Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

 

Bruce.

Yes, I forgot about the LDS one, which will be THE one to get when it's released, as they're 767 is the best one out there, even if it is old and not as graphically 'pretty' as the CS one, which I also have.

 

But for now, I stand by what I said originally regarding the CS one as having more in depth systems than the QW version. Again, I fly and enjoy both depending on my mood.

I have the qualitywings 757. I really enjoy it. I also own the LDS 767, and the PMDG 737 (for FS9) I enjoy both experiences and use them at different times. When I'm more in the mood for a "get in and go" I take the QW. When I have the time to do the planning and fly somewhat by the books I take the LDS for more complexity.

IMHO, I recommend everyone wait for Level-D to release theirs

 

We will all be dead before it releases.

If you complain about the CS bird, go try the QW version. I own them both and QW is not lying by saying "Complexity... Simplified".

 

To stay on topic...Imho - The difference between CS and QW is as big as the difference between the NGX and and the CS 757. I believe QW is trying to appeal to a different costumer group - kinda like CLS. Just compare the documentation and you see the difference. Since these are the only two 757 available for FSX (i know of) - i have to agree with NaMcO - right now, the CS 757 is the best out there if you are into more complex systems. I don't know how close the birds are to the real world and how good they are modeled since i have never ever flown a plane myself - most certainly not a 757. However - for me personally - the CS feels better.

 

The only thing that bothers me with CS is the limited amount of free repaints for the FSX version. I think its due to some alignment faults with the paint kit.They state there are 100+ liveries, but most of them are for the FS9 version and i cannot get them to work.

 

BUT - Usually CS is offering its products with a nice discount once or twice a year. You can get the 757 cheap - and then you cant go wrong....

 

Thats just my opinion..

 

Nico

 

 

The OP already has the QW version. So there's no reason to buy the CS to get fake system modeling and an FDE based on a default 737.

 

If you want a step up from QW, buy the Level-D 767. If you want full system modeling to the extreme buy the PMDG 737

Yes, the NGX reigns supreme for transport category aircraft! (But it's not a 757).

Nothing about the CS 757 is a "sim"

 

We get that you hate Captain Sim, but stop lying to people.

We get that you hate Captain Sim, but stop lying to people.

 

I think the fact that Captain Sim is on their 5th patch for the 757 speaks all the truth anyone needs.

I think the fact that Captain Sim is on their 5th patch for the 757 speaks all the truth anyone needs.

 

This is not going to be a patch, but a whole new model, like PMDG is doing with the 747-400

The OP already has the QW version. So there's no reason to buy the CS to get fake system modeling and an FDE based on a default 737.

 

 

One look at the aircraft.cfg file will tell you that's not true, and in fact much of it's flight model is not native FSX, but controlled with their own .dll code. Just like PMDG does. As I posted both the CS and QW 757's perform similarly, there V-speeds are right on, climb rates are similar, both follow it's descent VNAV profile accurately, and the range of the CS757 appears accurate. At least I'm able to fly it's longest routes. The longest flight I flew was ESSA-KEWR. I haven't done that with the QW757 so I can't say whether or not it can do it, but I have no reason to think it can't. The issue I have with the CS models, is they haven't figured out how to do a proper flare. It starts it's flare too late resulting in a flare from 700fpm to 400fpm, where it should touchdown closer to 100fpm. Being that CS doesn't override the joystick controls this is easily rectified with a little back pressure at about 30 ft. You can't even do a autoland with the QW757, unless you manually switch off the AT first. The 2 main issues I have with the QW757, is while it actually fly's a correct ascent profile, it's FMC does not calculate it properly. The other issue is the same I have with the LDS-767. It plans a descent profile with a unrealistically slow speed 254kt from FL360 to 10000 then 240 below that, vs 287kts from FL360 to 10000 then 240 below that for the CS757.

Hmm, does it do that with any cost index?

You can't even do a autoland with the QW757, unless you manually switch off the AT first. The 2 main issues I have with the QW757, is while it actually fly's a correct ascent profile, it's FMC does not calculate it properly. The other issue is the same I have with the LDS-767. It plans a descent profile with a unrealistically slow speed 254kt from FL360 to 10000 then 240 below that, vs 287kts from FL360 to 10000 then 240 below that for the CS757.

 

Sounds like you have something in the setup incorrect, I have 100's of hours in the QW and it 'autolands' just fine and the AT disconnects as soon as there is weight on the wheels. As far as descent speeds, maybe your CI needs adjusting, my VNAV programs 292kts, and holds that all the way to 10K.

Hmm, does it do that with any cost index?

 

Both were flown with the same cost index 40, same as my test videos of the CS767 vs LDS-767. As further evidence, as shown in my test post, the PMDG 737-800NGX also at a cost index of 40 descent profile at 284kts down to 10000ft.

Sounds like you have something in the setup incorrect, I have 100's of hours in the QW and it 'autolands' just fine and the AT disconnects as soon as there is weight on the wheels. As far as descent speeds, maybe your CI needs adjusting, my VNAV programs 292kts, and holds that all the way to 10K.

 

Your right about the autoland, I have only did that 1 autoland attempt, (As I normally don't use it unless conditions warrant) into KSFO, and the plane floated own the runway. I just flew another flight this time to KCLT, and autoland on the QW757, performed beautifully. The AT didn't cut out like I expected, but the speed mode did disengage on weight on wheels, so the effect is the same!! The VNAV issue though still remains. Again the descent rate was only 254 down to 10000ft.

Model-wise, the CS757 really isn't that great. There are some very noticeable faults with the displays that I find to be rather jarring. Performance was always okay for me, though the QW performs better. As for systems, I find the QW757 to operate better. They promise less systems, but as a result, I feel that overall the plane works better.

 

In the end, I find both have their strong and weak points and its difficult to say which one is better... I will say I prefer the QW757.