It’s been a while since I flew the QW 787 so my memory is a bit mushy but I don’t think they’re far apart.  Especially with the fantastic 787-8 freeware that was just released the biggest gap between the two is a lack of a -9 model.

I recall the sounds on the QW version being better.

Also the QW version has an external payload manager whereas you have to use the default MSFS payload screen with the MSFS version.

All in all the MSFS version (and -8 mod) are quite good for the price of free.

26 minutes ago, regis9 said:

All in all the MSFS version (and -8 mod) are quite good for the price of free.

Agree. The only big issues I have with the Asobo/Kuro birds are the lack of a takeoff calculator (knowing people, someone will come up with one), the lack of a -9 version, and the fact some of the -10 liveries are mirrored.

26 minutes ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Agree. The only big issues I have with the Asobo/Kuro birds are the lack of a takeoff calculator (knowing people, someone will come up with one), the lack of a -9 version, and the fact some of the -10 liveries are mirrored.

For a (rough) takeoff perf calculator for the -8 and -9 (and - weight permitting - also usable for the -10) you can use this: https://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fsxutil&DLID=207037

It does have assumed temperature / flex, but not hard engine derates.

16 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

For a (rough) takeoff perf calculator for the -8 and -9 (and - weight permitting - also usable for the -10) you can use this: https://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fsxutil&DLID=207037

Whaaat? I already use UTOPIA since my FS9 days, and that's what I use for the PMDG 737 in MSFS, and 747 and 777 in P3D. I didn't know there was an update that included the 787 and the 146 😂

Thank you very much!

AAU2 probably killed for good whatever ambitions QW may have had to bring their 787 to MSFS. This is what happens when you sit on your hands. Someone swallows up your market. 

2 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

The OP clearly didn't refer to a QW 787 for MSFS. Obviously he was just looking for peoples comparison between the QW 787 many of us are used to vs what is available now from AU2. 

Exactly..  but many can’t seem to comprehend the obvious, answering only with sarcastic, berating comments. But they’ll be first to talk about about their beautiful touchdown even tho VNAV isn’t working. Peak AvSim yet again. 

31 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

AAU2 probably killed for good whatever ambitions QW may have had to bring their 787 to MSFS. This is what happens when you sit on your hands. Someone swallows up your market. 

FSL take note also…

15 hours ago, Luis Hernandez said:

... there's no Jump Ahead function in MSFS (the Travel To function is completely useless for me)...

I wrote a utility for FSX years ago called Quantum Leap--it uses FSUIPC to place the jet at the time of your choosing 8nm short of a named waypoint or lat/long at the present altitude and speed, and seems to still work OK in MSFS.  It's here in the AVSIM library.  The only trick in MSFS is you have to assign a key or button to the legacy "pause" function through FSUIPC, as the sim is left in that paused state after completing the jump ahead, so you need the legacy pause command to toggle back out of it and continue the flight.

17 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

I mean it's pretty word not allowed good with AAU2.  I had the QW for P3D.  I guess overall the QW may have been a bit more in depth (as WT mostly touched the avionics and some systems afaik).  But um....AAU2 is free lol

What are you waiting for?

Do I still need to use the HD mod as well on the 787?

13 minutes ago, Noel said:

Do I still need to use the HD mod as well on the 787?

No in fact you'll want to get rid of it.  I believe it conflicts.  

It's been a while since I've flown the QW, but front what I recall in terms of VNAV calculations and performance, especially when it came to idle descents on vnav path, the QW787 was a bit off (not a real 787 pilot so take that with a grain). Whereas the WT787 descends more accurately, imo. I don't think QW787 is able to do proper RNP approaches either. A twitch streamer named Moosestaffa used to fly the QW quite often and he frequently brings up that the QW didn't even do holds. That being said, QW does model a bit more systems than the WT787, but their accuracy on their nav systems leaves a bit to be desired.

Nobody mentioned it before, but add to the equation of 787 for MSFS the excellent rendition of the -8 model by the freeware from Kuro, and with no doubt the 787's for MSFS are quite gooood

Edited July 4, 20232 yr by edpatino

It's a pointless comparison as others have said, but I understand it was an innocent question.  I would just say upgrade and get it anyway if you don't have the correct MSFS version. 

Not only will you get all the extra aircraft (I love the steam gauge C172, especially upgraded to the WB version) but you can recoup even more of the upgrade price by using your permanent 33% discount in the store.

I have recently bought the ATR42 / 72, the Latécoère flying boat, and the new Boeing 307 Stratoliner, all very well done for a steal of a price!

I really think I have had my money's worth out of MS / Asobo many times over with this sim.  This kind of value for money was unknown in flight simulation until MSFS came along. 

I just wish they would fix some of the annoying core sim bugs a bit quicker, but they aren't game-breaking, and they will get around to it eventually I am sure.

EDIT:  Don't forget that obtaining the MS / Asobo default B787-10 also opens up using the really nice B787-8 mod over at flightsim.to (I really like the shorter one). 
It uses the excellent new WT systems upgrades (AAU2) and the Heavy division mod isn't required any more.

EDIT2:  Sorry @edpatino, I see you already mentioned the B787-8 Kuro mod in your post above - you beat me to it again!

Edited July 4, 20232 yr by bobcat999

7 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

I wrote a utility for FSX years ago called Quantum Leap--it uses FSUIPC to place the jet at the time of your choosing 8nm short of a named waypoint or lat/long at the present altitude and speed, and seems to still work OK in MSFS.  It's here in the AVSIM library.  

Yep, I remember very well about your utility. It has changed my flying in both P3D and FS9, and the Fenix A320 in MSFS. I even started a thread about this in the MSFS forum. However, if I'm flying anything other than Fenix, the only way I can unpause is by using Dev Mode.

7 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

The only trick in MSFS is you have to assign a key or button to the legacy "pause" function through FSUIPC, as the sim is left in that paused state after completing the jump ahead

That's what I was doing wrong!!! I had assigned a key to the MSFS pause function (not the Active Pause but the other one), and couldn't make it work. I assigned the P key to the "Pause Toggle" function in FSUIPC, and now it works as I remember from my other sims. Thanks again for QuantumLeap and now for the FSUIPC tip! Now I no longer need Dev Mode.

The MSFS 787 is pretty good. If you want to just fly from A-B with no issues, it’s a fun rendition. 
 

I do have a few minor gripes though. I have not flown the 78 in real life, but I have flown other heavy Boeings, and their system logic remains fairly consistent. 
 

my gripes are:

1) the plane rolls too quickly at high speed. I noticed that the outboard ailerons don’t lock out. Again, not sure if this is true to life, but I doubt they wouldn’t lock out. On the 74 for example, the outboard ailerons are locked out above 236 knots to prevent over stressing the wing. The inboard ailerons do all the turning at higher speeds. Same goes for the 777 and 767. Not sure if it’s a simulator limitation or not. 
 

2) the in sim weight and balance. There’s no simple way to load the plane realistically. i.e PMDG — enter your ZFW and it distributes your payload correctly.

3) No higher level functions. On long haul, having the ability to download/enter cruise winds and step climbs on the LEGS and RTE DATA pages are crucial for monitoring fuel. Getting an insufficient fuel message can be a pretty big deal when you’re flying for 12 hours over the pacific. 
 

Otherwise it’s a really well done plane, and am super impressed with it so far. I hope they continue to improve it over time.