Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
VBHB

State of QW 787 or should I buy something else?

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, ZLA Steve said:

I know it won't but I would love to see this term die off in favor of "high-fidelity" or "really well modeled"

Yep, right there with you. Study-level has to be the most over used buzz term in our modest little hobby, and I'd love to see it move on out as quick as it seems to have moved on in.

To the point of the original post though, I just purchased the 787 recently and have three flights under my belt and could not be happier with it. Lovely to look at, great features built in, lots of real world routes for it, all for less than the triple digits competing products come in at makes it well worth the hard earned coin. Highly recommended from me.

6F189xr.jpg

  • Like 2

- Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ZLA Steve said:

While I won't argue that the devs you mentioned make some of, if not, the best models of airliners for ESP, they still don't hold a candle to a real training product. Additionally, we are maybe getting 25-30% of the real systems integration of these aircraft.

I know it won't but I would love to see this term die off in favor of "high-fidelity" or "really well modeled"

Wouldn’t high-fidelity or really well modeled be just as subjective as study-level?  There is no regulatory body that officially classifies these models.  It falls to us to provide our own judgment, and post our thoughts here.  Frankly, I don’t care what term we use, as long as the meaning of that term is understood.

When you say that we are only getting 25-30% of real systems integration, what is being left out?  Where do those numbers come from?  Since emotion doesn’t carry well in online posts, I’ll explicitly state that I’m not challenging your assertion (OK, that seems pretty low to me, so a little bit of a challenge.) I’ve just never heard that before, and I’m genuinely curious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’m kind of in the same boat as the OP.  I want to get this plane at some point, but just haven’t pulled the trigger, mostly because I have so many other planes that I’m still digging into.  I have a couple of questions regarding the plane.

First, what IS NOT modeled in the QW 787?  I’m not talking about little idiosyncrasies in LNAV and VNAV, but things that are straight up not modeled. I’d like to know if there’s anything that would really bother me to not have.

Second, for those that do fly this plane a lot, why do you choose to take this out instead of, say a PMDG 747 or 737? Which are the planes that I’m still digging into, and are what the QW 787 has to supplant for me to finally get it.

Share this post


Link to post

I've enjoyed the QW787 with it's updates, has PBR now too and you can use iOS or Android devices to manage the CDUs, works very well for the price point, great FPS ... lots of bang for the buck.

I don't like the term "Study Level" either as different aircraft have a variable degree of system complexity so if a developer models 75% of a 787 and another developer models 95% of a C172 ... there is still a lot more work involved in 75% of 787 than 95% of a C172 and that work would be reflected in the price point.

Cheers, Rob.

Edited by Rob_Ainscough
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’m sorry but you’re wrong. Study level means every switch works and changing one at the wrong time will have consequences. On simpler aircraft many switches are blank. They operate but do nothing.

What you’re paying for is the extra work that goes into programming each switch or button. My comments are not directed at the QW 787 since I don’t own it. But PMDG and FSL aircraft are classed as study level as they are as close as possible to the real thing.

Not everyone wants or is willing to pay for that so simpler products at lower prices from others suit perfectly.

Classified by whom, Ray? Certainly not the FAA or any other governing authority. To that point, it has no meaning and is nothing more than a over used term, which people use to fool themselves into thinking they could fly the real aircraft.  I see where you're coming from, Ray; however, its becoming cliché to 'call-out' simmers/developers who don't fly/develop 'study-level' sims; as if that term actually means something...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Matt King

Share this post


Link to post

I use my own judgement on whether an aircraft is 'simple' or 'complex'. No matter what terms we use, we're always going to have disagreement between different people's subjective thoughts.

While the QW787 is no FSL Airbus A320 in terms of systems replication, it is similar in that to get the most enjoyment out of it, you have to learn how to program the FMC and apply appropriate fuel, pax and baggage loads, rather than just firewalling the throttle levers and pointing in the general direction you want to go.

I still find the QW787 a little flimsy. Trying to enter figures in the EFB can be frustrating as the data field zeros out what I'm trying to type in. The autothrottle and VNAV mode can still get stuck and cannot disengage to manual mode in rare certain circumstances.

That said, I find it more modern to look at both inside and out, and contain more features (HUD, EFB, airport moving map, checklists, FO, cabin announcements and an under appreciated 'jump-ahead' feature) than the PMDG 777.

All that for the price that QW charge - it's a steal.

  • Like 1

Ryzen 3700X 4.4GHz(PBO) / Gigabyte AB350 Gaming 3 / ASUS GTX 1070 O8G / 32GB Corsair Vengeance 3200 MHz / triple monitor

P3Dv5 HF1 + FS Global Ultimate NG + ORBX + ASP3D (beta) + ChasePlane + WIN 10 Pro
QW 757 787 / AS A32x A330 / MJC Dash 8 / A2A PA-28 / Carenado XL560 / PMDG 737 777 / FT E-Jets v2 / JF C152 / PA A380

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'll be getting it. That's all I want just a nice aircraft with some depth that I can fly my favourite 787 routes.

