54 minutes ago, nolonger said:

It may not be perfect down to the last virtual rivet but nor does it deserve all these put downs.

As long as the "put downs" are the truth, it is important that potential customers know it. If it is not the truth then it is important to point out where it is not true with correct facts. I have not seen any disputes point by point so far in any topic concerning the CS757. 

I don't own the CS 757 mainly because of the whimsical pricing based on "757". To me that deserves a "put down and "put out". CS, in my view, "played" the FS community with that stunt, and I am amazed how anybody fell for it. Should the A2A Cessna 172 cost $17.20 or $172.00???  🤢🤮

To anybody who is enjoying the CS757, I'm seriously and truly happy for you.🙂

19 hours ago, killthespam said:

I hate to do this, 757 is got lots of bugs, FMC auto pilot VNAV etc. Just an example out of JFk to EWR with a 4000 FT level off the autopilot just busted the altitude by over 700 FT.

Yes it looks very nice, no question about but when you gonna learn the systems and have an understanding of what should happen and actually what it does you will be surprised.

Regarding the 748 you can fly any real world route you want (short or long) your imagination is the limit. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rb0zy4e8qul9vix/BUST.JPG?dl=0

Eeee gads--what in the world are you doing climbing through 4000 with the flaps still down??!  😱

If I were to try and sum up the many threads I've read about the CS 757 automation, it'd be this: it works reasonably well if you fly it using manual modes (e.g. V/S mode for early climb and for descents), but that the automation, particularly VNAV using FMS profiles, is pretty flaky.  I guess that doesn't bother me tremendously, as the autopilot in the real world Gulfstream III had to be managed like that, so it "feels" natural.  The G-IV and G-V autopilots are very good, but we still used them mostly the same way, because a lightly-loaded G-V in VNAV will climb moonward like a Delta IV rocket with pretty uncomfortable (for the passengers) high deck angles.  So we did initial climb with V/S set to 2500-3000 fpm and selected VNAV later, usually passing 10000 ft, when the deck angles with full climb power set are more moderate.

My experience regarding Captain Sim and their propensity to leave projects unfinished is pretty much in line with what's been said here, and why I haven't bought one of their add-ons in quite a few years now.  It's always been puzzling to me why they would do so much good work and get so close and then leave even simple to fix things undone as they walked away to the next project.  Their 727, 707, and C-130 add-ons were all left unfinished like that, with empty and ultimately unfulfilled promises to get back to it later.  As a formerly famous comedian once said, it's like serving up a nice four-course steak dinner--on the lid of a trash can.  It does seem to me at least possible that *maybe* CS is more invested in longer-term and more complete development of the 757 than they have been in other projects, which would be smart, since they pretty much own the 757 space for FSX/P3D with no apparent competition out to the visible horizon.  So who knows, maybe there's hope of seeing the problems cleaned up eventually.  Can't say that experience would have me banking on it, though.

Now the 747-8?  It just works.  You have to drill down pretty deep to find even minor issues.  But the plane itself is a big beast that doesn't fit into the parking spots on at least 3/4 of my sceneries, so it's biggest limitation is a real one, sort of like the Concorde or A380--it is used for long-haul legs between a select and relative few airports that are capable of handing it.

Regards

 

2 hours ago, PATCO LCH said:

UPS has a hopp from KSDF to KMSP.

Just what I wanted ti hear, as I just bought the KSDF from FSDT.

7 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Just what I wanted ti hear, as I just bought the KSDF from FSDT.

I had to do a parking spot customization in GSX2 to get a parking spot for the 748 at KSDF...there isn't a single parking spot in the ADE large enough for the -8.

Regards

23 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Eeee gads--what in the world are you doing climbing through 4000 with the flaps still down??!  😱

 

From the picture, if you pay attention, the airplane being on a/p just busted the 4000 ft altitude (by 760 FT) and was recovering.

And for the "flaps still down" you should realize that the airplane was accelerating (look close at the speed trend vector) while flaps is in clean up schedule.  

So the real question here is "what in the world the a/p is doing climbing through 4000".

