Ultimate 787 Update - Version 1.1.3 Released

[SunDevil56 183]

52 minutes ago, LH340fan said:

Do you know if i can stick my aircraft.cfg and replace the one that comes with the update? I just feel lazy having to uninstall and reinstall liveries and FSFX...

That's a brilliant idea, I also would love to know if that will work, I have a bunch of liveries installed, and although the QW dispatcher makes installing new liveries pretty painless, it's still going to take a while to get them all re-installed...

Edited March 24, 2019 by SunDevil56

[Bob Scott 7,716]

9 minutes ago, pracines said:

Thank you Bob.

If there is going to be an "informal" use of the word fine, then this belittles either the product or the user, possibly both. I don't think QW intends their product to be considered "second-rate" or "no big deal". And I believe the users when they say it works fine for them. I take the Adjective not the Adverb because to me the QW 787 is claimed to be a big deal, and I want it to be a big deal for our community.😇

The "(im)perfect" word/standard, need/should not be brought in because not even the real 787 is perfect. Also, this allows for excuses to thrive. 

Either the QW 787 works as stated or it doesn't. The feature list does not allow for "good enough".⚖️

The 3 claims makes for a very confused situation, because like I said they and QW both can't be correct. And there are plenty of users that say the AP does not work fine. 🤯

Difficult to be certain but its probably down to level of standards; I and many others expect a high standard when a high standard is claimed, this is not unreasonable.👨‍✈️

OK, I think we all get it, it didn't meet your somewhere between very high and unreasonable expectations.  Yet many others are saying it does meets theirs.  "Good enough" is, in this and most other things, in the eyes of the beholder.  More folks than not are saying just that--it meets their needs and represents fair value for their money spent.  Your view is just one data point, and one that looks to be well outside the bell curve at that.

If you've ever read Deming or some of the other "quality" gurus, quality is a relative thing.  It boils down to whether the product meets the reasonable expectations of value in exchange for money for most discerning customers.  When you go into a Ruth's Chris steak house with a reservation and put $150 down for dinner, you expect a top-shelf steak and being waited on hand-and-foot with luxury-level service.  It's reasonable given the value proposition.  But it's unreasonable to go into an Outback steak house at rush hour on a Friday night and expect the same meal and service for $50.  Both can successfully answer the value proposition without having to serve the same $150 steak.  And expecting the Ruth's Chris product for an Outback price is...unreasonable.  Outback isn't going to apologize because the great steak dinner they advertise isn't the same as the great steak dinner Ruth's Chris advertises.  Both can meet a high standard, but it's a different standard, one that's in proportion to the price being paid.

For me, an old-time real-world heavy pilot, I never use FMS VNAV for descent anyway, and I didn't when flying all-glass G-IVs and G-Vs in the real world, either.  Operating in a real world ATC environment rarely allows it.  So if that feature doesn't work perfectly, or even at all, it's not going to ruin my experience since I know I wouldn't use it anyway.  So rather than harping repeatedly about flaws in a little-used function of the automation, I've chosen to look instead at the bigger picture...it's a fairly decent representation of an extremely hard to recreate complex integrated glass flight deck--for $70.  It's...not...perfect.  Now I can go spend twice that for the PMDG B747-400, and then another $50 on top of that for the -8 expansion, and yes indeedy, I will get somewhat closer to perfect on a late model glass Boeing flight deck.  More money...more value.  Both were reasonable exchanges from my perspective, as was the less-refined but still functional $25 CaptainSim 757 I bought over the holidays.

Regards

[American 833 Heavy 132]

7 hours ago, pracines said:

Did not the original feature list look wonderful too? Yes it did, and that was years ago. 👨‍⚖️

So I will wait for the results/reports/videos that can prove this impressive looking list. 🧐 👨‍🎓

Just remember, that this is not the first attempt at many of the fixes of the 787 that have been called for, for years. The 757 had many such updates too and still needs more, so I'm not being ridiculous by the wait and see scrutiny, just being objective based on what is known.🤓

I truly hope this is the patch that actually fixes everything promised in the original feature list, if so, I will buy it as soon as I can confirm it.

I look forward to the long term success of QW. Their success is our success.👍

 

The only thing you are waiting for is another thread to libel us. Nice try.

1) The 787 has not been out for "years"... such would imply that the product has been around for a very very long time. More disinformation on your part, the P3Dv4 edition of the 787 is not even a year old.

2) They are not one of many attempted fixes, they are commitments from us as the developer to continue improving the product based on our development scope and from the wonderful and very helpful feedback of our customers. This is hardly unique to QW and holding that against us is absurd.

3) It's completely disingenuous to compare the 787 and 757 products and doing so is "fake news". The 757 was our FIRST product, was released in 2009 as an FS9 Product, development started on it in Late 2007 more than a decade ago... and was a upper lite level to mid level product with really top notch visuals for the era. It was never intended to be a "systems trainer" and the scope of that product and price point reflected this, we never hid from this and were VERY open about it. Development of the 757 ended long ago. So actually yes, you are being ridiculous. If you look at FS Addon history 90% of the time of product of this age has run its course and then some, but we are still bringing a P3Dv4 port as there are many people who enjoy something that looks good and is easy to get in and just fly. And even though that isn't our development philosophy anymore there are still those who enjoy a product like that. So instead of letting it die we chose a different approach.

