Most will do this based on what they read in the forums or what they hear from a friend.

 

Hello

I decided to ignore what I read in the forums and bought the 757, patched it up to the latest version.

Guess what... the forums were right , it is a pile of rubbish.

Very prettty rubbish granted, but still almost unflyable even when correctly set up for a flight.

Yes, the 757 is a pile of rubbish. And the QW757 looks better than CS's 757 anyway - Even if it lacks on systems, i rather fly the QW757. They're (CS) working on version 5.0, that one *might* make it a good 757.

 

I should have said what i said in another way as you cannot completely ignore what you read in the forums, you just have to learn how to filter the information. This sounds better :)

 

What you shouldn't touch from CS: B757, B52, B727 (even if it works, it has a few... "issues"). The rest is pretty much good stuff also featuring their awesome visuals . We'll see how the 777 will turn out, but right now i am not holding my breath for it, development is sloooooow.

Seems like round 1263 of the 767 comparison is still running strong. Don't miss the show and lets not forget that the weekly comparison of 737 is up next. Who needs a forum search anyway?

 

Great roundup from Alan though. He never gets tired of explaining and giving food for thought.

:LMAO: :LMAO:

Hello Nuno

I will certainly give the CS 767 a try when the next sale comes around, the 757 will get uninstalled shortly unless it starts behaving in a predictable manner.

And it uses a different air file and aircraft.cfg?

 

The CS 767 has one aircraft.cfg which additionally points to each of the 3 .air files such as in the 200 you get B767-200GE.air B767-200PW.air

 

and in the 300 you get

 

B767-300RR.air B767-300PW.air and B767-300RR.air

 

Perhaps if you wanted to tweak separate aircraft.cfg files you could move the original to a new folder and copy all sub folders and files but make sure to remove the original [fltsim.xxx] instances to avoid duplicates in your available aircraft inventory, but with different performances.

 

Essentially, you are getting more planes for the purchase.

If they need 5 versions to get the 757 right, they're doing it wrong.

After reading so much about captain sim, I don't understand how anyone can defend them. They seem to have unfinished product for years. And take years to fix them. :Worried:

Captain Sim supporters seem to like them because of their visual modeling and virtual cabins.

They are part time developers with other jobs, and I think life has just got in the way of them doing anything on the 757 they were developing. If you look on their Avsim support forum you will find claims that their 757 is still on the way, but frankly that's becoming a bit of a joke, since that's been the standard answer for years.

 

You have to think that if it really was on the way and progress was being made, then some screenshots of something would have been forthcoming at some point, and there were a couple of screenshots years ago, but as far as I know, nothing has been seen or said of it for literally years since then, so I think most people have come to the conclusion that it's never going to show up in spite of claims to the contrary, and even if it does show up, probably no major airlines will be operating the thing by the time it happens. BA retired their 757s two years ago for example, and they were 27 years old at that point.

 

Al

 

Well Al I have a long time track record here in both freeware (7 aircraft) and with a truckload of awards

but also on other fields so my word count for something along the old timers here ;-)

 

As a member of the LDS team (joined them at 2008) we will bring the most realistic 757

airliner ever released for a PC flightsimulator platform (including all techniques on 3d / 2d current available ;-))

Level-d is all about simulating a complex airliner exactly as the real world counter part otherwise we don't do it...

 

It will be developed with passion for aviation and with great respect for all my fellow simmers out there hope it will shows when we release and we will...

But we do it still part time after our daily job and rlw matters...

 

So gentleman just enjoy what available is now based on your own personal preference.

 

I hope you will discover the passion from our work when we release

I know I personally lost the count of the thousands of hours I put into this one..

I think we just saw the most precise statement on the LD757 development in years. :Shocked:

Hello

Today I flew a 3/12 hour flight from Dalaman Turkey to Gatwick in the LevelD 767 without any issues whatsoever.

