I'm noot experienced at all in the old route programming though. What is the navigation like on them? Default P3D planning?

 

On the 737, is VOR-to-VOR navigation, using P3D default navigation database. You can also use the P3D's default flight planner. I suppose the L1011 is the same.

Cheers, Ed

How does their 737 compare to the Milviz one?  Trying to get a handle on overall quality, putting aside price just for the sake of this comparison (though price is obviously a factor, at least this Wednesday...)

 

EDIT: Sorry, reading too quickly, missed flibinite's post about Milviz v Captain Sim (says the 737s are "neck and neck.")  Any particular advantages one way or the other?  Or is it purely a dead heat?

The Milviz one and the Captain Sim ones are, as noted, pretty much neck and neck, so it comes down to things like which paint job and variants and specific models do you like that are included in each package, and of course, which one is available at a bargain price. Actually, the Black Box Sims 737 from Just Flight is pretty good too and has many expansions which include more unusual 737s such as a T-43 'Gator variant. 

 

As far as navigation is concerned, the 737 is pretty much a case of VOR-to-VOR along airways, whereas the L-1011 typically used a Delco Carousel INS system (which is a bit like a very early version of an FMC CDU, but looks more like it belongs in Apollo 11 than an airliner cockpit). Unlike a modern FMC, the Carousel however, it uses a series of Lat and Long co-ordinates which you have to type in, these are then slaved to the autopilot, it navigates through them in sequence, which of course it would have to do since there are no VORs in the middle of the Atlantic lol. Takes a bit of getting used to to use the Delco, but there are plenty of tutorials on it and its quite rewarding to suss it out. You can add a Carousel gauge to the 737 though, there are some freeware ones out there.

 

 

 ... so it comes down to things like which paint job and variants and specific models do you like that are included in each package, and of course, which one is available at a bargain price. ...

... and to support I would dare to say.

 

Things have been very calm at Captain Sim lately (for a year or so I guess). The last update on their website dates from February '16. They just refreshed their web site's layout; but regarding development, bug fixing, new models or P3D support for their 767 for example ... nada ...

 

Anyone who knows more?

 

Cheers

Frank

Can anyone tell me what the TriStar (I much prefer this name to "L1011") is like to hand fly? Is it nice and stable in turns etc?

Can anyone tell me what the TriStar (I much prefer this name to "L1011") is like to hand fly? Is it nice and stable in turns etc?

The Tristar is a superb simulation, one of my favourites. Everything works! Fly it on VOR/INS CIVA/ or even with the GTN 750 (Hdg mode follows the GTN GPS lateral navigation!)

 

Hand flown a sheer delight. CWS is nicely modelled too and don't forget the CLS spoiler landing simulated as well.....Underrated simulation of a great aircraft!

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7227316D8D4AAA3E&v=XM6sDOkRa6k

 

 

If its in the sale I say grab it!

 

Regards

 

David

L1011 feels very heavy in flight (as I guess it should), and hand flies very smooth.  very well done imo.   Just a note above that the 727 and 737 can be fitted with an FMC if you use the the free vasFMC or a purchased one.  I have not flown these for a while as I mostly use P3D but it is possible.

Last year I bought them all and all the versions but found I like the 777 best out of the lot. 

I just received the email, it should be live now. I'll grab the 737 even though it's just a simulator check (i installed the FSX version and it works perfectly).

 

The 1011 i bought it in their last sale, i can say it's the only product that's really worth it from CS.

They're both good, so if you can't get both, then I'd ask yourself how long is the average flight you like to make?

 

The 737 is good for short and medium hops, and in particular, the original 100 Series 737 was conceived as kind of a 'modern DC-3', in that it was intended to be a 'fill the tanks and make a lot of short hops to poorly equipped airports where it might not even be able to refuel'. It could do without much in the way of ground services because of its built-in airstairs, although the 200 series soon came along to give it a bit more flexibility. Note that the 737 can be equipped with a rough field deflector plate on the landing gear too to prevent FOD, so it really is something which can realistically get onto and off ropey runway surfaces at less fancy airports.

