anyone purchased the 777 by wilco?

[N562Z 4]

Some of us do care Andy, thank you, and keep up the good work. That goes to everone in this hobby, payware and freeware alike...sorry for the sentimentality.Alex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

[Guest saudi_777]

Hi Patrick,Alright then, I think that Demetris could have said his point about the Wilco/Feelthere 777 in a nicer manner, and I also think that Water Mango was wrong in what he said about you.To expand about what I said in my first reply: just because someone said something bad or insulted you, doesn't mean you have to say something bad in return, plain and simple. You could have replied to both of them in a better manner, in other words, in a way that they would both accept without making them angry.The way I understood Demetris's opinion about the Wilco/Feelthere 777 is that he didn't like the visual model of it, but re-reading it now, I think he did mean the whole package, and I also think that he shouldn't judge a whole aircraft package simply by looking at a few screenshots of it.Anyway, Patrick, just be nice, and people will be nice to you in return. ;)Regards,

[Guest Water Mango]

"Boo hoo. Show me one freeware of the quality of a PSS/PMDG/FeelThere."Concerning FeelThere's 777 I could show you tones of freeware...For starters:1. Posky 2. MeljetThe VC in the FT777 is total crap so there's no use adding that in the equation. As far as 2D panels go, there's no comparison to the Freeware offerings out there. Avionics wise the FT777 might have an up as well as with the FDE but that's about it.In essence the FT777 is not worth the price of admission... :-roll "so we're both outta here, because we both have not purchased it."Oh, my gosh... :-eek You mean to tell me you don't own the product and your praise/defending is stemming from the very same screenshots you'd slam someone else for having an apposing view of... Wow...Patrick what freeware have you done??? I'd like to see it...

[Guest thedoggg]

"Show me one freeware of the quality of a PSS/PMDG/FeelThere" Have you tried David Matby's Bac One Eleven. I would say this one could very easily be mistaken for payware yet it is free. Regards, Carlos

[Guest dths30]

Patrick,There are a couple of substantial differences between Wilco 777 and PA's A320.i) ours actually looks like an A320; Wilco/Feelthere OBVIOUSLY produced a 777 for the sake of ripping some bucks off mindless simmers like you -- want proof? www.airliners.net to compare both external models with reality. I'm not willing to make a comprehensive list pointing out every single bit that's wrong... you can do that yourself equally fine, I'm rest assured.ii) I do it for FREE. You have an option: download it and enjoy it when it's out or don't download and shut up. You don't pay. Nothing. Nichts. Nada. Whatever.Plus, when have I said it's "crap"? And when have I mentioned specicifically "textures"? Get your facts straight. And why do you keep asking me what's wrong when that's, in fact, already been answered?

[aerdt 0]

The fact that you STILL cannot come up (not willing, if I may quote) with a detailed description of what you don't like about it and reference others speaks for itself and I hereby rest my case.It doesn't matter, if it's free or not. The fact that you bashed a product WITHOUT EVEN OWNING IT and by looking at screenshots (those are textures) is just poor judgement.You have said "That you wouldn't get it, even as freeware", which is an insult to the FeelThere developers, who have also put in a lot of time to develop this add-on. The same or more amount that you put into you work. It is the same insult that you probably would not except as a "comprehensive" review from on of your products.It is so easy to get into the thread, nodding and pointing to others.Enuf said, Demetris.

[Guest thedoggg]

