Geez, you'd have thought I had said the Captain Sim 737 was the better airplane! But I realize any mention of that company provokes a Pavlovian response here. That's why I broke it down so people could see where I thought each had its strengths. When I give the CS737 a "1" for systems, that's as low as I could go. But there are people who don't minding changing a value or two in the aircraft config file to get a less powerful engine, or who don't really care about setting throttles by EPR. They want a beautiful, nice-flying 737-100/200/ADV and/or freighter.

 

CS does a lot of things right, and has gotten better. As someone pointed out, their L1011 is really nice. I like their 757, 767, 707 and 727, too. I think the moral to the story is that if you get a bad reputation, it may take years, if ever, before you overcome it.

 

As a matter of fact, I DO think the DC-9 IS better, for all the reasons I cited. Yet I still enjoy the Guppy. I can hand-fly SIDs and navigate by radio in both. I have a reliable autopilot in both (and an auto-throttle in the DC-9). Both are really nice-looking. The DC-9 gives you a lot more extra value in their "dispatch" and auto-config and training features. It is nice to see some devs really piling the icing onto the cake, e.g. Aerosoft with their new A318/319. (Looking forward to seeing the a320/321 brought up to that standard.)

 

As far as OOM issues with the DC-9, I found a trick at the Aerosoft forums. Disable all the add-on scenery you're not going to be using. I did that and made the first KSFO-KLAX flight without an OOM. Who would have thought scenery on the other side of the world could mess up your flight?

The DC9 is in effect flown on to the ground. If you flare by what you think will be ok it will float forever.

Good review overall, but I was amazed to read that you thought the Captain Sim 737 'flew better' than the Coolsky DC-9.

The FDE of the CS737 are all over he place in terms of power delivery and there are half a dozen people on the CS forums, who have tried (with limited success) to fix up the FDE.

The Coolsky DC-9 flies divinely in my opinion, and right on the numbers.

PS... as you seem a little sensitive to believe that anyone that criticizes Captain Sim is a Pavlovian CS 'hater', I'll just point out that I enjoy the CS737 (and moreso their 707) and have no beef with them whatsoever.    I just think Coolsky are in a different league concerning flight modelling realism.

 

 

With little modding the overpowering is no issue.

 

If this is the case, please coud you share these mods?

I have been trying to address the extreme overpoweredness on take-off, followed by the asthmatic mid-altitude climb for years, with no success.

If this is the case, please coud you share these mods?

Craig,

If you haven't already, go to CS 737 forum you'll see a list of user fixes and patches. I believe it was a user named Bud who came up with some changes that really helped. That in conjunction with Pauls V-0ne gauge really gives it a feel you'd expect. What I'd like to figure out is the on again/off again rudder input.Sometimes it's there, sometimes not. I've played around with the CFG files and gotten the same results, working and not working at various times. Has CS even released a SP for the 737? It been 2.5 years since release. I think they're too busy chasing dollars elsewhere.

Well, although the Pavlovian CS haters have perhaps indeed seen their day, it's nice when someone actually reads my little article and offers some intelligent feedback.

 

Nothing could be more subjective than the sense of how something flies. And we're talking pretty fine gradations. I know there are a lot of mods for the FDE, and V-cards, all community produced. The only one I use is the replacement for this section, as follows:

 

[TurbineEngineData]

fuel_flow_gain = 0.002                          //Gain on fuel flow

inlet_area = 9.6                               //Square Feet, engine nacelle inlet area //19.6

rated_N2_rpm = 29920                            //RPM, second stage compressor rated value

static_thrust = 17400                        //25000

afterburner_available = 0                       //Afterburner available?

reverser_available = 1                          //Thrust reverser available?

ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.385             //Thrust specific fuel consumption (Jets)

AfterBurnThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0      //TSFC with afterburn/reheat engaged 

 

The CS 737 has glaring problems, as I think I pointed out fairly. Apart from that, CS is a "survey sim" company. They are not a company that releases an airplane once every few years. That's just not their model. What you get is a virtual history of jet age Boeings, some better than others, but all of which I find a lot of fun to operate, whether anyone else does or not.

 

The 737 is way overdue for an update (as is the 727!) if nothing else to fix the PDCS of Death. It would be nice to (a) use it without crashing the sim; and (b) have it actually generate useful numbers. As for how realistic the way it flies is, I have no idea. Since I tend to fly a lot of different airplanes, I probably care less about realism and nuance than some.

 

I'll try to modify my landing technique -- thanks.

After thinking things over, I think I should clarify my findings.

 

The difference between the "final scores" was relatively small (although the "systems" portion was as different as it could be). To the extent that suggests the CS 737 is in general almost on a level with the Coolsky / Flight 1 DC-9, I can see where that could be misleading, especially if one did not closely read the text. While I think breaking it down and assigning points illustrates the relative strengths of different elements, the final total didn't come out right. 

 

The DC-9 is obviously a labor of love by a crew that learned a lot from their previous offering, the MD-80. Espen came out with something really special for our hobby. They obviously worked on the appearance of their airplane, making huge strides from the MD-80. Although I don't think they beat Captain Sim at their own game, the robin's egg blue panel is something to behold, especially if you buy McPhat's UHDT.