I understand that you not familiar with the 757 (as I'm not with the Gulfstream, never flew it in real life) but the VNAV works very well (not as well as the B744 or B748) and some companies part fo their SOP is to have VNAV armed before T.O. Yes, some of us like to play with the buttons (in any airplane no matter how sophisticated it might be) for whatever reasons.

I'm very disappointed that this project is unfinished and full of bugs plus, that I didn't pay attention that they don't have a re-found policy.

I loved the airplane, the way it flies, the way it looks and I was hoping to be much better than it is. 

I'll say it again, the 757 is fast becoming a flying fossil so why pay to fly that dinosaur?  And the Captain fixing bugs: Hah hah...

1 hour ago, killthespam said:

From the picture, if you pay attention, the airplane being on a/p just busted the 4000 ft altitude (by 760 FT) and was recovering.

And for the "flaps still down" you should realize that the airplane was accelerating (look close at the speed trend vector) while flaps is in clean up schedule.  

So the real question here is "what in the world the a/p is doing climbing through 4000".

I understand that you not familiar with the 757 (as I'm not with the Gulfstream, never flew it in real life) but the VNAV works very well (not as well as the B744 or B748) and some companies part fo their SOP is to have VNAV armed before T.O. Yes, some of us like to play with the buttons (in any airplane no matter how sophisticated it might be) for whatever reasons.

I'm very disappointed that this project is unfinished and full of bugs plus, that I didn't pay attention that they don't have a re-found policy.

I loved the airplane, the way it flies, the way it looks and I was hoping to be much better than it is. 

According to my notes from previous days In the past using other 757 panels, the 757 climb schedule was V2+15 to 1000, then set a 1000 fpm climb rate (lower if really heavy) and accelerate to 250 while retracting the flaps: flaps 5 at Vref+20, flaps 1 at Vref+40, and Flaps up at Vref+60.  It just seems odd that you're still flaps 5 at over 4000 feet AGL and 13 knots shy of reaching limit speed in that configuration...  Anyway, it was intended as a good-natured poke.

I understand that the A/P in the real jet works as it should, and that the CS autopilot does not.  I'm just saying that from my experience flying several acft with exceptional advanced FMS/autopilot modes, we still didn't fully use the automation in normal ops, as good as it was.  So it wouldn't be a showstopper--for ME--to operate the add-on like that, since it's what I used to do in the real world.  And I'm not suggesting CaptainSim is excused for getting it wrong--surely others (PMDG, Level-D, FSL, etc) have shown it can be done right.

So my conclusion is that if that's all that's wrong with their 757, I'd consider it usable but certainly in need of refinement.  So maybe it'd be worth buying it at a discount some day, or maybe even at its regular price if they ever get a working cargo version released, with virtually no other decent narrowbody cargo options in P3Dv4.  Just a handful of add-ons are as good as the very few on the top tier, so it all boils down to what we're willing to live with to fly the other jets that we want in absence of other, better options.  If you're a P3D simmer and a real fan of the 757, you don't really have other options at present, so the question for the OP and others considering the CS757 is whether its known shortcomings are something you can live with in a ~$90 add-on.  It would be completely reasonable to say "heck no", and it might also be reasonable to say "well, OK, I'll hold my nose and live with it because this is one I really want to fly."

Regards

38 minutes ago, overspeed3 said:

I'll say it again, the 757 is fast becoming a flying fossil so why pay to fly that dinosaur?

The 757 is still a mainstay in the cargo business. 

About 30% of both the UPS and FedEx fleets are 757-200Fs--more than any other acft type in either of their fleets.  Neither company has announced any plans to phase out the 757 in their future plans.  When FedEx finishes replacing their A300/A310 jets with 767s, the 767 will outnumber the 757 there, but still they currently plan on keeping all 119 of the 757s.

Regards

I'm going to be brutally honest as an owner of both.

Get the PMDG 748. No question.

Because, for reasons mentioned above...

the CS 757 is junk...

3 hours ago, w6kd said:

GSX

If only it could distinguish the difference between a 400 Pax and a -400F RH front door to do a catering call, as it stupidly keeps asking to open the RH Fwd Door, when none exists!

