fsx-ms QW 787 FMS

[Dreamflight767 312]

Hello:

 

Is the QW 787 going to have a realistic FMS or a "lite" version similar to their 757?  I know there is a lot of excitement about the airplane but I could never get into their 757 because the cockpit realism left a lot to be desired. 

 

Thanks.

[metalmike 34]

It's going to be much more detailed than the 757.

[BuboBubo 35]

Hello:

 

Is the QW 787 going to have a realistic FMS or a "lite" version similar to their 757?  I know there is a lot of excitement about the airplane but I could never get into their 757 because the cockpit realism left a lot to be desired. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

Video :

[777 340]

Looks impressive.

[over2departure 5]

How long has this been in development? I feel like Northwest Airlines was still around when they QW first announced this project 

[blueairone70 3]

Check out the video qwing from flightsimcon 2016 on YouTube about 787

[Dreamflight767 312]

Thanks much crew.

[Slayer 190]

It's going to be worth the wait

[TNguitar 4]

Hello:

 

Is the QW 787 going to have a realistic FMS or a "lite" version similar to their 757?  I know there is a lot of excitement about the airplane but I could never get into their 757 because the cockpit realism left a lot to be desired. 

 

Thanks.

I love the easy to use Wilco planes and I hope they do a lite version of the panel like in the Bae-146 models.  You can switch the panel from standard to lite.  I like to fly and play Airhauler and such, I don't have time to read a huge user manual.  For me, I have zero interest in hydraulic pumps and bleed air stuff.   I bet there are many a real pilot who wishes the real planes could have a lite version like some sim models.

 

They have to sit in gloomy cockpits switching a hundred switches because they get paid to do it, it's how they make their living.  I find it hard to believe there would be a lot of them who actually enjoy it and think it's fun and I bet many would prefer to just be able to get to the flying part.

 

I am a guitar player, but I hate having to change my guitar strings, it sucks.   I would sit and read a huge manual and learn detailed systems and flip dozens of switches IF I had a real career as a pilot and was making a living at it.

 

I heard that PMDG is even doing one of their new planes with a lite mode.  Seems to me a lot of companies may be missing out on a lot of customers by refusing to include those who just want the basics as an option.  The QW 146 and Avro models can use the standard and get all detailed but yet still allow a lite mode where all the details get done for you so those who want the big basics like to simply hit the nav button and lock on to the localizer, hit the app button, lower the gear, lower some flaps and land can enjoy their products too.

 

[Geddy_2112 8]

To each their own, Personally the dumbed down versions of Wilco drives me crazy. C'mon they're even using the default planner to import into the FMC?

I like the BAe, I tolerate the 757. Far to simple. But then again, I'm a bass player and change my strings once a month!

[Boeing or not going 578]

I love the easy to use Wilco planes and I hope they do a lite version of the panel like in the Bae-146 models.  You can switch the panel from standard to lite.  I like to fly and play Airhauler and such, I don't have time to read a huge user manual.  For me, I have zero interest in hydraulic pumps and bleed air stuff.   I bet there are many a real pilot who wishes the real planes could have a lite version like some sim models.

 

They have to sit in gloomy cockpits switching a hundred switches because they get paid to do it, it's how they make their living.  I find it hard to believe there would be a lot of them who actually enjoy it and think it's fun and I bet many would prefer to just be able to get to the flying part.

 

I am a guitar player, but I hate having to change my guitar strings, it sucks.   I would sit and read a huge manual and learn detailed systems and flip dozens of switches IF I had a real career as a pilot and was making a living at it.

 

I heard that PMDG is even doing one of their new planes with a lite mode.  Seems to me a lot of companies may be missing out on a lot of customers by refusing to include those who just want the basics as an option.  The QW 146 and Avro models can use the standard and get all detailed but yet still allow a lite mode where all the details get done for you so those who want the big basics like to simply hit the nav button and lock on to the localizer, hit the app button, lower the gear, lower some flaps and land can enjoy their products too.

 

PMDG does not do lite modes. You can change panel states or in the DC-6 the co-pilot and engineer can do checklists for you. You can load up the PMDG NGX, load a panel state with engines running, and load a flight plan exported by a program like FSBuild or PFPX. It takes a minute or less to program most short haul routes anyway.

