LRBS

I will explain later. Not home right now.

Just to clarify, at about 50% load (around 140,000 lbs), the performance tables show that a B757 will climb at over 5,000 ft/min up to 10K and exceed 4,000 ft/min from 10K to 20K with full climb thrust. So yes, "simply grossly overpowered"- those are quite interesting statements.

I'm sorry, but what you're seeing is very close to the real thing. Other aircraft, like the MD-80/90s, show the same characteristics.

Absolutely outstanding work, guys! I have to admit, I wasn't sure how effective this improvement would be, but it has exceeded my expectations. With this new setting, I was able to fine-tune the aircraft's handling to closely match how I remember the real airplane flying. Even more impressive, the resulting feel bears a remarkable resemblance to what I experienced just a few days ago in the Level D simulator. As someone who has spent many years flying the real aircraft, I genuinely appreciate the attention to detail and the effort that went into this improvement. Congratulations, guys, and thank you for continuing to raise the bar! EXCELLENT JOB!

I'm afraid this doesn't solve the FDE issue; it only masks it. IMHO, stacking curves creates other feel-related problems and isn't a fix at the SDK level.

It's the simplest, easiest, and least time-consuming approach: using a slider is much easier than adjusting each entry and table individually. I don’t necessarily agree with this option; unfortunately, they’re not the only ones doing this.

Given your experience as an active 757 Captain and pilot consultant, I think it would be very helpful if you could share the specific flight control sensitivity settings you use in MSFS, particularly the aileron, elevator, and rudder axis sensitivity, including any extremity dead zone adjustments. That would provide both the developer and the community with a useful reference point and help establish a common basis for evaluating the aircraft's handling characteristics. I believe this is particularly important because several users have raised similar concerns about certain aspects of the FDE. Having your actual settings would help everyone better understand how much of the perceived difference might be attributable to controller configuration versus the flight model itself. I mention this because, having been involved in projects of this nature, I've always found that sharing practical information and maintaining transparency helps everyone involved reach a better understanding and, ultimately, a better result. I think a few specific values from your setup could be a valuable contribution to the discussion.

It’s a little confusing if they’re not changing pitch sensitivity or pitch rate but are introducing a sensitivity slider. As I mentioned, I spent about an hour and a half in the Level D simulator yesterday, and the difference in pitch response was quite noticeable. The pitch rate was slower, smoother, and more consistent, with a steady, positive rate of change. My target rotation rate was approximately 2°/sec, which I remember from flying the airplane and was able to observe in the simulator. Perhaps that’s where they should focus their attention and look for improvements. I also noticed that the elevator trim responded a little faster in the simulator—perhaps 3–5% faster than what we currently have. The trim response in the product feels a bit slow to me. Other than those points, I find the FDE to be exceptionally well balanced and designed, very much in keeping with the real airplane. In my opinion, they’ve done an excellent job with the flight model. IMHO, it’s a genuinely rewarding airplane to fly.

I see, but can't find any "about the requirement for custom control settings".

Do you have a link to that? It would help a lot to take a look and reevaluate. Meanwhile, I just spent an hour and a half in the 757 Level D sim, courtesy of one of our instructors, and came to the same conclusion as @ahsmatt7 about our findings.

Of course, there are limitations, just as there are even in Level D simulators. Surprisingly, some of today’s aircraft add-ons stand out for their flight dynamics, coming remarkably close to Level D simulator standards. Certification, however, is an entirely different game. Asobo is responsible for the underlying simulation platform, its flight-model capabilities, and the SDK and tools made available to third-party developers. When those tools have limitations, or when certain systems and programming aspects are not sufficiently exposed, developers are restricted in what they can achieve, regardless of their expertise. Third-party developers, on the other hand, are responsible for how well they understand and use the tools available to them. They must get the aerodynamics, flight-control response, engine performance, and overall aircraft behavior as close to the real airplane as possible. The SDK may impose limitations, but it does not excuse every shortcoming in a flight model. Some developers have demonstrated that, with the right programming expertise, a solid understanding of aircraft dynamics, and careful testing, it is possible to produce a remarkably convincing simulation within the platform's limitations. Ultimately, Asobo must provide the right foundation, and developers must make the best possible use of it. Both have a responsibility to improve the overall fidelity of the simulation. And, of course, replicating realistic flight dynamics is one thing; meeting the rigorous requirements for actual Level D simulator certification is quite another. As for the YouTube creators, I’m with you 100%!

The PFC, no; RTRHOBBY B737 force feedback has its own proprietary software. Interestingly, both are quite close in feel, regardless of profile. To be honest, I did not expect that.