Having purchased the CS757 right when it was released, I'm going to add my two cents. I couldn't wait for it to be released and now I can't wait for update 1.3 to be released... It's flyable, enjoyable, basically a good aircraft, but still has bugs, some of which I consider major. CS have a done a really great job ob rolling out updates and hotfixes and fixing stuff. On the other hand, though, I'm not sure if the 'large' number of updates and hotfixes is a positive as there shouldn't be so many things to fix and they shouldn't need so many updates. I did several flights so far and I can't say I haven't enjoyed it, but it's back in my hangar until update 1.3 rolls out and hopefully fixes the last bugs. Bit disappointed...

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

The 757 is still a mainstay in the cargo business. 

About 30% of both the UPS and FedEx fleets are 757-200Fs--more than any other acft type in either of their fleets.  Neither company has announced any plans to phase out the 757 in their future plans.  When FedEx finishes replacing their A300/A310 jets with 767s, the 767 will outnumber the 757 there, but still they currently plan on keeping all 119 of the 757s.

Regards

It is my understanding they've been buying up converted 757s to replace the A310s, oddly enough some of those 757s are as old if not older than some of those 310s. The A310s were supposed to be gone but theyve hung around longer than expected, very few left though. Great range for a freighter than size. They used to fly them to Asia out ANC.

The FedEx/UPS A306Fs are among the last ones delivered by Airbus in the 2004-2007 time frame. The rest are older 90s build airframes.

The A306 and 767 compliment each other well at both fleets. With the A306/A310 being able to get out of very short fields like SNA/BUR to MEM. Routes the 767 could not do and a 757 with cargo would be heavily weight restricted.

FedEx also interchanges the 763/A306 on their transcontinental OAK/EWR runs.

My favorite airliners hands down are 1980s era jets : A306/A310 , B757/767, 737CL, 744 etc.

Too bad we don't have a nice Airbus yet.

6 hours ago, w6kd said:

According to my notes from previous days In the past using other 757 panels, the 757 climb schedule was V2+15 to 1000, then set a 1000 fpm climb rate (lower if really heavy) and accelerate to 250 while retracting the flaps: flaps 5 at Vref+20, flaps 1 at Vref+40, and Flaps up at Vref+60.  It just seems odd that you're still flaps 5 at over 4000 feet AGL and 13 knots shy of reaching limit speed in that configuration...  Anyway, it was intended as a good-natured poke

Sorry, pretty close. I was 9 kts faster (@ max t.o. wt in this case speeds are somewhere v1=165 vr=168 v2=171 and using Boeing recommended procedures climbing @ v2+15=185) because I was rushing to get the picture, which in our case +9 KTS above schedule is irrelevant when I was trying to capture the problem with the a/p.

The other note, there are actually 2 climb profiles one is close in and one is distant. I'm deviating here, on the B748 (and other airplanes)  there is also a quiet  climb profile. That 1000 ft/m is a bogus number (especially if really heavy), t.o. calculations are based on climb gradients to comply with obstacle clearance. 

Also there are places where you actually might end up climbing @ v2+10 x V2+15 up to 5000 ft due to terrain or SID requirements with a climb thrust reduction @ 1500 ft.

Unfortunately this is not the only bug they have and I agree with you 100% that they have ways to go.

I do sincerely hope that somehow they will fix the problems.

 

Edited November 25, 20187 yr by killthespam

On 11/24/2018 at 8:15 AM, w6kd said:

I had to do a parking spot customization in GSX2 to get a parking spot for the 748 at KSDF...there isn't a single parking spot in the ADE large enough for the -8.

 Is that using the ADE from FSDT? It does have 37 UPS coded spots that are big enough to handle the B748 and 3 more that aren't specific to UPS. 

3 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

 Is that using the ADE from FSDT? It does have 37 UPS coded spots that are big enough to handle the B748 and 3 more that aren't specific to UPS. 

It was the stock FSDT airport file...but maybe it's been updated in a Live Update by now.  I tried to park there and it couldn't find any spots large enough to put me.  I got into the ADE and they were indeed, all too small...the 744 fit, but not the -8.

Regards