[TNguitar 4]

To each their own, Personally the dumbed down versions of Wilco drives me crazy. C'mon they're even using the default planner to import into the FMC?

I like the BAe, I tolerate the 757. Far to simple. But then again, I'm a bass player and change my strings once a month!

lol, yeah, I play a little bass too when I record on my Boss Br-800 recorder.  I just put new strings on it and was messing with it last night, I love that fat, bright tone new bass strings make. 

For me, I love being able to load FSX plans.  I don't even mess with FMC stuff besides the light versions.  On my Wilco airbus stuff the only thing I do with the FMC is set my ils freq and crs. 

I'm 53 years old with bad eye sight. 

 

The point for me is, I will never, ever fly a real plane in my life, period.  I could absolutely see learning all the systems, spending hours reading manuals if I were 25 years old and even with a slight chance that the experience might make me decide to go get a pilot's license or something some day.  I just can't see why anyone would want to spend hours and hours reaing manuals to learn something that probably most real pilots wish they didn't have to mess with but have to because they make a living doing it.

I want to get in the plane with an Airhauler load or one of my many missions and hit crtl E and fire the darn engine up, gt my atc instructions and get to the actual flying.   I love the payware planes because of the flight dynamics, you can actually feel the weight of the plane, I want nice night lighting and shiekd wipers that work.  The eye candy, the cabins, the feel, the lights, that's why I love the payware planes. 

 

I want the real looking auto pilot panels too.  I was so mad when I bought the CLS airbus 318 because I found out that they use the same darn panel that the default fsx 321 uses, the one that doesn't have the three buttons in the middle, the two AP and AT button.  The Long Haul airbus by CLS does have the proper ap panel, so I thought the 320 series would too, but nope.  The Wilco models do have it, so I love that. 

 

Same with the 777 models, but I don't like the Wilco model of that because the text tag over buttons don't work for me and also the seat is too far forward for some reason and when I move back to make that right my head is behind the darn head rest of the seat.  But then I discovered that the project Opensky model has everything I like, full AP panel with flight level change button and everything, working wipers, nice lighting, it's a very nice plane for me that rivals the Wilco look and has no bugs in the cockpit.

 

Right now, my fav list is Wilco for my Airbus panes, P Opensky/Skyteam for my 737, 747-8, 777 (Tried the Wilco 737 Pic, way too complicated and couldn't even get off the ground)  But all those opensky planes have nice graphics, working wipers and simplified FMC's, nice flight dynamics....  For me they are one step beyond the defaults and that's just right for what I like to do.  Then the Avro/146 because I love those Bae planes for some reason.  QW 757, CLS 767.  Then in small planes Aerosoft Twin Otter, Maam sim DC3 from the free Buffalo airways site, really nice graphics with their C-47 models and Lockeed 188.  A few Carenado like the 208 and senica.  Really, I don't have enough time to fly the planes I have as much as I would like to.  So I definitely don't have the time for hours of manual reading.

 

I wonder if there is an element of the MANHOOD thing with this?   With guitar players on the net, we have many guys who think it's manly to use thick strings, until you see guys like, "YEAH, I USE BARBED WIRE as strings on my guitar, my hands are a bloody mess when I play, I'm rough and I'm tough".  I sense there may be a bit of that in this, "Yeah, I read a thousand page manual of the most complicated aircraft systems ever made and could probably fly the space shuttle", lol.  I don't get it.  I did try to read the 737 PIC manual, I waited for the interest to grab me, I tried, I started reading, I made it a few pages in and the desire and interest never hit me.  It felt like it would take hours and hours to learn something that I would never do in real life, it's a hobby on my computer.  When I set up for a gig I have to connect complicated PA wires and midi stuff, running many cables in and out of a mixer.  I can't imagine someone actually WANTING to do that if they were wanting to sim some guitar playing.  The setup SUCKS, IT'S NOT FUN. 

[Angelo Cosma 61]

If I am flying an aircraft in the simulator P3D, I want it to be one to one of the real thing. I can't stand shortcuts, or omitted or incorrect system behavior. 

 

If I want to quick get up and go, take a Bonanza or Duke up, but for tubeliners / air carriers the whole point is to practice procedures, and or emulate line service type flights wit everything modeled. That is just me, and that is what I find fun.