CS777 Now this looks promising!

[Ben Cap 89]

I own almost every plane CS makes and I dont' consider any a ripoff.

 

I think that the 757 is a ripoff. It is extremely buggy and I could never get it to even fly. Let's hope the T7 is better.

[tf51d 284]

I think that the 757 is a ripoff. It is extremely buggy and I could never get it to even fly. Let's hope the T7 is better.

 

No issue here, I think she flies just fine. She's no PMDG, but there are very few that are!

 

[Jack_C 1]

 

 

Well Jack, I own almost every plane CS makes and I dont' consider any a ripoff. And if you dont buy it, then how do you get 'ripped off'? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

Now there are other dev's I would never go near, but they dont rip me off either because I dont buy their products.

 

There is ONE dev I bought a 'lifetime sub' to and got ripped off, but he has seen my last dollar and I still dont come here and badmouth him.

 

Hey Jay. I have bought 3 CS products. None work like they should. As for badmouthing, I think it is a consumers right to know everything about a company they intend to purchase from so what you call badmouthing I call informing.

[mikea76 184]

Hey Jay. I have bought 3 CS products. None work like they should. As for badmouthing, I think it is a consumers right to know everything about a company they intend to purchase from so what you call badmouthing I call informing.

 

Agreed, I want to hear the good and the bad about products.. Not cheerleading

 

 

 

There is ONE dev I bought a 'lifetime sub' to and got ripped off, but he has seen my last dollar and I still dont come here and badmouth him.

 

 

Why let the next guy get ripped off?

[Chock 17,769]

Like many, I'm halfway in already with the CS 777, having bought the exterior model, so I'll be looking forward to seeing what CS do when it is released with a VC. I suspect the PMDG one will be more of a study sim of the real aeroplane, but I also suspect that the CS one will be enough fun to suit many flight simmers, and that's a key point with CS and where they pitch things. Or to put it another way, yes I like the PMDG 737, but I like most of the other 737 you can get for FSX for their relative merits too.

 

Personally, I don't regard CS as a rip off, more as a company which could improve a bit. They make pretty FS aeroplanes with reasonably good functionality which lean toward hard core, and are one of the few developers who make the old clunkers that I like. It is true that they are no A2A when it comes to obsessive fidelity of those old bangers, and I would be lying if I said that I don't think they ought to look at how they model the JT8 in a bit more detail so that EPR is more believable, but these things aside, their efforts are still really rather enjoyable. Personally, I couldn't care less about their continued obsession with rather pointless eye candy such as deployable emergency slides and jettisonable overwing exit doors, but some people probably like that stuff.

 

Anyone who has read my Avsim reviews of the CS 707 and 727 will know that I'm not averse to pointing out their failings, most notably the need to pay greater attention to minor bugs and flaws which users sometimes end up addressing, but taking a radical empiricist view on things is an important function of broad opinion, and when one does that, my conclusion is that in spite of some failings, the fun factor remains quite high with CS products, particularly if one is prepared to do a bit of DIY maintenance on them.

 

I have their 757, C-130, B-52, 707, 727, 737, Weather Radar and their FSX Weapon add-ons. Some of these I got for 9.99 in a sale (the 757 and the C-130 if I recall correctly), so I certainly don't regard them as a rip off for the price I paid. But I paid full whack for most of them, and with the 707 for example, that was before they dropped the price a bit too (and what is more, I could have had it for free, since I did the Avsim review of it - DOH!). Even with that, there is no way on earth I would say that one is a rip off, it's fantastic fun, having radar, doppler navigation, INS nav and VOR, which makes it one of the few FS aeroplanes where you can do old school trans-oceanic flights at the birth of the jet age in a pretty realistic manner. Yes the engines could be more faithfully modeled, and some of the systems could be more interlinked to offer more realistic redundancy, but in all honesty, when I was learning about the 707 in detail in order to conduct an informed review of the 707, a process which involved tracking down a genuine 707 training manual, paying a lot for that, and then reading it cover to cover, I still came to the conclusion that you'd have to be a real 707 flight engineer to be overly bothered about the things which are not 100 percent accurately simulated, and much of that only matters if you want to simulate abnormal procedures, thus, so long as you looked at it as a glass half full and enjoyed the many positives it offered, you would not be disappointed.

 

My admiration of the attention to detail in things such as the PMDG 747 (which I still maintain is the best FS aeroplane ever) and the A2A B-17 (which challenges it for the top spot in my opinion), and the level of detail which goes into them, is not dimished by finding the good things in CS products and giving a gallic shrug about the things which could be better. Moreover, the recent CS 737 seems to indicate that CS are improving in this regard, and whilst there are doubtless some fears about the ability of CS to simulate a modern 'glass' airliner, when 'steam' ones are more their forte, is I think, missing the fact that both the development of a working doppler simulation in their 707, and the innovation of things such as Weapon for FSX and their weather radar, are indicators that CS can pull the stops out when they want to, and this implementation of an EFB is another pointer to that ethos. If they throw the same level of effort at the FMC, then it will be enough fun to suit me.