 

The Captain Sim 737 is better than some would give it credit for being, but inherits the maddening family trait of being left in an unfinished state . I think the review fairly pointed that out. Selling a product with an instrument that crashes your sim nearly every time you use it is not acceptable, even to those of us who like the company. Even so, I enjoy the heck out of the airplane, and think they got it mostly right, or, more exactly, got those things which I care about most, right. (I just don't touch the PDCS.) With the choice of either the 737 or the DC-9, it's a coin flip which I'll choose, even though I would never try to argue the CS737 is a better bird.

 

It's no secret I like their airplanes. I like the way they look and handle, the great community on their forum, and give them credit for improvements. It is also very frustrating to us supporters to have to endlessly qualify our recommendations and have the rug pulled out from under us by things like the stupid PDCS and a lack of attention to detail. (Although most of those missed details are noticed by people are more knowledgeable about the aircraft than I want to be.) It's cool for me to able to fly a 707, a 727, a 737, a 757, and a 767 and relive the jet age history of Boeing.

 

I also might be caught flying an Aerosoft Airbus. (I'm loving the little A318/319s now.)

 

I suppose the best summary would be: Yes, I would give an unqualified recommendation to purchase the DC-9. As for the CS 737, there are some things you need to know, first...

 

In keeping with the retro theme, "You've come a long way, baby."

I have both, DC-9 all the way. No contest, for me anyway.

Milviz 737-200 is a great airplane. I agree this should have been used to compare. Captain Sim is all eye candy and no realism. Not a comparison between the dc-9.

Okay, I'm tempted to buy the Milviz because I have become quite a fan of the old 737. I am reconciled to the prospect of average graphics, but I hope I am not buying the kind of trouble we're all agreeing the CS 737 has.

 

P.S. I'm getting the Flight 1 version so I'll have a money-back guarantee.

Okay, I got the Milviz. As expected, there's not much competition in the graphics department, no matter how beat up and stained they made the panel. Example: look at the caution buttons in the Milviz 737. Bright, pristine, flat red with a perfect white Arial font. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the panel. The old saying applies equally to barns, prostitutes and airplanes: a good paint job covers a multitude of sins. I get it that graphics don't matter to many people. But they do to me.

 

I like the start-up on the Milviz; seems a lot more realistic. The Sperry autopilot seemed a bit more complete. I did not, however, like the autopilot capturing the localizer and glide slope, and tracking twenty feet to the left of RWY 34R at KSEA. (That's my testing and practice runway.) Don't know what's going on there. More testing tomorrow.

 

I also noticed relatively few paints compared to Captain Sim's. Peace.

The lack of repaints for the Milviz bird is disappointing.  Milviz have a few for download as a package from their website.  I believe they were going to be a payware release as I understand.  The paint kit has been described by an experienced painter here as 'a maze'.  I haven't been game to check it out, and certainly don't have much experience in that field.  It's unfortunate.  Between the two offerings, we'd have the perfect (enough) 732. But sadly, it's not to be.  I hope the QW 73CLs fare better, even though I suspect they're not quite old enough for your liking. 

 

Mike

Milviz 737-200 is a great airplane. I agree this should have been used to compare. Captain Sim is all eye candy and no realism. Not a comparison between the dc-9.

+1

Not even remotely comparable... The Coolsky is hands down in another (superior) league.

Okay, scratch the problem with the autopilot. Subsequent testing has shown it to be just fine. And was it my imagination, or does the ya damper switch actually DO something? Aside from graphics (which is a matter of individual taste or priority) and few repaints, the Milviz excels in many departments and is probably a better overall airplane than the CS737.

Hey Tim,

Thanks for the evaluations. I know what you mean about the Milvis 732 graphics. Just looking at screenshot ( I haven't purchased it) the VC appears  cartoon-like and proportions seems to be off, especially the lack of downward curve on the instrument panel. Just takes away from the immersion factor ( for me anyway), much like the high windows in the PMDG NGX does.

As always, CS really comes through with superb graphics and proportions  in the VC, but unfortunately that's where it stops. I'm surely the Milvis offering is far superior to the CS 732 in every other dept.  Just wish they ( Milvis) would have gotten the graphics a bit more realistic.

Just missed the $30 sale on the Milvis. Will probably wait for the next one and buy it.  I'm in no hurry. In the mean time, the CS 737 with all the user fixes fly's and behaves OK, not great. Just have to live with weak systems modeling. Knowing what not to touch (CTD) in the VC helps as well.

 

Cheers,

Brian

The VC isn't bad at all. I wish I knew how to tone down / wear two or three of the alarm buttons that don't seem to fit in with the rest of the airplane. Then I could be perfectly happy with the looks inside.

 

Outside, though, let's just say they're pretty basic. Even that wouldn't be so bad if there were a good selection of repaints. I think the Captain Sim paintkit must be attractive to repainters, because they sure seem to get a lot. The Milviz is sorely lacking by comparison. I found a British Airways, a Lufthansa (3 paints in total, I think) and a TAP for Europe. U.S. is represented by Continental, Southwest, Delta, United and Western. There are some Canadian, like First Air highlighting the abilities of the Gravel Kit. I found a Varig for South America. I'm sure I'm missing some, but that's what I found that appeals to me, at least.

 

I don't see myself using the included generic FMS model (the whole point for me is being retro). The systems were satisfying. Nothing frustrating. Good startup sequence. But I'm not sure about how you can cut the throttles in level flight and it takes FOREVER to slow down. I mean to the point of causing problems doing circuits. Maybe it's right, but is sure seemed odd to me.

 

Would I keep an admittedly inferior airplane to retain the second-to-none graphics of Captain Sim. I might. I'll be trying to answer that question before my return period runs out!