 

I sincerely think out an abundance of fairness to the community, particularly to those who may not be regulars and are less informed you should really think about recusing yourself from QW threads since it's very obvious how biased and unreasonable you are. You nitpick every thing to death and hold us to an impossible standard for what we charge. You continue to libel us spreading misinformation about things that aren't true, were intended to be a certain way and about things you have no clue about and aren't privy to. It's patently unfair that you continue to do this, as you continue to be outed by more members of the community everytime. Throwing in a little half hearted compliment at the end isn't fooling anybody.

The act is up. Be an adult and give it a rest.

Edited March 24, 2019 by American 833 Heavy

[G-YMML1 582]

Did someone tested the updated version? 

[Alexandre6463 28]

4 hours ago, pracines said:

 

 

So you all think that this update will break or ruin what you all call fine or problem free? If it is still fine after this update, then we must ask, did QW even do anything??🤔

Also, was QW in error for trying to fix or improve the AP systems? 😬

Do some users have different methods of autopilot use or different standards of excellence? 🤷‍♂️

I may need to re-evaluate whether I should buy it even if this update does "fix/improve" the AP systems for a majority of users. I may be one of them users that has a setup that makes the AP systems fine on the initial release and the subsequent patches have ruined it for me! 😧

Now I may have to forget this project altogether because either you all are correct or QW is correct and I don't know if Flight 1 will refund the same product more than three times; who knows how many updates the 787 may need and how long it will take. 😵

Just don't buy it!

End of story.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Alexandre6463

[frieone 37]

Thank you American 833 heavy for setting the reacord strat.

 I for one have enjoyed  this airplane as I am now flying more like a pilot and calculating my descent and not relining on automation so much.

Also I hand fly in vr from descent to landing. The only problem I have is in vr the landing lights are a big hit on the vr.

Other than that it is fun to fly.

Regards Ted

[SunDevil56 183]

33 minutes ago, American 833 Heavy said:

..... Development of the 757 ended long ago. So actually yes, you are being ridiculous. If you look at FS Addon history 90% of the time of product of this age has run its course and then some, but we are still bringing a P3Dv4 port as there are many people who enjoy something that looks good and is easy to get in and just fly. And even though that isn't our development philosophy anymore there are still those who enjoy a product like that. So instead of letting it die we chose a different approach.

 

......I sincerely think out an abundance of fairness to the community, particularly to those who may not be regulars and are less informed you should really think about recusing yourself from QW threads... The act is up. Be an adult and give it a rest.

Emil, I for one sincerely appreciate that you and the rest of the QW team decided to port over the 757 instead of letting it die, and i'm quite certain there are many others around here that feel the same way I do, and I also think it's a testament to how popular the 757 was, and still is apparently, even considering it's age, so Kudos to you and the QW team for that, and thanks...😁

 

As for the highlighted portion of my post... I fear that you may be asking the impossible from someone who doesn't even own it, yet seems to have an obsession with trashing the QW 787...🙄

[fakeflyer737 991]

can i do ETOPS properly in this birds FMS.....you know like putting ETP's in the fms etc?

[Dreamflight767 312]

45 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Did someone tested the updated version? 

Thank you!  My gosh, someone just tell us how stable the update is.  Enough with the opinions - we can start a different thread for that.

[JasonPC 173]

I have tried one flight without any stability problems.

Winds downloaded from Active Sky without issue.
PBR looks good.
A few HUD flicker issues were ironed out and it works great during landing.
I noticed a few little nick nack items that were corrected like the logic behind the yellow font for the altimeter when crossing transition altitude.
Performance is spectacular.

Still seem to have issues with mapping the TOGA button on my setup but I can work around that.

Edited March 25, 2019 by JasonPC

[Darcy 63]

I have tried one flight and the FMC worked great.  I had issues before with overlapping text in the FMC.  I used simbrief for the flightplan download.  All worked great and it flew the plan great.  It seemed to run a better to me.  I like this bird even more and will fly it more now that they have improved upon it.

 

Thanks

Darcy

[fakeflyer737 991]

I just purchased....for some reason it won't use my FSUIPC settings? 

[JasonPC 173]

Read the sim builders kit manual for all of the events used to control the plane. This is a great resource I am glad they added.

It uses a lot of the default simconnect events but sometimes not quite the same as other planes. I have some issues using FSUIPC. For example TOGA has some issues. I have been phasing all of my controls to SPAD.next and that seems to work better. Got TOGA to work right that way.

Edited March 25, 2019 by JasonPC

[fluffyflops 1,846]

Ill be doing a flight today in it. I'll let you know the outcome 

[mikealpha 266]

11 hours ago, w6kd said:

For me, an old-time real-world heavy pilot, I never use FMS VNAV for descent anyway,

Asking for Autopilot behaviour or how VNAV performs is not a matter who uses which mode or not. Quite often correct VNAV behaviour is also an indication how the other vertical AP modes perform. I have seen all sorts of Autopilots in Addons, some of them do what they advertise and some not.

For example speeds that gets overshot by 20-30kt or more, sudden climbs or descends with 8000fpm in a second, or oscillations and things like that. It's also a matter of immersion, you wouldn't want to be a passenger in this cases.

Some companies do high end APs, like FSLabs, PMDG or Maddog. It would just be good to know how Qualitywings performs in this regard, that was the reason for the question.

@ Thanks to Tooting for the info !

Mike