Can someone explain me what QW 787 have that WT won't?

43 minutes ago, A330B747 said:

Can someone explain me what QW 787 have that WT won't?

Probably for starters

1. Better and more accurate looking models with all operable doors and more variants 788 789 78X

2. Better sounds with 2 different engines types Genx /Trent 100

3. Better flight model maybe, will never know because QW 787 is not in this sim and it may never be.

4. More system depth maybe

6 Cargo version as well.

7. Maybe benefit from those who don't have the Premium Deluxe MSFS version and may choose to use payware addons instead.

9.Oh and I forgot a functional EFB.

That's if its going to be like the P3D/FSX version

 

 

Edited May 22, 20233 yr by jbdbow1970
spelling

4 hours ago, PIC007 said:

QW Update:

Finally talked to Ernie....no details but QW is alive but in a holding pattern while a possible restructuring is being considered.

Nothing else at this  point.

"Restructuring"? Sounds like QW lost one of their key developer(s), and this is what set them back. It explains how they missed their Q2, 2021 release. It's now Q2, 2023.  

Unfortunateiy for QW though, they have lost a lot of sales, even if they do come out with a 787 for MSFS. Some potential QW 787 buyers may pass on the QW 787 now because of the Working Title 787.

4 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Probably for starters

1. Better and more accurate looking models with all operable doors and more variants 788 789 78X

2. Better sounds with 2 different engines types Genx /Trent 100

3. Better flight model maybe, will never know because QW 787 is not in this sim and it may never be.

4. More system depth maybe

6 Cargo version as well.

7. Maybe benefit from those who don't have the Premium Deluxe MSFS version and may choose to use payware addons instead.

9.Oh and I forgot a functional EFB.

That's if its going to be like the P3D/FSX version

 

 

Is there a cargo 787? That’s news to me 

3 minutes ago, Ridvan Celik said:

Is there a cargo 787? That’s news to me 

No my mistake.

 

26 minutes ago, jbdbow1970 said:

No my mistake.

 

No doubt will look amazing though, not sure but I think i do recall some talk about it along with rendered images a few years ago. 

7 hours ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Probably for starters

1. Better and more accurate looking models with all operable doors and more variants 788 789 78X

2. Better sounds with 2 different engines types Genx /Trent 100

3. Better flight model maybe, will never know because QW 787 is not in this sim and it may never be.

4. More system depth maybe

6 Cargo version as well.

7. Maybe benefit from those who don't have the Premium Deluxe MSFS version and may choose to use payware addons instead.

9.Oh and I forgot a functional EFB.

That's if its going to be like the P3D/FSX version

 

 

The flight model is interesting. Matt, the lead of Working Title, said the Working Title 787 is hitting the book values for descent/ascent now, after they fixed the flight model.

For some of the others, such as more variants, EFB, and maybe even sounds, I think Heavy Division can improve on the base Working Title 787.  It will be interesting to see how good is the Working Title 787, with Heavy Division's work on it, one or two years later.

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

The flight model is interesting. Matt, the lead of Working Title, said the Working Title 787 is hitting the book values for descent/ascent now, after they fixed the flight model.

For some of the others, such as more variants, EFB, and maybe even sounds, I think Heavy Division can improve on the base Working Title 787.  It will be interesting to see how good is the Working Title 787, with Heavy Division's work on it, one or two years later.

the flight model has many flaws right now, the worst one is the flare behavior. It is impossible to make a soft landing, WT has stated they will look at the ground effects to try to correct it, but no more flight model changes.

I think we will need to wait for another one to improve the flight model (HD maybe?)

Edited May 23, 20233 yr by ttbq1

19 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Interestingly the guys from WT say it's one of the easier airplanes and easier than developing the G5000... but I doubt that, unless you consider autoflight functions only.

I was surprised by that comment but although the 78 from WT is great it turns out they’ve missed out lots of the things that makes  the 787 so complicated. 

Edited May 23, 20233 yr by g-liner

8 minutes ago, g-liner said:

I was surprised by that comment but although the 78 from WT is great it turns out they’ve missed out lots of the things that makes  the 787 so complicated. 

I believe Matt was talking about just the avionics in the 787 compared to something like the G5000, not all the systems in the 787.

8 hours ago, ttbq1 said:

the flight model has many flaws right now

Can you enumerate what those are, possibly? Flare aside, right now we're incredibly close to book numbers, and our type rated pilots haven't mentioned anything they feel is incorrect now. Always curious to hear more feedback, though!

Qualitywings are dead. Case closed. 

3 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Can you enumerate what those are, possibly? Flare aside, right now we're incredibly close to book numbers, and our type rated pilots haven't mentioned anything they feel is incorrect now. Always curious to hear more feedback, though!

Matt, I really appreciate the work that has been done with the 787 and 747.

My neighbor is a type rate 787-8 and 787-9 captain. He was here with me this weekend trying the 787-10. He stops by my house whenever he has simulator check to practice or whenever he wants to try the A320 since it was his first aircraft.

some points he highlighted to me:

1. it is not the same ac but shouldn't be to much different than the 787-9, and for him the ROC was to aggressive, and those +5.000ft/min are not really common, it is possible when there is a really light airplane, but normally at CLB2 it shouldn't reach those ROC. 

2. while descending the pitch down degree was also too aggressive, with the nose almost reaching 5degrees down.

3. we practice 3 manual landings and we couldn't make a single smooth touchdown. then we tried the autoland and same behavior.

4. we came to the conclusion that the way the aircraft is "loaded" with fuel and payload may be affecting the performance.

now, the whole avionics of the AC are working perfect, we actually replicate and actual company flight with an OPF but on a 787-9, and the step by step checklist were followed precisely.

9 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

I believe Matt was talking about just the avionics in the 787 compared to something like the G5000, not all the systems in the 787.

Sure, I get that, I was just talking about the avionics also. 

Edited May 23, 20233 yr by g-liner

27 minutes ago, g-liner said:

Sure, I get that, I was just talking about the avionics also. 

When Matt first mentioned the G5000 comparison it got me curious so I searched around on google, and came across this article I posted on another thread, FWIW (how GA/bizjet avionics are more complex and feature-rich than tubeliners): https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-09-23/bizjets-fly-better-modern-integrated-avionics

And again FWIW, more comments from Matt and another WT member on this topic from their discord:

Matt (nishmaster) [Z-5]
To be honest, I think a lot of folks have inflated senses of what airliner avionics are: really the latest GA avionics are a good deal more complex
Matt (nishmaster) [Z-5] — Yesterday at 09:27
What's in the 787 is way closer to a proline 21 with some additional screen pane stuff than a G3000 or Fusion
K20017 [Z-4] — Yesterday at 09:28
Airliner avionics are cavemen era compared to a G5000 capability.

I guess more automation, ease-of-use, and features in modern avionics like the G5000 actually means more complex tech behind the scenes running everything which is maybe what Matt and team are alluding to.