CS767 announced

[dave2013 1,130]

Might be worth it for $10, maybe $15, if they ever do a sale again.

For now I'm happy flying my freeware Skyspirit 767s.

Dave

[B777ER 2,485]

2 hours ago, Wise87 said:

Same awful panel that is used in the 757. Picture was by a user who grabbed it from the video. 

https://imgur.com/PpEDby9

 

Once again proving CS is all about the exterior and the eye candy but continues with the old VC. I wonder if it's the original 757 gauge files they said they would not rework. 

Garbage, pass.

[Reader 2,021]

So judgemental for something that does not even have an official release image, just a mickey mouse video that is no longer there.

[LH340fan 54]

9 hours ago, Alexandre6463 said:

True and I read on a Facebook group that  if you use a developertools for a browser we can see the price of the 767 which is 99.76 before tax.

If so then I'll pass until it's on a sale... I mean if it had all the engine variants I wouldn't mind, but this it's pure provocation at this point... Can't understand how people will pay an everly increasing price all the time....

[Ricardo41 5,949]

I find the argument that CS delivers the highest quality visuals etc. etc. quite funny. Just go search for side-by-side comparisons of their 777 with PMDG's version on youtube.

Their stuff was visually good for FS9.

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

6 hours ago, B777ER said:

Garbage, pass.

Why garbage. The 767 DOES have that panel you know?

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

34 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I find the argument that CS delivers the highest quality visuals etc. etc. quite funny. Just go search for side-by-side comparisons of their 777 with PMDG's version on youtube.

Their stuff was visually good for FS9.

Their models are top tier, no matter what you think and they do rival with higher quality developers. Now the systems... 

[Ricardo41 5,949]

17 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Their models are top tier, no matter what you think and they do rival with higher quality developers. Now the systems... 

Let me repeat: check out CS/PMDG comparison videos on youtube, that'll answer the question about the visual quality....

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

Just now, Ricardo41 said:

Let me repeat: check out CS/PMDG comparison videos on youtube, that'll answer the question about the visual quality....

I don't need to. I have all CS and PMDG models. Now, how many CS planes do you fly regularly?

[Ricardo41 5,949]

42 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Now, how many CS planes do you fly regularly?

None for P3D becausen I consider their stuff to be overpriced and sub par. I owned the C130 and the 707 for FS9. The dozens of comparison videos on youtube together with my own experiences tell me all I need to know. Or are you suggesting that CS suddenly made a quantum leap in terms of visuals, system depth and customer service?

[out 769]

1 hour ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Why garbage.

I know, Nuno, you are a big fan of 767 and most likely, like many of us, still have PIC/Level-D times on your mind.
Having said that, I don't think Eric means the real world 767 panel, but what we can see in the video/screenshot.
True, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I personally agree, what I can see here, looks very bad and I couldn't fly it (even for 9.99). Once again: that is just my opinion.
Adding some other known problems with CS products, the idea of spending (a lot of) money to get this particular rendition of 767 won't seem attractive to many, I guess.

1 hour ago, Nuno Pinto said:

The 767 DOES have that panel you know?

Thinking this way, each simulation would be fine, since it somehow represents the real world counterpart.
Yet, there is a huge difference between how the A32X panel was/is represented by PSS, BBS, Wilco, Toliss, Aerosoft or FSLabs.
If you like what you are seeing, fine for you. If you are optimistic about the simulation level, fine again. If you don't mind the expected price, well... fine, too.
Enjoy it, when it comes. I'm not planning to. 😉

PS. I do own their 757 (bought for 9.99) and... it remains in the hangar for more or less the above mentioned reasons.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Rafal

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

I am not trying to stand for CS as a great aircraft developer here, just trying to minimize the level of bashing going on. Their first 767, although with a high level of quality, featured a completely wrong model shape and low-mid level systems. LevelD had terrible quality on the outside and inside as well, but having the correct feel, correct aircraft and engine shape and great systems made me prefer it over CS.

CS has improved quite a bit from those days, but still fails in many ways and i am perfectly aware of that. Price is not on par with global quality, systems still leave quite a lot to be desired and there are still a few bugs here and there. Does this make it trash? Does this make it a bad quality model? Hell no, there's worse and relatively more expensive in the market.

I am not going to buy it for more than say 30 bucks which it will not cost for sure, but saying that you wouldn't fly it for even 9.99 is a really stong opinion about an overall good model. To each his own obviously, but with over 22000 simulator hours i learned to appreciate market offers in a different way i guess.

[out 769]

2 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

saying that you wouldn't fly it for even 9.99 is a really stong opinion

Agreed, it may sound so.
To make my point more clear then, all I want to say is that while I didn't expect much from CS (had a few aircraft from them, each time more or less disappointed, each time hoping for better next time), I at least hoped they will create a brand new attractive VC - while I appreciate exteriors (CS seems good in them, indeed), I spend 95% of my time in VC, operating various systems, and that means most to myself. I am so much unimpressed with what I saw that the price doesn't matter. That's what I mean, not 9.99 as a particular value - I was just refering to their usual sales.

2 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

with over 22000 simulator hours i learned to appreciate market offers in a different way

I can't reply with my number of sim hours (started some 30 years ago), as I got lost in calculations many years ago, however I keep trying not to mix appreciation with reason and common sense. My budget is limited somewhere.
Nothing but my personal approach again.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Rafal

[DaviiB 104]

Worth a mention.

Captain Sim stated the following on their forums yesterday:

It was listed on this page on the 767 Base Pack announce day as NON-confirmed expansion which MAY BE included in the 767 product line. Not anymore. To prevent any further speculations on the subject, the Engines Expansion mention has been removed from that page. The Engines Expansion (which is never existed) is gone.

It appears that they will not be charging for different engine types. Whether the base pack will include multiple engine options remains to be seen though.

I'm willing to give CS a fair shot at this.....they appear to be listening (somewhat) to their customers, and the FS community at large.

What exactly do we have to lose? Nobody else appeared willing to make a payware 767 for P3D. I'd rather have the option available.

DB

[Benjamin J 751]

8 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Let me repeat: check out CS/PMDG comparison videos on youtube, that'll answer the question about the visual quality....

Well, PMDG is not really top of class in modeling, I have to say. I remember some definite problems in their MD11, and their NGX was pretty well-known for issues with the sizing of components in the VC, such as the window frame. The NGXu is a monumental step up in that regard.

But just to see what you are talking about, I went and looked at one video that compares the CS and PMDG 777 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-IsyqXxQc4). Sure, based on that video there were definite differences in the modeling, such as the sizing of the wing pylons, and the PMDG777 did appear more detailed in some regards. That said, that particular video did not do any correlations with the real-world model. You cannot claim that the PMDG is superior 'because its PMDG', which presumes that PMDG is somehow always better. You need to compare point-by-point with the real-world model. Maybe you can point me at a video that does such a comparison?

Let me just clarify one thing: I don't mean to attack or offend, I'm just looking for clarification based on evidence. I will also have no trouble believing that the PMDG is overall the superior model. I personally own the PMDG777 and love flying it, but cannot judge the CS777 because I do not own it. All I'm asking is that, if you compare the two products, you ought to make independent comparisons between the two respective models and the real thing. Otherwise, the only conclusion you can come to is that they are 'different'. Without a reference you cannot argue that one is superior over the other.