I specifically want to post it here on this forum, I would like to hear the experts' opinion (PMDG-pilots) about the QF757 package and whether or not they use such a software.

Right now I am not talking about the simplified systems and the fact that it is a "light" software, that's not the end of the world although sure upsetting. What I want to stress on is realism, something doesn't seem going well, could be me, but no one will say it better than PMDG users. Things like... let's say... a VNAV, it does set the climb/crz speed, but upon reaching the set altitude VNAV doesn't reduce the thrust and the aircraft continues to accelerate. And generally the autopilot is very sluggish, thee is no this "harsh-solid" response to AP inputs I am used to flying pmdg/lds. Having difficulties... 

I bought the QW757 when it was on sale and must admit I have never completed a flight due to the fact that I became disappointed in the product. I am not here to bash necessarily but would rather fly my Real Air Legacy. 

I bought the QW757 when it was on sale and must admit I have never completed a flight due to the fact that I became disappointed in the product. I am not here to bash necessarily but would rather fly my Real Air Legacy. 

 

And of course all of my PMDG products. 

Pls. note that the PMDG forums are not exactly the place to either advertise or bash other developers and/or their releases.

 

(That's what the rest of the AVSIM forums are for. )

Correct, this is about the realism subject as seen by PMDG users, I believe it is understood.

Wish to hear people who normally post over the NGX/777/MD-11 forums. They can provide legitimate (expert) commentaries I am seeking. and professional suggestions.

Right now I am not talking about the simplified systems and the fact that it is a "light" software, that's not the end of the world although sure upsetting. What I want to stress on is realism, something doesn't seem going well, could be me, but no one will say it better than PMDG users.

 

Light systems and realism are the same subject. How can you expect a light simulation to be realistic?

 

As for your VNAV thrust problem, the QW757 isn't that inaccurate - it does this correctly, so I suspect operator error. Overall I'd say the QW 757 captures the essence of the real aircraft far better than the Captain Sim version, and some of the logic in the AP is better too. The sound is very good, panel graphics less so. In comparison the CS 757 panel looks nothing like the real thing when you get down to detail. My favourite 757 remains the PSS 757 for FS9. I still fly it occasionally.

If gets moved to another forum so as not to violate pmdg forums, ill comment otherwise you can pm me.

I'll take Kevin's comment for a fact. Just few commentaries I was hopping for.

 

@ HighTowers. I will post a support question on QF forum (not registered yet), please have a look if you have a minute.

IIRC, Ryan "Tabs" Maziarz of PMDG posted here some years ago that he thought the QW 757 was a very good introduction to airliner flying and FMS programming, and that he recommended it to friends who were looking to move up the realism chain.

 

Speaking personally, I like the idea of light products (am not always up for full-blown realism) and the QW approach to it is smart - for example, picking the right things to simulate in depth and the right things to shortcut.  I feel the same way about the Aerosoft Airbus series - as long as I know what choices they've made and why, and as long as I've made my choice, I'm fine with it.

 

I was one of the people who had problems with the QW 757 overspeeding and also blowing through the 250 knot restriction below 10,000 feet.  But this may have been system-specific. Some users reported the issue, others didn't.

 

As a general rule, I prefer to use PMDG aircraft in "casual" mode (e.g. start with engines running) when I'm not up for full switchology, since even without in-depth process simulation, PMDG's refinement shows through in other ways, for example in the aircraft's ability to track a complex descent path.

 

But I like what QW is trying to do and I'll take a serious look at their 787 when it comes out.  

 

Hope this helps.

As has been pointed out by other folks, I too started my tube flying with the QW757 and found it a very acceptable introduction to FMC usage.  Now that I am an NGX flyer, the QW757 has been retired since it is really very easy to the fly the NGX at just about any realism level that suits your mood -  but I am still a QW pilot as I have their RJ/Avro offering, and I really enjoy that little jet (something about 4 engines really hits home with me).

I have both the NGX and QW757 and I fly both because, well, PMDG doesn't make a 757 and I love the 757. The QW product works as advertised and it's a good value for money and a fun plane, but there's no comparing it to the NGX, the PMDG product is in an entirely different league.

 

As a company, I think QW is first rate and they support their products very well.

 

As to the plane accelerating when you hit the MCP constraint, I've seen that too, I don't recall if I was using FLCH or VNAV, but yeah I think it's a quirk of the product and I think there are other issues as well with VNAV. I just work within the limitations of the product and my flights turn out ok.

I'm sorry, what was the question?       I have not flown a non PMDG aircraft in ages.  Most are uninstalled by now.

Having said that, I am waiting for their 787 though.    Wasn't impressed with their 757 but have not tried it after SP3 came out.

 

Michel. 

Ok I see my worries are being confirmed, about programmable issues existing there.

The irony is, (to me), PMDG is the easy one to fly, not the "light" software-"x" if you the mode you engage is not being executed in precise manner.

1. PMDG (and few known others) are very informative with lots of stuff presented on ND... how to pitch, how to speed, retract/deploy flaps, climb, descend... so many clues.

2. it does what you tell it to, and it develop in you this "button-confidence" (knowing the button you press on AP will execute the function wanted).

 

Ok, someone noted the Airbus-X... I personally love it (!), it is my favorite companion to NGX. At the same time I always had this question sitting in the back of my head: if PMDG did it, would it be the same or different? (not talking about graphics, but systems).

 

 

Ok, someone noted the Airbus-X... I personally love it (!), it is my favorite companion to NGX. At the same time I always had this question sitting in the back of my head: if PMDG did it, would it be the same or different? (not talking about graphics, but systems).

 

Aerosoft is pretty straightforward about their having simplified a number of the systems - there are no emergency procedures, for example, the FO doesn't have separate displays, and if I recall correctly, the automated flight systems use only normal law.  Their stated goal was to simulate the left-seat experience in normal operations, not to simulate all the systems.

 

If and when the FS Labs A320 finally turns up, you'll be able to do a comparison since that's supposed to be a full PMDG-style study sim.

 

But I agree that the Aerosoft buses are great for what they are and they achieve everything they set out to accomplish.

Aside some decent visuals, it's nothing at all like a PMDG aircraft, and was not intended to be.   Instinctively, I think coming from a PMDG standpoint, you'd be disappointed with the QW757.

 

It's not just the aircraft systems and dynamics, with the QW757 there are none of the features that you get with the PMDG aircrafts that make them so versatile and adaptable.  For example, I love to program some keybord commands for things like LNAV, VNAV, Heading -/+, etc ............ you cannot do anything like that with the QW757 - it;s entirely reliant on basiv mouse clicks to operate everything.

 

In my opinion, the QW 146 collection is a more mature and feature-rich product than their 757         - but it's still far from being close to a PMDG aircraft.

I still think it's the best 757 that's been done thusfar for FS. QW's stuff got significantly more complex with their BAe-146/Avro RJ product too - I hope they revisit the 757 and redo it up to that standard some day.