 

Not being as obsessed with the 777 as I am interested in the DC-6, I'm more interested in what PMDG can do with that, but even so, I'd probably still go for PMDG's 777 as well as the CS effort, so it's not going to be a case of either/or for me even with an airliner which is of less interest to me than other ones. Thus I remain bipartisan with the CS and PMDG journeys toward a 777 release, and even though I am fairly certain that the PMDG one will be more obsessively accurate, I think the CS one is likely to have some merit, just as the iFly NG does when faced with the detail in the PMDG NG. And I bought both of them too.

 

Al

[PIC007 82]

Well said Al, and thats the difference between 'informing' and 'badmouthing'.

[Bigmack 29]

I own the CS 757 also. I don't think I've been ripped off, but I'm glad I got it for 9.99 sale. I fly it sometimes and find it very eye pleasing, but disappointing system wise. It does have bugs, which some you can find user fixes by searching their forum. Also the flight dynamics are not very accurate. CS refuses to listen to, or correct some legitimate complaints. So they most likely lost me as customer, like few other developers.

 

I would never pay for a partial release expecting better updated blocks releases from CS. While their models look good, their systems and flight dynamics are light. So you customers who pay your money to CS don't complain when you don't get the type of 777 your expecting. It's business as usual with them.

 

But I do like the C130.

[xplanery 250]

Mmm yeah I wouldn't call CS products ripoff either. When I got CS 757 few years ago it did have severe problems, I couldn't fly more than like 2 hour flights with it, after that my engines both shut down and plane would stall unless I was watching at that exact moment and restarting engines. I have operated Level D 767 and QW 757 just same way with no problems so I think that it was not my fault but some bug which caused it as I was also able to restart engines using ctrl + e after that without touching anything else. Probably this bug has been fixd later, but at that time it happened with CS 767 too, idk if other people had it too.

 

And flight dynamics are indeed not too good in many CS products. 757 has some weird behavior, also CS 727 feels like a train to fly, completely lacks dynamic feeling that most other addons have. When I put my yoke back to neutral position banking instantly stops when in real aircraft of course it takes a second or so from ailerons and all to go back their neutral position. Also soundpack is not very good on these.

 

But anyway then on the other hand I am very happy with CS 707, it seems to fly better and I haven't found any too bad bugs.

 

As a whole CS is good developer but they should do some improvements in bug fixing and flight dynamics to become truly great, also more focus on simulating systems would be needed too.

[dave2013 1,130]

]Well Jack, I own almost every plane CS makes and I dont' consider any a ripoff. And if you dont buy it, then how do you get 'ripped off'? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

Now there are other dev's I would never go near, but they dont rip me off either because I dont buy their products.

 

There is ONE dev I bought a 'lifetime sub' to and got ripped off, but he has seen my last dollar and I still dont come here and badmouth him. [/size]

 

Would this developer happen to be involved in the "mesh" industry? If so, then that makes two of us.

 

As for Captain Sim, I have their 757 and 767 and I'm reasonably happy with both. When it comes to the 777, however, I'd much rather save my money and wait for PMDG's version, which will undoubtedly be in a whole different class.

 

I'm not really sure what to do, though, because I've been waiting for a decent 777 for years now. I wish I had some idea of when PMDG might have theirs ready. Even a "before the end of the year" statement would convince me to wait. If it's going to be longer than that, then I might go ahead and give Captain Sim's a try.

[Boeing or not going 578]

What problems do you have with FSGenesis? I've used many products for years. Great company

[tf51d 284]

Here's their next installment, The Electronic Check List (ECL)

 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

I gotta say the featurelist on this plane is looking mighty nice. I hope they get systems simulation and flight modeling down, as well as squash all the major bugs because this would be the first modern CS jetliner I would consider in lieu of or in addition to something from the likes of PMDG, QW, or Level D.

[mikea76 184]

Well said Al, and thats the difference between 'informing' and 'badmouthing'.

 

There was no negativity in his post just about all positive with any bad points of a plane being written off as " well you would need to be a expert for it to bother you".. Yes it was informative, but hardly critical.

 

It is OK to say product A is a poor effort and product B is a good effort. it's up to you as a reader to decide the credibility of the person so called "badmouthing" the product

[Jack_C 1]

Hey Mike. I think Jay was referring to my post as badmouthing not Al's post. I too believe CS COULD be a great company BUT for now they are a "take your money and run" type company. They either leave bugs untouched or they charge way too much for what they really offer. Yes, I know, no need to bring up their 9.99 deals. But seriously there are companies out there like RA that do a better job and charge less.

[Chock 17,769]

There was no negativity in his post just about all positive with any bad points of a plane being written off as " well you would need to be a expert for it to bother you".. Yes it was informative, but hardly critical.

 

I was not writing off bad points as things that would not bother someone, I was referring to the fact that you would need to know the aircraft as well as a flight engineer in order to spot some features which are not simulated exactly as per the real thing. So please do not attempt to put words in my mouth by placing your own quotation marks around your own out of context pseudo-paraphrasing, in an attempt to make it look like I wrote something which I did not.

 

And if you think there was no negativity in my post, then I'll give you some genuine quotes which did actually appear in it, and see if you would call these praise:

 

'I would be lying if I said that I don't think they ought to look at how they model the JT8 in a bit more detail so that EPR is more believable'

 

'if one is prepared to do a bit of DIY maintenance on them'

 

'they are no A2A when it comes to obsessive fidelity'

 

'I couldn't care less about their continued obsession with rather pointless eye candy'

 

Al