FSX-MS Took the plunge and got the QW 787 for FSX

[Piotr007 167]

In those screens it seems your trees are missing on the scenery. You appear only to have the buildings.

The 787 looks very nice indeed. Not buying it for FSX though, will have to wait for P3D V4 version. I will buy it. 1000%.

[Chock 17,769]

57 minutes ago, Piotr007 said:

In those screens it seems your trees are missing on the scenery. You appear only to have the buildings.

The 787 looks very nice indeed. Not buying it for FSX though, will have to wait for P3D V4 version. I will buy it. 1000%.

Yup, that's because the TerraFlora update I downloaded screwed up yesterday lol.

[Kevin_28 164]

Looks great. I'm really leaning towards getting it now and go the upgrade route (whatever that may be) for p3d. I'm a bit impatient :P

[dolbinau 72]

I'm surprised more people aren't posting their thoughts. First impressions is that it's a good bird - good quality graphics (wish the displays were a bit clearer) and decent level of system simulation. It is just missing that little bit of polish to be a "PMDG" bird, and I'm seeing some very minor bugs or annoyances that I assume will be fixed in an update. We continue to be blessed with high quality desktop flight simulator add-ons.

I must admit given the similarities with the 777 systems (they do share a type rating) I don't find flying this new bird AS exciting as it was to try a truly new aircraft for the first time. I suppose there are enough differences so it isn't literally the same but it will all feel very familiar - you don't have to really open a manual. 

[Chock 17,769]

19 minutes ago, dolbinau said:

I'm surprised more people aren't posting their thoughts. First impressions is that it's a good bird - good quality graphics (wish the displays were a bit clearer) and decent level of system simulation. It is just missing that little bit of polish to be a "PMDG" bird, and I'm seeing some very minor bugs or annoyances that I assume will be fixed in an update. We continue to be blessed with high quality desktop flight simulator add-ons.

I must admit given the similarities with the 777 systems (they do share a type rating) I don't find flying this new bird AS exciting as it was to try a truly new aircraft for the first time. I suppose there are enough differences so it isn't literally the same but it will all feel very familiar - you don't have to really open a manual. 

Can't say I'm all that familiar with the 'Cripple Seven', I've got the CS one and even have the phone app for it to display the FMC on your phone, but it was a bit too much of an FPS hog to really get into, so I'll take your word for it on the similarities. The QW 787 'Screamliner' reminds me of the Flight Factors A350 though, since that too has a very comprehensive EFB in the VC, and I guess that is because the A350 is pretty much a contemporary of the 787. It's just a shame that XP11 lacks a lot of the stuff which that A350 needs in order to really stretch its legs, so that rarely gets an outing either.

Conversely, I could see myself flying the QW 787 a lot, as it flies nicely by hand and has a pleasant VC which makes setting up a flight very easy to do. Detailed enough as it is, I'd not say it was a 'study sim', which of course QW never have claimed it to be, I seem to recall them stating it would be about 80-90 percent accurate, and that's good enough for me. I know a lot of people want to simulate failures and such, but to be honest with a 787, the only failures i know much about occurring  on that thing are the batteries setting on fire, and who'd wanna simulate that?

I can hardly say I've flown this QW bird much with just having got the thing, thus I've not really seeing any showstopper faults with it yet, nor do I even know if there are any. But I do know it is certainly happy enough to fly an FMC route I've stuck into it, and fly the departures and approaches I add to those flight plans, but I'll know more about what it can and cannot do when I read the manual and do the tutorial flight, which I plan to do this weekend.

I suspect the reason more people are not posting their thoughts is because we've not hit a weekend yet, so many simmers won't have had a chance to play with it, and some might not even buy it until the weekend, the only reason I was able to is because I was off work for a couple of days after having been up in Scotland working there at the start of the week.

 

[ukplane1 37]

First impressions has been thin thus far.

 

Although on that same token virtually no one is complaining about bugs e.t.c so it might be a solid day 1 release.

 

And from using owning it on FSX i would say there's 1 or 2 issues but nothing ground breaking - it's like QW have been promoted to a new league and Aerosoft have been left behind. ( so the pressure is on aerosoft to release a very good a330 )

 

[GCBraun 2,392]

Bought it, reinstalled FSX:SE and Flyinside for FSX, OOMed the first long-haul flight, refunded.

Seems nice, but no way I want go go back to that feeling of "will I make it to the end or not".

[Chock 17,769]

8 minutes ago, tgcbraun said:

Bought it, reinstalled FSX:SE and Flyinside for FSX, OOMed the first long-haul flight, refunded.