Okay, I went ahead and got it. First impressions:The model is nicer than in the screenshots still something with the nose doesn't convince me. The 2d panel is very good for a "light" package. The FMC is mostly functional but I had trouble inputting the STARR and destination runway, they just would'nt appear on the legs page. The background images for the 2d panels also could be improved upon but are not that bad. Overall much better than any of the freeware panels out there. The virtual cockpit is above average but some of the textures appear to be low res, not so much when looking straight forward, but when looking to the left. The gauges are crisp,clear and easy to read with good refresh rates on both the 2D panel and VC. The Default GPS is included but you don't have to use it. The MCP is realistic with Vnav, Lnav, and Flch modeled and they work. I only did one flight so far but had to take over and fly her down manually because of the problem mentioned above with the STARR/RW input. When she reached the last waypoint she just started going in circles around it. This was frustrating since all kinds of alarms started going off when I swithed off the autopilot (ground proximity warning) exept I was 5000ft above ground level, I couldn't figure out what was causing it so I just had to hit the mute button. It wasn't the gear or flaps/speed I know better than that. It didn't help that there was a big cluster of dense clouds sitting on top of LAX. Nothing like flying through a bunch of clouds where you can't see and anoying alarms going off when they shouldn't. So I input the ILS frequency for the runway ATC gave me on the radio and flew the ILS by hand through the clouds to a nice landing on rwy 24R (yes she hand flies nicely, better than PSS in that department). The great hand flying may in part be because of the great performance this add on has. Most of the time frame rates were up in the 40s to 50 fps in cruise from the VC and 25 to 30 on final approach to Bill Melichar's LAX covered with clouds. The PSS would be in the teens in a situation like that on my system.The final question. Is it worth buying? If your system cannot handle the PSS, I would say yes but wait until they patch her up. Those out there that say the freeware out there is better than this you are fooling yourselves. I know, Mel's model looks a tad better but no FMC, no VC, and nohwhere near with the flight dynamics (this is my perception on the sim only. If any of you real world 777 pilots wan't to correct me please do so).Current System:AMD 64 3700+ San Diego coreAsus A8n SLi deluxe2gigs Corsair value select memoryBFG 7900GTX OC 512mb video card2 Maxtor ATA133 hard drives (120gb,300gb)Ultra 500w power supplyPlextor 708A DVD writerThermaltake Tsunami Dream case.2 Samsung Syncmaster 19" monitors in span mode 2560 X 1024 resolution.Regards, Carlos

[Guest Water Mango]

One again, "Patrick what freeware have you done??? I'd like to see it..." "Besides, the topic title is "ANYONE PURCHASED THE 777?", so we're both outta here, because we both have not purchased it."Patrick you're defense of this add-on holds no weight as you don't own it. I own the actual product and as far as I can tell Daemetris's observations are right on the money...

[Guest dths30]

>The fact that you STILL cannot come up (not willing, if I may>quote) with a detailed description of what you don't like>about it and reference others speaks for itself and I hereby>rest my case.Albeit you purposedly miss points from my posts, since you insist, let's compare some of the screenshots they've got up (which seem to have been taken from the weirdest angles possible *rolls eyes*)...http://www.wilcopub.com/wilcopub_images/images_777/42_g.jpgcockpit windows shape is wrong, probably as a result of the nose being incorrect - http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0916543/L/... in the same screenshot the gear door size is wrong, the taxi lights are missing, and the poles are set out incorrectly... the window whipers are missing toohttp://www.wilcopub.com/wilcopub_images/images_777/65_g.jpghttp://www.wilcopub.com/wilcopub_images/images_777/29_g.jpgthe horizontal stabilizer's shape is wrong, the aerofoil is wrong, and as for the textures... let's not go there - http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0865242/L/, http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0862586/L/... both the tail and h stabilizer have not been properly smoothed modelwise, and tail's edge is not properly formed... http://www.wilcopub.com/wilcopub_images/images_777/55_g.jpghttp://www.wilcopub.com/wilcopub_images/images_777/43_g.jpgThe landing gear.... now this is where science fiction comes into play... the main pole is at an angle while it should be almost straight and it's too thick ... the gear door is missing it's upper half and even the wheels are the wrong shape - http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0944229/L/I'll stop here, after having examined only FOUR surfaces.>Enuf said, Demetris.Enough said, indeed.

[aerdt 0]

Ah, those are really quite some reasons to dismiss a product. The window wipers are missing? Good grief. See, the difference between us is that I look at the model for maybe one minute and I am more interested flying the thing that looking at it on a tarmac. I am not a B777 enthousiast and don't have the official Boeing specifications on my desk (who does?) to verify every detail and I think so do 99% of my fellow pilots. I am more interested in an actual representation of the cockpit. I have even fun flying the old and outdated PSS Airbus with their horrible cockpit textures. Those are just different approaches to the hobby.Mango,your points are taken and I surely won't reveal any of my freeware efforts at this point, because it would make me and my work a prime target for another bashing. Certainly not, after your pointless argument earlier asking me indirectly to leave this forum, while I was just asking from you and Demetris to point out in details what you don't like about this product. That was the intention of the orginal poster.As to your issues that you're pointed out earlier (thank you, btw): 90% of the issues are in FeelThere's queue to be fixed. The fuel management, the LVLCHG, VNAV overspeed. Why don't you just give them some time to fix it. I admit it's sloppy work, but nothing that cannot get fixed.I am done posting to this thread now. Promised.

