CaptainSim 757 Released!

[regis9 4,013]

In case anyone's interested, I decided to sub in the PW soundset from the QualityWings 757 and it seems to work well and sounds as great as it does in the QW757.

I ran into an odd issue tonight.  After I started the APU and disconnected the GPU, I couldn't start the engines and the plane eventually dropped to battery power only, even though the APU was running, APU bleed was on, packs off etc.  Even reconnecting the GPU couldn't wake the plane from its' powered down state. I ended up having to reload, I'll have to see if I run into this again.

1 hour ago, Brian_A_Neuman said:

What’s VRS?

Vertical Reality Simulations, makers of TacPack and the Superbug.

[signmanbob 592]

I just finished a short flight from KSDF to KCLT and now I'm really in love with this 757.

I fixed my awful sound stutter issue, so I was able to hear the sounds very good now and they sound great. Engines, switches, cockpit environment and warnings all sound excellent.

Also, although my flight was daytime, I previewed the night with the cockpit lighting and I see nothing wrong at all with the lighting inside the cockpit.  I really love the outside taxi and landing lights.  They are super bright and defuse nicely and very realistic.

The biggest problem that I find with the aircraft is related to speed.  It will blow the 250kts below 10,000 every time if left on VNAV.  Also, the VNAV climb or descent is not very reliable.  Especially the decent. This really needs to be fixed for sure, but it is not a big deal for me because I like to use "Speed" and LNAV with vertical speed when arriving on a STAR.  I always feel better putting in the speed and altitude restrictions on the MCP and gently managing descent with vertical speed.

On final, I turned off the autopilot and took over manually.  The aircraft handled beautifully.  Very responsive and manageable.  It feels like it is a large aircraft.

The aircraft put down very gently and right on the centerline. Reversers and spoilers came up and slowed down the rollout so I only used about half of runway (18C)  before vacating.

For me, the Captain Sim 757 is a great buy and I really enjoy flying it, but I understand that some people will use VNAV a lot so they may want to wait for this to be fixed before buying it. I can't imagine that it is going to be that big a job to get that fixed.

Now I need to find some good paints. Especially American Airlines.

 

Bob

[B777ER 2,485]

Any word from them on their timeline for their next update addressing the reported bugs?

[jalbino59 114]

Well based on the mainly positive feedback here, and after checking to make sure CS was actually responding comments left on their own forums with respect to this offering, I decided to pull the trigger and I gotta say, Captain Sim, I ain't mad at ya. It's a pretty good v.1 release in my opinion. 

[HighTowers 1,434]

Yea its a pretty good release, but word of caution. Take extra fuel with you.  Perhaps someone else can confirm, but I believe the fuel burn is a ways off. Usually simbrief is bang on for me with other aircraft. Just did a transatlantic flight for a test, and never made it to destination.  Was under by about 10,000lbs. Winds were pretty much as expected per the simbrief flight log. 

[B777ER 2,485]

10 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Yea its a pretty good release, but word of caution. Take extra fuel with you.  Perhaps someone else can confirm, but I believe the fuel burn is a ways off. Usually simbrief is bang on for me with other aircraft. Just did a transatlantic flight for a test, and never made it to destination.  Was under by about 10,000lbs. Winds were pretty much as expected per the simbrief flight log. 

10,000lbs off says a bunch about the attention to detail so to speak of the programming. This alone would make me stay clear of this. LVL D 757 can't get here quick enough IMO.

[Dean_EGTC 57]

Yep, I've already commented on this in their forums Dave.  Trouble is i'm struggling to find a definitive reference document stating fuel burn per hour; in pounds or metric tonnes.  I've found a PDF from Boeing but it's stated in per seat over distances, kinda hard to figure out.

The Flight Factor 752 on X Plane was burning 1.3t each side at FL400 earlier today which i'm thinking is one the conservative side.

[HighTowers 1,434]

1 hour ago, Dean_EGTC said:

Yep, I've already commented on this in their forums Dave.  Trouble is i'm struggling to find a definitive reference document stating fuel burn per hour; in pounds or metric tonnes.  I've found a PDF from Boeing but it's stated in per seat over distances, kinda hard to figure out.

The Flight Factor 752 on X Plane was burning 1.3t each side at FL400 earlier today which i'm thinking is one the conservative side.

Seen those too.  Too many variables to calculate, but the dev (CS) should have this figured out via some way to program and math calculations.  Wind component, weight, CI, altitude.  In either case, Its using way too much fuel and its not simbrief. At the very least, it should be within 2-3000 lbs. 

[regis9 4,013]

I’ve also run short on fuel using the fuel calcs provided by PFPX, so it’s certainly not simbrief.

[Dean_EGTC 57]

This is at FL410 - 6.4t, around 50% too much.

http://www.dmcity.com/uploads/64t.jpg

 

[diajohn 164]

Dean, have you tried flying at FL370 or 390 instead?

[Dean_EGTC 57]

8 hours ago, diajohn said:

Dean, have you tried flying at FL370 or 390 instead?

Not yet.  But i will tomorrow.  What makes you think it will be any different?

[diajohn 164]

Fl410 seems above its normal cruise level.  

[Dean_EGTC 57]

Nope.  It's ceiling is 42,000 ft.

[anden145 2,285]

Well - I took the plunge yesterday... I'll (I hope) try a flight later today...

Interesting thing about the wrong fuel burn. That's definately something which needs to be corrected. 
Has anybody managed to correct the jetway alignment. I suspect it's in some configuration somewhere...