Its got the Boeing stamp on it too so there is some sort of realism involved. I don't care about failures etc I just wanna fly it and land it and have fun.

Seeyas out there!

Edited by VBHB
  • Like 2

Pete Walsh

Running i5-9600K @ 4.8ghz - 32gig DDR4 3600mhz - GTX 2060 O/C.

Share this post


Link to post

Another phrase I like is "getting deep into the systems" 🤣🤣🤣

  • Upvote 1

David Porrett

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kingm56 said:

Certainly not the FAA or any other governing authority.

I don't trust government's evaluation of anything...I think it was the FAA that thought the real Boeing 737 Max was "study level"...how'd that work.

Kind Regards,

  • Like 2

Steven_Miller.png?dl=1

i7-6700k Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD5 CORSAIR Dominator Platinum 16GB DDR4 2400 ASUS ROG-STRIX GTX1070

Share this post


Link to post

The QW team are in the process of completely rewriting the wx radar for the 787. Hopefully they are close to being done with that.


Eric 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think the limitations of the Simulator also prevent some actions to be used.See the numerous updates L.M made 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, kingm56 said:

Classified by whom, Ray? Certainly not the FAA or any other governing authority. To that point, it has no meaning and is nothing more than a over used term, which people use to fool themselves into thinking they could fly the real aircraft.  I see where you're coming from, Ray; however, its becoming cliché to 'call-out' simmers/developers who don't fly/develop 'study-level' sims; as if that term actually means something...

Matt, I agree that "study level" is a term that has come into use on AvSim to describe an aircraft that is modelled to the highest level possible within the limitations of the flight sim engine. Now you'll agree I'm sure that what is in italics is a bit of a mouth full so clearly some shorter form of words is needed to describe these aircraft. Personally I don't have a problem with study-level but if anyone wants to come up with a snappy title for these complex aircraft maybe AvSim should run a competition. :smile:

I'm certainly not 'calling out' any one person or company who doesn't fly or develop to that level. Clearly there's a cost involved and also the time to get from C&D to a flyable aircraft. Not everyone wants that complexity but at the same time wants enough to make it an enjoyable and reasonably accurate experience. Judging QW I would say they occupy the middle ground making the QW787 a popular choice.

 


Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v4.5, Intel i7-8086K o/c to 4.6Ghz, Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti 11Gb, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 SSD, 1Tb Samsung 860 EVO SSD, Asus Prime Z370-A mobo, 32Gb G.Skill DDR4 3000Mhz RAM, Win 10 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post

I am not really bothered by the "study level" term. It is somewhat ironic that I fly the PMDG 737/747/777, but nobody could really class me as a "study level" pilot, considering how I actually fly these planes!! :laugh: As for the Quality Wings 787, the highest accolade that I can give it is that I can fly it "low and slow" in exactly the same way as my PMDG planes. The flight model feels great, the VC looks good (although it would be nice if the displays updated a bit faster during turns), and the sounds are excellent. In short, it is a worthy addition to my fleet.

For the record, I rotate my flights through four different versions of the PMDG 737, three different versions of the PMDG 747, two different versions of the PMDG 777, and two different versions of the QW 787, so I certainly get my money's worth out of them!

It would be nice to add the CaptainSim 757 to that list, but there are a handful of issues that still annoy me about that plane. The incorrect take off trim calculations. The spurious "terrain warning" message just after take off. The way that the climb out speed can quickly get out of hand unless I remember to activate SPEED HOLD quickly enough. Maybe I could resolve the latter if I knew precisely how to set up TO/GA and CLB speeds for this aircraft (which is where a proper "step by step" tutorial would be invaluable). Any help regarding this would be greatly appreciated, because the aircraft is rather good in all other respects....


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

The only little thing that annoys me a little bit is the fact that more and more -10 go into service and we hardly hear anything about the promised -10 variant for the simulator. But that is really minor, I can keep myself easily busy with the -8/-9 variants for a while ;-)


Greetings, Chris

Intel i7-8700K@5.0GHz, 2x16GB 3200MHz CL14 RAM, Gigabyte AORUS 1080Ti, Windows 10 Home 64bit, Prepar3D 4.5

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, I beg to differ.

PMDG’s 747, 737 and 777 aeroplanes are objectively more high-fidelity, well-modeled and study-level than the QW787. For goodness sakes, it doesn’t even model the LOW FUEL indication! And compare its EFB with that of the 747? There’s no contest.

Don't waste your time.


REGARDS, MIKE

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    28%
    $7,035.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...