[Guest Water Mango]

"Those out there that say the freeware out there is better than this you are fooling yourselves. I know, Mel's model looks a tad better but no FMC, no VC, and nohwhere near with the flight dynamics"I guess some would settle for anything. By comparison PSS's VC is like night and day compared to this version. The sounds in this package are horrible. The FMC is not fully functional (which can be fixed in a patch) and again I say the VC isn't worth mentioning (which won't be addressed like with the 737PIC package)...There's only two things I can agree with you on here and that is the flight dynamics (which are very good) and the sad fact that if PSS isn't an option for you this is it...Well here it is guys, a happy fluffy review and a more objective outlook on an add-on that would have been state of the art back when FS2k2 was first released... Proceed with caution in your choice to purchase this add-on... Just like the FT Caravan, 737PIC, and PSS Concord before it, I'm sure this will get a glowing review from a few Flightsim sites (I need not mention any names). All those products weren't up to the current standards set by companies like DreamFleet, CLS, Aerosim, Aeroworx, Overland, or even PSS's current 777. I need not mention PMDG or Level-D because some would say that's not fare do to the fact that their hardcore products. The 737PIC is a very nice hardcore product with one of the ugliest VC's around...

[Guest Water Mango]

"the window whipers are missing too"Demetris FeelThere hates 'wipers'... Notice in the PIC737 VC the most prominent feature in a 737 cockpit is missing. A few users wrote in their forums on this and they flatly refused to add even static wipers... No wipers is a hallmark of FeelThere designs. Yes Patrick little oversights like this are reason to pass on a product especially when freeware products get these little things right..."I am more interested in an actual representation of the cockpit."It's terrible..."I admit it's sloppy work, but nothing that cannot get fixed." Problem is Pat they won't fix the visual issues. Like I mentioned above about the wipers in the 737PIC. Since everyone else

[windycloud 30]

>Ryan:>>Not even close to what? Are you a real-world Boeing pilot? If>so, good for you, ok. I am not a real-world pilot, and neither>are most of the people in this hobby. Personally, aside from>the advances in computer graphics, which is phenomenal,>amazing, and enhances our enjoyment of this hobby, I find>thatthis "as-real-as-it-gets" mentality has gotten a bit>out-of-hand, to the point where most of us probably spend as>much time updating and tweaking FS9, our graphics cards, and>FSUIPC (admittedly fun), as we do flying in FS9 altogether. I>am a real-world father, with a real-world , full-time job, who>fantasizes himself as a competant, virtual heavy jet pilot. My>time is limited. I do not have the time to learn how the 747>or 767 systems work inside and out, much as I might like to,>but I do enjoy planning IFR flights for one on real-world>routes, in real-world weather and using real-world Departures,>Arrivals, Approaches, ATC (FS9 and Online)etc. The joy of>simming is different for each of us, and I hope that if I'm>ever on a real-world 767 and the crew is incapacitated,>someone like you is on my flight to work the systems....I'll>fly the aircraft...>>>>>Alex Christoff>N562Z>Baltimore, MDWhat you have time and interest for in FS is your personal matter. What your point of view is in terms of FS vs. Reality is also just that, your point of view. However none of what you said renders Ryan's specific statement invalid or wrong. It's a fact that FS default AP logic and programming is overly simplified compared to the more advanced addon aircrafts, which are much closer to their real world counterparts.>someone like you is on my flight to work the systems....I'll>fly the aircraft...It sounds kind of funny to me. there is no need to plan who works the system and who flies the plane in case of crew incapacitation. If you aren't a real pilot in that class you can't fly it. It's as simple as that.Jason

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Just curious. Does the fact that any addon does or does not have wing views really a deal breaker?My CS C-130 has a various wing views and I think in 6 months Ive looked at them once."It shouldn't be a deal breaker anymore. The free recorder utility's newest beta has a feature that turns spot view into a "pax" view, for lack of a better word. I have a post about it in the screenshots forum. With it, you can have wing views on any aircraft you purchase short of the smaller GA aircraft, which normally have them anyway.-John

[Guest adameke777]

>I'll stick with MelJet ... nice flight model>Alex ChristoffFeels too much like the MSFS default 777-300 adam