 

I had attempted the same flight last night in the CS 757 but aborted after 10 mins as the yoke in the VC was oscillating from side to side and the AP could not correctly command the climb in LVL Change mode bringing the AC to the point of stall.

That's it for me with the CS757, luckily only £9.99 in the last sale wasted.

Hello

Today I flew a 3/12 hour flight from Dalaman Turkey to Gatwick in the LevelD 767 without any issues whatsoever.

 

I had attempted the same flight last night in the CS 757 but aborted after 10 mins as the yoke in the VC was oscillating from side to side and the AP could not correctly command the climb in LVL Change mode bringing the AC to the point of stall.

That's it for me with the CS757, luckily only £9.99 in the last sale wasted.

 

ahah same with me, except I went from DFW to LAX and I on paid 10 for her too!

I think we just saw the most precise statement on the LD757 development in years. :Shocked:

 

Hello

I just need to see a similar statement from the developer of Radar Contact and I will be very happy.

I think we just saw the most precise statement on the LD757 development in years. :Shocked:

 

Yeah, forget all the 767 chit-chat, this is by far the most important post :LMAO: And no, i'm not joking!

 

Just hope they make justice to the 757, it's one of the best looking Boeings ever.

Well I have to go with NaMco on this one, I think the CS757/767 get's an unfair shake from this community. In my experience with both the LDS-767 and CS767 (As well as the CS-757), I would say CS's systems are on par with LDS these days, with the exception of Autoland, where CS still hasn't figured out how to do a flare, It does Flare, but too late resulting in only a reduction from 700fpm to 400fpm. This is easily resolved with a little back pressure, but then it's not really an Autoland. That was until today, when I decided to put them to the test, and really took a close look at both aircraft performance. I flew 2 flights with identical flight plans from KLAX to KSFO @ FL360, With a fuel load of 35Klbs each, and a cost index of 40, with LNAV/VNAV with the LDS-767 and CS-767. What I found surprised me.

 

Takeoff on both were about the same.

 

Climb profiles as expected on both were a little off originally calculated in the FMC, with the LDS a little closer.

 

Cruise was uneventful on both aircraft

 

The VNAV descent profiles really surprised me. With everything I keep reading on how CS systems are so bad, and it doesn't follow it's VNAV profiles, I expected to see the same! I didn't. Both aircraft followed there calculated descent profiles to a tee. What surprised me though is the calculated speeds. While the CS 767 descended at a rate of 287kts @1800-2000FPM from FL360 to 10000K and 240kts below, The LDS-767 calculated speed was only 254Kts from FL360-10K and 240kts below. On all the flights I have taking that have the Navigation displays, which I always use, I have never been on a plane flying that slow that high up. Just to check, I programmed the same flight with the PMDG 737-800NG (NGX) with the same cost index (40) and it calculated 284kts down to 10K, 240kts below that. So I would have to give the nod to the CS767 having a more realistic descent profile.

 

I did mess up both approaches but recovered in time for a decent landing attempt. The LDS I waited too long to take the plane out of VNAV, and the CS, with all the windows I had u, I lost track at where I was but recovered for final.

Again the only issue with the CS approach was it's flare.

 

Overall with the VNAV issue with the LDS-767, in addition as The CS models more systems, (Main panel lights, Brightness controls for the PFD, ND, and both EICAS gauges. (The LDS on the other hand has nice back lighting control.) A Cockpit door lock that actually works. A tiller that you can use, other controls that are functional that are non functional on the LDS-767, mostly on the main panel) I have to give the nod on systems to CS now!!!

 

I recorded both flights so you can see for yourself (These are full flights from takeoff to landing and are unedited)

 

Edit: I just checked the Star (BSR2) to see if there were any speed restrictions, that would account for the low speed on descent for the LDS, there weren't any above 10K (Which of cause below that was 250kts) Altitude wise They should have been at or Below 12K at SKUNK and cross at 10K at BOLDR, which both aircraft did.

 

LDS-767

Note: I had to use a scrunched up view since the ND gauge doesn't expand!!

 

 

CS-767