I love the Aerosim L-1011. Visually, it is beautiful. It has a lot of features but it is not so complex that I have to spend a lot of time studying a 100 page manual. For the most part, I can hop in and fly. Given that those are my preferences for payware aircraft, should I pick up some of the CLS aircraft? Compared to the Aerosim L-1011, are they more complex, less complex or about the same?Visually, are they as accurate, more accurate or less accurate? Visually, are they at least on the level as POsky or IFDG?

i have both, imo there at the same level, nothing fancy "hop in n fly". some say cls is not worth it, but if you dont mind that its not complex, its certainly not a bad buy at all. As far as looks, it seems quite acurate.

Well, I'm probably going to seem a bit of a biased opinion, lol, but I'll try to be objective.Model wise, being honest I'd say CLS has the edge. The A310 has XML encoded wingflex and landing gear which reacts to the ground correctly. Also little eye candies like the pushback truck and the new addition of the manually controlled Airstairs (shift+e 3) which is a nice touch for these smaller aircraft which can find themselves at airports without jetways. I point out manually because they are not an automatic animation when the engines are shut down, parking brake applied or doors opened. So you can have the airstairs if you have to park at a stand, say at a smaller European airport. Or just use the normal jetways if they are available.For the MRTT model, the refuelling drogues are animated and the same applies for the Boom demo aircraft of EADS.The last I loaded my Aerosim Tristar up, it didn't have wingflex, unless one of the new patches added it in? I didn't get around to restoring that after a hard-drive format in January.Panel wise, its the same idea between the two. General operation is the same between Aerosim and CLS. The CLS A300-600R/A310 panel is a little more basic then the Aerosim one, just because the Aerosim has the simple INS. The CLS A340-500/600 I would say are a bit more advanced. Still basic in operation, but with an overhead and simplified MCDU (FMC)

Well, you know the old saying: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ... From the outside the A340 models definitely look like ducks, that is to say, A340 airbusses; but the panel is another matter. Very weak, completely substandard; strictly FS 98 quality; minimal functionality. On the other hand, the external model is very good. What I don't understand is this: given the number of posts on their forum asking for a possible merge between their plane and the PSS Airbus panel, why don't CLS just sell their external models and then make a merge application available?Jet City Aircraft has shown how to do this: create outstanding visuals, then merge them with an array of panels. You can merge their MD 80 series aircraft models with a) The lago maddog :( eaglesoft's MD80 panel and c) the expensive MDmax panel. That's what I call "good business sense".ricardo

Well, a little exaggerated I feel. I sure wouldn't have minded panels like that back in FS98. Functionality wise, the A346 panel has more features than your typical freeware panel or ones from a half dozen or so payware makers that also focus on lite aircraft. For a 'lite' package its actually quite well featured panel wise. More than, for example, the similarly priced Perfect Flight range.As for JCA, those are more like business deals I suspect. You can't just go about making merges as a developer, especially payware. That could very easily lead to legal problems.And like it or not, there isn't any other A340-500/600 panel out there. The PSS is the A340-200/300. Rather different inside the flightdeck. At the very least it would need a new bitmap with the square LCD displays rather than the round CRT ones.What people don't realise, or perhaps just don't accept, is that CLS are simply not aimed at the hardcore market. The idea was to offer highquality lite aircraft in a complete package that ticks most of the eyecandy boxes and yet doesn't require the user to read a huge manual. Rather than some of the rather more sloppy lite selections out there.The number of posts about a PSS merge wasn't actually that significant. 1 topic of how to do it (which we have left in place rather then deleted) and another topic where people had problems with the merge.There are a half dozen topics of people asking for a more complete MCDU, but that's just not the goal of the package at this point in time.Anyway, back on topic.If you like Aerosim aircraft, the CLS ones should be just your cup of tea. Or whatever beverage you prefer. ;)

I take then that if like me you are after a PMDG/LDS standard A340 then CLS will disappoint?Bruceb

You would be correct. The CLS is a good airliner for guys that want a better looking plane that are about as complexe as the defaults.If your looking for realisim then this is not the bird for you.Besides, if your already flying the LVD 767 and PMDG series why would you want anything else? :D

I own the CLS a340-600 and I admit it is not even close to PMDG. I love the heavy work load of the 747. However I love to take a break and fly a simple aircraft and the a340 is exactly that. Plus the visual model is stunning. I think a CLS would be right for you.

I fly all the hardcore stuff (PMDG, PSS, LDS, F1,etc) and love the complex simulations. Having said that I don't have my nose so stuck in the overhead panel that I can't enjoy high quality models that are more simplified in their systems. I own the CLS A346 and A306 and the Aerosim packages as well and enjoy them very much. It all depends on what your looking for. If it has to have every system simulated like the real aircraft then CLS is not for you, If you want beautifully detailed models with above average panel and virtual cockpit but systems not fully modelled then CLS Busses,like the Aerosim tristar will serve you well.Regards,Carlos

True, but I am heartened by the recent news that PMDG will be developing an A320 plus a strong hint that, in the fullness of time, other aircraft in the airbus "family" will follow. I just happen to think that the A340 is the most graceful commercial aircraft flying today with classic lines reminiscent of the 707.Bruceb

I own all CLS products except for the Nighthawk and I want to say it's excellent! I am the guy who doesn't like complicated panel system, I just want to fly and get in the air! I do own PMDG 747-400 which required a proper procedures before flying it. Although the CLS lacks in panel, but their visual model is outstanding, which is what really matters to me. I'm more into the visual model, the VC rather than the panel system.

Thanks for all the info. I think I will be purchasing a couple of the CLS products.