Thanks for the info and vids. I always prefer evidence over bias and selective memory.

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

Tom,

Try these in your CS767 Aircraft cfg and see if it helps the flare.

These figures were taken from CS forum. Have yet to try them myself yet.

 

"I modified the cfg file to the same values to which I modified the 757 cfg file, and the change completely eliminated rolling on the localizer. The values are:

AP_Roll_speed=3.92

AP_Roll_window=5.5

AP_Roll_controlstep=2850

Tom,

Try these in your CS767 Aircraft cfg and see if it helps the flare.

These figures were taken from CS forum. Have yet to try them myself yet.

 

"I modified the cfg file to the same values to which I modified the 757 cfg file, and the change completely eliminated rolling on the localizer. The values are:

AP_Roll_speed=3.92

AP_Roll_window=5.5

AP_Roll_controlstep=2850

 

Thanks but with the latest update (1.5) I don't have an issue with roll! The problem I posted was about the Flare (pitch).

Ok, cheers. Thought it might have been a connection

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.

 

The fact remains though that the CS 767 still does not have failures, an SDK, ground crew interactions, first officer callouts, realistic engine parameters, a proper load manager that calculates weights/CG, clickspots/knobs that don't suffer from the "runaway" problem when using the mouse wheel, and FS2Crew support.

Great post, Tom. And I absolutely double Nathan's statement. Very helpful information.

 

For the folks looking for a crew and tons of extra features on the CS planes, take a look at Multi Crew Experience MCE. The CS 757 and 767 are supported right out of the box and MCE also adds support for AES, GSX and a ton of other planes, including the Level D of course.

Great post, Tom. And I absolutely double Nathan's statement. Very helpful information.

 

For the folks looking for a crew and tons of extra features on the CS planes, take a look at Multi Crew Experience MCE. The CS 757 and 767 are supported right out of the box and MCE also adds support for AES, GSX and a ton of other planes, including the Level D of course.

After following this thread CP, I decided to get the CS767 out of the hangar, where it has been since I installed it in 2010. I have only ever attempted 1 flight in it, and it flew like a Sherman Tank, so I stuck with the LVLD until the NGX was released.

I installed the 1.5 update and just completed a 2 hour flight and it performed great. As Tom posted it followed the Vnav and the decent was per the book. very impressed I must say.

Also, I think I have been spoilt with the MD11 and NGX, as I had to calculate the fuel the old fashioned way, but sometimes I think that is a good thing, keeps the brain ticking :)

As Shane mentioned, it does not have an SDK available, so added features like FS2Crew are not available, but it was still a great bird to fly. It's not perfect, but it is not a dog either.

A shame CS did not go that extra mile with this plane, it could have been a best seller.

On the missing SDK, if it's just about the crew and some extra commands to be mapped to hardware, MCE and LINDA will do the job. The LINDA modules e.g. give me some MCP features to be mapped to my joystick combo while MCE does the trick on the First Officer, ground crew and plenty of other things, including full MCP control via voice.

 

As for the plane itself, I think that it mostly suffers from a bad image (especially at Avsim) than from actual bugs and flaws being present in 1.5. That's the part where I appreciate fair and constructive comments or overviews like Alan tends to develop with unmatched patience.

 

It's the plane one enjoys the most which will be the best, not the one others approve. Me says that vital part of our hobby often gets lost in the weekly 'which one is the best' contest. So, regardless of the answer to the question, each 767 rendition deserves its fans in my eyes.

o, regardless of the answer to the question, each 767 rendition deserves its fans in my eyes.

Absolutely, I own both, and like both. I do have to say, CS have done well with the 1.5 update.

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

 

CS more than likely thinks in terms of profit

 

1. Customers want 757

2. Make 757 and release before competition. Don't worry to much a about fidelity or bugs, once customers buy, they're committed and a not likely to dump the product.

3. Customers buy it because it's 757 with a VC and it's out "now"

 

And this method has the benefit of cutting down on beta testing for CS since they essentially gets "Beta Testers" who pay CS $40 to 'test' the 757

 

Personally the quality difference between CS aircraft and POSKY aircraft are marginal, with the VC being the only clear distinction. (If the POSKY 757 had a decent FSX VC, it'd be the better.)

 

...anyways back on topic, the CS 767 is an okay plane, it's more style over substance,certainly, but it's not a terrible plane.

 

Level-D's 767 is the by far the better though

Personally the quality difference between CS aircraft and POSKY aircraft are marginal, with the VC being the only clear distinction.

 

Hello

Posky's systems are on a par with Captain Sim ?

Seriously have you ever really compared the complexity of the CS767 and 757 with the Posky aircraft which essentially have no systems whatsoever, being basically shells.

I am certainly no CS ###### but that is a truly amazing statement for anyone to make.

CS more than likely thinks in terms of profit

 

All commercial developers think it terms of profit, if they didn't, they'd be a freeware developer. Just look on the PMDG forums, you will find plenty of responses to questions such as 'why don't you make an XXX airliner?', and the answer is usually that it is not commercially viable to do so. In fact, that is why PMDG also ditched FS9 development and are now also looking at X-Plane.

 

There's nothing wrong with making something for profit, in fact it is a spur to creating better products, since if you don't, nobody will buy them. And we have seen that happening with Captain Sim too, their more recent efforts have been far and away better than their ones of old. Their 737-200 is a case in point, there's already very little wrong with it, but they put out another patch for it the other day anyway.

 

Al

Level-D's 767 is the by far the better though

 

The earlier post by Tom with the videos shows this to be incorrect. Marginally better maybe.

 

Question - I was just looking at the Level-D on the Flight 1 website and noticed that most of the buttons on the VC overhead are flat. Someone mentioned that there was a VC upgrade to the 767. Is that included in SP 2a or do you have to get it somewhere else.

The earlier post by Tom with the videos shows this to be incorrect. Marginally better maybe.

 

Question - I was just looking at the Level-D on the Flight 1 website and noticed that most of the buttons on the VC overhead are flat. Someone mentioned that there was a VC upgrade to the 767. Is that included in SP 2a or do you have to get it somewhere else.

 

Again, I will reiterate:

 

The fact remains though that the CS 767 still does not have failures, an SDK, ground crew interactions, first officer callouts, realistic engine parameters, a proper load manager that calculates weights/CG, clickspots/knobs that don't suffer from the "runaway" problem when using the mouse wheel, and FS2Crew support.