FlightFactor Boeing 767 soon...

[NathanX 2]

Hi  i see that  its version  1020,   was that  some kind of an update ?????

Yep.

[Schorle 25]

Is there a changelog for 1020? Didn't find anything.

[RudiJG1 172]

Is there a changelog for 1020? Didn't find anything.

The changelog767.txt file is in the aircraft's DOCS folder.

[FSProUK 4]

If anyone's interested: A video showing how to get the Flight Factor 767 into the air quickly and competently:

 

 

Part two is the landing phase showing full autoland capability.

 

[warbirds 555]

Where do I find part II ?

[FSProUK 4]

Where do I find part II ?

 

Same channel It was posted up on 27 Dec 

[warbirds 555]

Thanks, great video. I have their 757 and can autoland it but cannot get the three commands to work so it still autolands perfectly with only one. 

 

How are the fps compared to the 757?

[Don Quixote 76]

How are the fps compared to the 757?

 

Pretty much identical, perhaps even slightly better than the 757. In my test scenario I got ~ 35 fps with the 757 and ~36 fps with the 767.

 

 

Overall I have to say I'm extremely happy with this new 767. FF's 757 was pretty decent, one of the better airliners for XP, but far from perfect. Now the 767 does still have some weaknesses, but it just feels "complete" so to speak. It's evident that the developers have put a lot of thought into the various features, and as a result just about everything works as expected. There are some silly errors, such as the boarding stairs being attached to the right side of the aircraft, but frankly the posiitive aspects of the 767 so far outweigh the negative ones it just doesn't matter.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this is the first airliner for XP that actually compares to the high quality offerings for FSX/P3D, and yes that includes PMDG.

[Lashrathius 49]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this is the first airliner for XP that actually compares to the high quality offerings for FSX/P3D, and yes that includes PMDG.

 

I will +1 +1 +1 on this. Like I mentioned in my review, this is a PMDG level study sim aircraft.

 

Actually some parts are even more realistic than PMDG.

 

For example, in PMDG aircraft, when you add fuel too late after N2 is more than 16, all engines will still start.

 

However, in FlightFactor's 767, if you add fuel too late, the engine starter will overheat, and the 2nd engine will not start at all. The only way to fix this is to go into the 767 options and select the maintenance button. How cool is that??!! You do not get that in any PMDG aircraft. The 767 forces me to treat it like the real thing. Any pilot error actions will cause the plane to have man-made failures - just like the real thing. And this engine startup is just one example. There are TONS more.

 

Glad you're enjoying this aircraft!

[Cameron XA 272]

 

 

There are TONS more.

 

Can you please list more?

[Lashrathius 49]

Can you please list more?

 

Gladly.

 

1. Starting the engine at a certain N2 will cause the engine to overheat. It will start - yes both engines will spool and start - but they will overheat and go in the red zone. In-flight, they will generate an overheat warning and an engine fire. No maintenance button is available until the plane is on the ground - just like the real thing.

 

2.  The more PAX / fuel I add to the aircraft makes it feel heavier. The less I load, the lighter the controls feel. The entire aircraft responsiveness is built upon the payload.

 

3. The APU is fully dependent (and failed) on pilot error. Not holding it for 3 seconds will not start it, and repeating to start it in an incorrect way will cause it to not start until the maintenance is pressed.

 

Happy holidays! (and happy flying!)

 

[EDIT] - #2 is for all XP10 models. I stand corrected!

[GoranM 3,773]

Gladly.

 

1. Starting the engine at a certain N2 will cause the engine to overheat. It will start - yes both engines will spool and start - but they will overheat and go in the red zone. In-flight, they will generate an overheat warning and an engine fire. No maintenance button is available until the plane is on the ground - just like the real thing.

 

2.  The more PAX / fuel I add to the aircraft makes it feel heavier. The less I load, the lighter the controls feel. The entire aircraft responsiveness is built upon the payload.

 

3. The APU is fully dependent (and failed) on pilot error. Not holding it for 3 seconds will not start it, and repeating to start it in an incorrect way will cause it to not start until the maintenance is pressed.

 

Happy holidays! (and happy flying!)

 

 

Just an FYI, point number 2 is standard in all x-plane flight models.  Including default aircraft.  

[leinsters 42]

I've been flying this for the last three days. It is the only plane that has brought those PIC / LevelD Sim 'feelings' back to this hobby of mine. While I am in love with PMDG's 777, this Flight Factor 767 is everything I want in a heavy flight sim. It's that good. I'm also new to X-Plane, and the ease of use, smooth transition between weather and detailed airports, to name but two has reinvigorated my passion for civilian and passenger flight simming. I just completed a flight landing at KSFO in this bird, and not once did the frame-rate start to grind descending through cloud or on final as the addon airport and scenery started to load. Great addon for a great sim. 

[Don Quixote 76]

I've been flying with the "high challenge" option enabled (which increases the rate of failures) and oh boy it sure keeps you on your toes. One time I've had a hot start in the left engine (apparently caused by a malfunctioning starter) with the EGT going well into the red zone. Now the FCOM says that in such a case to abort engine startup, which I ignored of course . After a while the temperatures normalised and takeoff went as usual.

However shortly before reaching cruise altitude I noticed that the EGT of the left engine was higher than the other one. I slightly reduced power on that engine so that the temperatures evened out nicely. But shortly after the EGT continued to climb... I was forced to reduce power on the left engine almost to idle, and still the EGT kept climbing. after half an hour I had to shut the engine down and complete the flight on the remaining one. And then I found out that, apparently, the bleed air from one engine is not sufficient to power both the anti-icing systems and the packs....

 

While I have no idea whether any of this was perfectly realistic it sure was a fun flight!

 

Anothe time I've had a fuel leak, which I only realised after the left tanks were almost drained. I just about made it to the destination but the engines were running on fumes.

[jcomm 5,984]

While I am finding the reviews and comments from users regarding the FF 767 really positive, and this brings back my best memories of that great Level-D 767, with it's remarkable ( for it's time ) FMS designed and implemented by a Portuguese simmer / programmer :-), I believe it can't / shouldn't be compared to PMDG's 777... At most we could try to compare it with the PMDG NGX, and in that area there is at least one remarkable difference, flight dynamics wise and due to a much better approach to RL of X-Plane asymmetric thrust effects modeling... 

 

The PMDG 777 models a FBW aircraft, with it's exquisite C*U law implemented the best way PMDG could find possible within the limitations imposed by the underlying core FDM in FSX / P3D... It was one of my preferred ever airliner for an flight simulator...