 

Historically, the 737 was the first jet airliner designed from the outset to have a crew of only two, although owing to US pilot union protestations (principally from United Airlines pilots, who claimed it was unsafe to not have a flight engineer), it often flew with a crew of three (this being the case until Lufthansa did a bunch of proving flights with it using only two pilots and demonstrated that it was safe to do so). As a flight simmer, it's worth bearing in mind that because of that intentional design to be operated by only two pilots, for an old-style airliner (i.e. without an FMC), the workload for a lone flight simmer is not anywhere near as high as it will be for the L1011, which was always designed to have a crew of three. Basically, if you can fly a Cessna 172 well enough IFR, you could pretty much jump in and fly a 737-100 without too much difficulty, at least in terms of CRM, if not in terms of landing it properly.

 

The L1011 Tristar typically made flights of 1,000 miles minimum in its heyday, so if you prefer long-haul simming, it'll be more up your street, and speaking of streets, the L1011, needs a fairly long street to get in and out of, particularly at high landing and take off weights, so unlike the 737, it can't get into and out of smaller airports. Minimum runway length for landing the L1011 is between 6,300 and 6,800 ft (depending on the variant), whereas the good old 737-200 can get down onto about 5,500 feet, even less in more favourable conditions, and probably a lot less if you really stand on the brakes and let everything hang out to slow it down lol, notwithstanding the fact that you can really abuse that sort of thing in FS and land in much shorter distances with most FS airliners.

 

Note too that there is a freeby demo of the Captain Sim 737 available, which might help you decide. If you like old bangers and VOR-to-VOR/INS navigation, you can't go wrong with either of them really, but if you like more sophistication, then the L-1011 is more likely to float your boat, because the early 737 is not exactly replete with sophisticated avionics, which actually was its strong point, in the real world of operations. It's not the best selling airliner of all time for nothing.

The 737 is a great aircraft no doubts, I find the engines very powerful I got a tendency to go into over speed a lot lol

Thanks for the information about the TriStar, guys. I think I will take advantage of this $10 offer to purchase the P3D version.

The 737 is a great aircraft no doubts, I find the engines very powerful I got a tendency to go into over speed a lot lol

 

 

Yup, it's debatable how much of a complex simulation of the older turbojets there is on the CS jets, certainly it's not up there with some of the engine modeling of recent things from A2A, FSL, PMDG. Although having said that, I have found that you can mostly use the correct EPR settings in their 727 and 707, enabling you to fly them fairly realistically by the numbers as per the real thing's SOPs, which does make them behave a bit better speed-wise. Nevertheless, both the 727 and the early model 737s were known for being slick, thus fairly hard to slow down on the descent, it was certainly not unknown for pilots to drop the gear when still up very high, in lieu of more effective spoilers, in order to keep from overspeeding.

Yup, it's debatable how much of a complex simulation of the older turbojets there is on the CS jets, certainly it's not up there with some of the engine modeling of recent things from A2A, FSL, PMDG. Although having said that, I have found that you can mostly use the correct EPR settings in their 727 and 707, enabling you to fly them fairly realistically by the numbers as per the real thing's SOPs, which does make them behave a bit better speed-wise. Nevertheless, both the 727 and the early model 737s were known for being slick, thus fairly hard to slow down on the descent, it was certainly not unknown for pilots to drop the gear when still up very high, in lieu of more effective spoilers, in order to keep from overspeeding.

Interesting thanks for the infor there

Think I'll add the 727 to my collection

Last year I bought them all and all the versions but found I like the 777 best out of the lot.

 

May I ask what the VAS usage is like with the T7?

 

Also if you are on P3dv3 with it?

 

I must say it looks like another must buy tomorrow, when the produce is $10.

 

Regards

David

Came across this 2014 Avsim post by Tim Capps, who goes into a lot of detail about the plusses and minuses of the Captain Sim and Milviz 737s.  Among other things, it sounds as though the Captain Sim is notably overpowered - but a fix is available that tones it down a bit.

 

Based on reading this and other reviews, I think I'll pass on all the Captain Sims - the price is right, but time is short, and I'd rather focus on just a few airplanes that I know have really nailed it.  In the past I've grabbed payware on deep sales, and then have been disappointed by it or just haven't been able to focus on it.  $10 is a small outlay, but still an outlay if you're not getting anything back for it.  So that's my take.  That doesn't change the fact that the price is amazing, and of course anybody who wants to give them a try ought to jump on them.