<br />P.S. I only post in forums that strike my interest which is why I have a low post count.. <br />

I don't believe you need to explain your low post count.

Your posts are welcome regardless.

True. The day we connect quality to post counts will be the one when there's no quality left. -_-

 

If I open up a new profile, my posts will be as rubbish as ever. :wacko: Let me show you. Wait.

I didn't even realize that post counts were even displayed until it was somehow used to assign value to an opinion. Can you guess what value I have assigned to that particular opinion? :rolleyes:

It's not actually a service pack, - actually it is.

Yes I thought the same.

On the main page it says 777-200 1.0 is out!

but on the details it says SP1.

Could you imagine if MS say Service pack is out, it's called Windows 8

I didn't even realize that post counts were even displayed until it was somehow used to assign value to an opinion. Can you guess what value I have assigned to that particular opinion? :rolleyes:

 

The problem on the internet is well known, sock puppets they are called. They are developers or other company workers who pretend to be random people and praise their product. I believe in the past there have been a few caught here doing this. Ariane comes to mind, random people making topics every now and then trying to talk up one of their very expensive products (In the years before the high quality iFly and PMDG 737 releases)

Best thread on that sort of issue. http://forum.avsim.n...-addon-threads/ So true!

 

And.. nothing wrong with reporting the 777 impressions in my eyes. :smile:

 

I agree! I'm all for mature, balanced constructive critique of any product.

 

What I am not for is for persons comparing existing products with something not yet released (eg, 777/A320), or bashing a person just because the show a favourable opinion to a competing company's product (like what often happens regarding Ifly 737/PMDG 737ngx)...I've even seen some excellent freeware that (in my opinion) surpasses many payware equivalents in outright realism and systems fidelity...but are bashed horribly simply because they don't have a VC or have a very basic VC.

 

Xavier

The AXE is released, but also not completely finished. I don't see the difference.

 

How is the AXE not completely finished?

How is the AXE not completely finished?

I think he means system-wise. The AXE doesn't have an authentic VNAV er, mode or whatever the correct Airbus terminology is. It's not complete, and their working on it, so I have to agree FSXman here.

It's not actually a service pack, - actually it is.

Yes I thought the same.

On the main page it says 777-200 1.0 is out!

but on the details it says SP1.

Could you imagine if MS say Service pack is out, it's called Windows 8

 

The only reason its called a Service Pack is because there was a version released before 1.0 which other customers had. To those customers it obviously would be more of a Service Pack then a new product since its an update.

The problem on the internet is well known, sock puppets they are called. They are developers or other company workers who pretend to be random people and praise their product. I believe in the past there have been a few caught here doing this. Ariane comes to mind, random people making topics every now and then trying to talk up one of their very expensive products (In the years before the high quality iFly and PMDG 737 releases)

 

Then evaluate that opinion based on its stand alone merit, not some arbitrary number based on how much you reply to threads on a given forum. That's just another sweeping generalization that has no more value than the "sock puppets" you are arguing against.

I just did a long flight from Boston KBOS to London EGLL in the CS 777, and it performed beautifully. It handles, what seems to be, very realistic when manual landing. The 777 "feels" heavy, but handles very good.

It followed LNAV path perfectly and kept the correct speeds very good. VNAV didn't work, but I used VS for climb and decent and that worked perfect.

I noticed that if I got over FL370, it was getting unstable, but I may have tried getting up there with too much weight. I'll have to load light, then try it again. I believe it should get up to around FL430, but they say most flights are done from FL370 and FL380.

Captain Sim said on the forum, that they are aware that VNAV doesn't work and they (just like Aerosoft) are busy working on it.

I'm sure they will be adding weather radar in the future, which will be nice. Also maybe they will add Terrain on the NG. I would also love to see the taxi camera installed too (I need to see if anyone has mentioned that on their forum).

Can you guess what value I have assigned to that particular opinion? :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure we're thinking about the very same number. ^_^

 

Back to topic. From the reports, seems like the VNAV on the plane isn't working that good, right? I'm reading that on a repeated basis while other issues look more system/user dependant. I hope I git that right. Edited. I may add the 'strong' FDE to the general list. Agreed?

 

I'm sure they will be adding weather radar in the future, which will be nice. Also maybe they will add Terrain on the NG. I would also love to see the taxi camera installed too (I need to see if anyone has mentioned that on their forum).

I'm quite sure about the WR as they've featured it on their other planes too. The terrain.. I don't know. Maybe like on the B-52. Taxi camera. Now I'm no dev, but I think the FSX gauges limit you in the way of presenting another view or just come at a high fps cost then. Would be a first.

 

I could imagine pulling some tricks on that one though. E.g. not showing the actual runway but a generic 'in the gauge' one and just reading the plane's position from the scenery file. So you would see a generic taxi line and your offset. It's only on the -300, right?

I've only got one flight in it, but no, the vnav did not work at all for me. I too used v/s, and flch for a portion which worked fine. I also felt the aircraft was a bit slippery in the air as it did indeed climb very fast, and I found it difficult to slow down on descent even with full spoilers.

I noticed that to get Vnav to work correctly, I have had to go to the Vnav page in the CDU and make sure that the correct cruise altitude matches in climb/cruise page. They did not, when I corrected that, Vnav worked. One it was a fluke, or I accidentally found a work around.

I've had no problems so far with VNAV, just be sure to run through the proper pages on the CDU.