, it has become the most stable, well performing aircraft in my virtual hangar. Since the CS737-200 release, they've built a bug list to keep customers up to date (the exact thing PMDG did in their forum). What I'm saying is you've got a moot point in relationship to support and service. As for the rest, I'm sure I've made myself clear. It's obvious this niche community will have folks like yourself (who don't even own the product) trash talking developers, but enough is enough. "rotten tomatoes?" Really?

Ah sorry, I misread what you said - I thought you said it *was* an NGX issue. I wasn't on the support team yet when the 400X came out.

 

No problem Ryan, it was before the NGX was even a twinkle in someones eye :-)

Please go to vote for your preference

http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1335210228