Seems nice, but no way I want go go back to that feeling of "will I make it to the end or not".

You could have just pretended that instead of an OOM ending your flight, you were thinking 'will I be able to land before the lithium-ion APU battery bursts into flames' lol. It would add another element of realism. 

[warbirds 555]

I am really trying to get back into FSXSE just for the prospect of getting this plane but I am not doing it correctly or just too used to P3Dv4.

I have the fixer and run it in Dx10 and it looks fairly good but the fps are horrible compared to the same look or better that I get in v4.

Example; with FSXSE sliders on default and at 4k I get 18 to 21 fps at stock Chicago Midway airport in the A2A Connie vc cockpit (normally a good fps runner). In P3dv4  4k with sliders at  default settings and same situation, same aircraft, I get 42 fps in vc cockpit. 

With FSXSE my graphic card (1080ti) is barely used and remains at 42c most of the time. With P3dv4 it is used and runs around 65c most of the time so I think that is where the fps loss is. 

If I get this plane I would have to run FSXSE with minimal slider settings to even fly it because I am sure it would take more fps to operate than the A2A Connie.

Any advice on how to make FSXSE run better with high end aircraft?

[Chock 17,769]

I'd drop the screen resolution if I were you. FSX was made long before anyone thought they'd be running 4K, even in its SE form.

[warbirds 555]

Yes I tried that but with my card I get the same fps at 2k as I do at 4k in FSXSE and I really don't want to go all the way back to 1080p.

[odourboy 1,289]

11 hours ago, Chock said:

But I do know it is certainly happy enough to fly an FMC route I've stuck into it, and fly the departures and approaches I add to those flight plans,

That statement in itself speaks volumes. How many new releases have we seen in the past couple of years that were hobbled by the complexity of coding a decent FMC?!

[scianoir 610]

31 minutes ago, odourboy said:

That statement in itself speaks volumes. How many new releases have we seen in the past couple of years that were hobbled by the complexity of coding a decent FMC?!

So far I have only done a few hand flown flights and it flies great by hand but I am planning my first flight using the FMC tonight so it's good to hear that it does what is intended. You are correct in your comment as there is nothing more frustrating than buying an otherwise nice addon aircraft and then finding the FMC is half baked and won't even allow SIDs or STARs to be entered or where half the buttons are non-functioning. With some of these, I have partly saved the situation by installing a GTN750 in the aircraft and using that but that shouldn't be necessary. When an aircraft is marketed with a supposedly functional FMC then you feel cheated when you find it is basically unusable whether by design or just through inadequate beta testing.

Bill

[Chock 17,769]

Okay, sort of in response to the recent thread about using post production to fancy up products on promotional videos, not that I'm suggesting QW did that, but here is a completely unedited six and a half minute FRAPS video of FSX-SE with the QW 787 taxying out and taking off from a payware airport. No editing at all, this is exactly how it runs and I have zoomed the sim at several points so you can see the VC clarity and content etc.

The FSX settings on are on high with pretty much all of the options ticked, including road traffic, airliners, GA aeroplanes, ferries, leisure boats, clouds and autogen on high settings etc. It is in DX10 mode (which makes the shading on the 787 a lot better). Add-ons installed include Steve's DX10 fixer and his Cloud Shadows add on, UK2000 Liverpool Extreme V2 with their EGCC 35 miles up the road, so that will have loaded into FSX too and had AI traffic at it as well, also Ultimate Terrain Europe V2, TerraFlora, Revolution X UK autogen, Ultimate Traffic 2 and Active Sky Next is doing live weather.

The machine this is recorded on has a Strix ATI Radeon RX 480 GPU with 8Gb of DDR 5 memory, the motherboard is an ASUS prime Z270P, the processor is a Kaby Lake i5-7400 and there is 4Gb of Corsair Vengeance DDR4 RAM on the main board. OS is Windows 10.

I left the FSX FPS counter on for the start of the video so you could see that it was getting about 15 fps at the airport as it taxied past the AI, which of course is also slowed a bit by the FRAPS capture, meaning it would probably have been doing about 24 fps at that time had FRAPS not been streaming the capture at 1080p 30 fps.

 

[nealmac 260]

On 10/4/2017 at 0:30 AM, Chock said:

50. Metres. Remaining.

 

LOL

 

Good man Alan , we can always rely on you to give us an early review. Unfortunately I've completely ditched FSX. In fact I've also ditched P3Dv3. V4 is the only sim I'm using at the moment. So I'll be waiting for the P3D version.