Just a thought: the Boeing 757 is not a twitchy airplane. Unfortunately, the BB757 shows some of these characteristics, but I believe we can correct them with relatively straightforward flight-model adjustments. My question to this “757 pilot” would be: Which airplane is he using as a reference for comparison? Responsiveness, control sensitivity, and control feel are not interchangeable terms. When he says the nose wants to come up, we need to distinguish between CG, stabilizer trim, and the aircraft's pitch response. For every takeoff, the actual loading and CG must remain within approved limits, and the stabilizer must be set according to the applicable takeoff data. The FMC or approved performance calculations establish the required takeoff parameters; the stabilizer setting is not simply a means of correcting an out-of-balance airplane. The smooth rotation shown in this clip is consistent with a properly executed rotation, and establishes that the CG or trim setting is correct. I would also question the YouTuber's interpretation that the pilot is pushing the yoke forward to maintain speed. From what is visible, the pilot appears to maintain aft control pressure while trimming to relieve the associated control force. Without cockpit indications and control inputs, however, we can't determine the exact control-and-trim sequence from the video alone. Another important distinction: engine power has nothing inherently to do with control sensitivity. The 757's powerful engines do not make it twitchy. An airplane can respond positively and promptly to a control input without being excessively sensitive. We must distinguish between the aircraft's response to a given control input and the control force or displacement required to produce that response. Control sensitivity describes the relationship between input and response; control feel concerns the forces the pilot experiences at the controls. They are related, but they are not the same thing. The 757 should respond positively to elevator inputs without feeling excessively light, nervous, or prone to abrupt pitch changes in response to small, normal inputs. That is the behavior I believe needs attention in the BB757 flight model. The Boeing 757/767 Flight Crew Training Manual emphasizes small, measured control inputs when manually maintaining altitude at cruise altitude and high speed. At those conditions, relatively small inputs can produce meaningful flight-path changes. That is normal transport-category aircraft behavior, not evidence that the airplane is inherently twitchy. Finally, takeoff rotation must be considered in the context of the correct loading, CG, stabilizer trim, thrust, and rotation technique. Across aircraft such as the 707, 727, 747, 757, 767, and 787, the pilot should be able to achieve the prescribed rotation and establish the required initial climb attitude without fighting an abnormal pitching tendency. The aircraft should then be controllable along the intended flight path, with the appropriate speed target—the airplanes will easily settle to a V2 + 10 up to 20 effortlessly. My point is simple: the real 757 is a powerful, responsive, and well-designed transport-category airplane. It should not feel nervous or excessively sensitive merely because it responds positively to the controls. I believe the BB757 would benefit from a careful review of its pitch response, control sensitivity, and stabilizer-trim behavior (by the way, stab trim is slow) to achieve a linear response. Getting these characteristics right would make a meaningful difference in bringing the simulation closer to the real airplane.

100% correct! Unfortunately, some people took offense at BlueBird’s recommendation to study the manual. In my opinion, that is excellent advice, particularly for an aircraft of this complexity. We need to keep in mind that a real-world airline pilot’s type-rating process involves considerably more than simply getting into the cockpit and learning to fly the airplane. Depending on the airline and training program, the process typically involves several weeks of ground school, systems study, and technical examinations, followed by simulator training, an oral examination, and a final simulator evaluation. Simulator training itself commonly spans approximately 10 days, although the exact duration varies by program. If that level of preparation is necessary for a qualified pilot transitioning to a new aircraft type, why would anyone expect to master a sophisticated simulation of that aircraft without studying its systems, procedures, and operating logic? Even a Cessna 152 requires familiarity with its operating handbook and checklists. The difference is the depth of systems knowledge required, not the importance of preparation. That said, let's be clear: the BlueBird 757 has genuine bugs and shortcomings. I have encountered several myself, including issues that should be immediately apparent to anyone with real-world experience on the aircraft. Can these problems be fixed? Absolutely—and the developers should address them. However, we must distinguish between an actual programming or flight-model defect and behavior resulting from an incorrect procedure, an improperly configured system, or a misunderstanding of the aircraft’s operating logic. So, yes, a considerable number of complaints can be resolved simply by understanding the aircraft and studying the documentation. Those complaints should not automatically be dismissed, but neither should every unexpected behavior be labeled a bug before the facts have been established. Learn the airplane, verify the procedure, and then report the problem. That is how we help the developers identify genuine defects (if they listen), improve the product, and ultimately deliver a more accurate simulation.

@jon b , thank you so much for your kind words! From the day I started flying, throughout what I consider my golden years in aviation, I’ve come to realize that there’s always something new to learn from every flight, simulator session, and even a simple discussion about flying. Even today, I’m blessed to continue learning alongside my colleagues in the sim. We share plenty of laughs at what we think we know, while constantly reminding ourselves of just how much more there is to learn and how much room we all have to improve. That, to me, is one of the beautiful things about aviation: no matter how much experience we accumulate, we never stop learning. Thank you again for your kind words! 😊