LRBS

If that's the case, and you actually climbed to FL600, then we are definitely looking at a significant problem that needs to be addressed. From a Boeing 757 systems standpoint, I would expect the CABIN ALTITUDE warning to activate when cabin altitude reaches approximately 10,000 feet under normal warning-system configuration. With the HIGH ALTITUDE LANDING function selected, the warning threshold is increased to approximately 14,650 feet. If a pressurization failure occurs, which I suspect, or if it is unable to maintain the correct differential. This is an important distinction when evaluating the pressurization system at extreme flight levels. There are several other areas I would be concerned about: 1. Minimum and Maximum Maneuvering Speeds What exactly are the minimum and maximum maneuvering speed indications on the airspeed tape representing? How are these values calculated, and do they accurately reflect the aircraft's actual operating envelope at the current weight, altitude, and configuration? 2. Optimum Altitude (OPT) and Maximum Altitude (MAX) What are the OPT and MAX altitude indications displaying, and are they correctly calculated based on the aircraft's current gross weight and performance limitations? This is particularly important when operating near the aircraft's maximum altitude. As you approach MAX altitude, the available margin between low-speed and high-speed buffet becomes increasingly narrow. Even relatively small speed or load-factor changes during maneuvering can bring the aircraft close to buffet onset. At these altitudes, an increase in load factor can rapidly consume the available buffet margin, potentially resulting in significant buffet and, if the aircraft is mishandled, an aerodynamic stall. These are not merely cosmetic indications. They are fundamental performance and flight-envelope considerations that should accurately reflect the behavior and limitations of the real Boeing 757. Unfortunately, there are still issues to be resolved.

No, that's OK. I got the numbers from my old FCOM and what they have in the sim. The airplane is certified for FL420. Looking at the FCOM, I have both engines — clean en route maximum climb at 260,000 lbs or 220,000 lbs, ROC 700 and 1600 FT/MIN. For one engine, I see rated between 2100 FT/MIN down to 700 FT/MIN at FL400. I always hate interpolating the tables; they're always subject to interpretation and too many variables. I personally can't give an accurate number. So I don't know where FL600 comes into play for the 757.

@Fiorentoni and @Ron Lefebvre It's a PFC 737 yoke on a PC. MSFS 2024 menu sensitivities for my yoke PFC: aileron -0.22/0.22 and extremity dead zone 0.09 elevator -0.39/0.39 and extremity dead zone 0.09 Also, I'm using the B737 Force-Feedback Yoke System by RTRhobby. I set it for pitch and roll force in my config file, and surprisingly I get the same feel, except for the stickshaker and autopilot movements. For both, I have the Settings in BB757 menu: 78 I found this discrepancy in flight config related to "control_reactivity_scalar = 5" (not in SDK); perhaps it should read controls_reactivity_scalar = 5. I have mine set to 0.90. Maybe BB757 guys can verify? MSFS 2024 menu sensitivities for RTRhobby all to 0 aileron 0/0 and extremity dead zone 0.09 elevator 0/0 and extremity dead zone 0.09 This is in Newtons (the metric unit of force) compared to a Level D simulator. Elevator breakout 18 N, Elevator moderate pull 65–100 N, Elevator heavy pull 150–250 N, Aileron moderate turn, 25–45 N and Rudder breakout 71–89 N control_elevator_forcebased = 1 control_elevator_maxforce_pilot = 120 control_elevator_minforce_pilot = 4.80 control_elevator_still_force_at_max = 6.00 control_elevator_still_force_to_move = 8.40 control_elevator_dynpres_ratio_force_at_max = 1.20 control_elevator_dynpres_ratio_force_to_move = 0.264 control_elevator_neutral_return_force_scalar = 0.85 control_aileron_forcebased = 1 control_aileron_maxforce_pilot = 45 control_aileron_minforce_pilot = 3.60 control_aileron_still_force_at_max = 3.60 control_aileron_still_force_to_move = 6.00 control_aileron_dynpres_ratio_force_at_max = 0.78 control_aileron_dynpres_ratio_force_to_move = 0.144 control_aileron_neutral_return_force_scalar = 0.85 control_rudder_forcebased = 1 control_rudder_maxforce_pilot = 150.00 control_rudder_minforce_pilot = 9.60 control_rudder_still_force_at_max = 9.60 control_rudder_still_force_to_move = 14.40 control_rudder_dynpres_ratio_force_at_max = 2.40 control_rudder_dynpres_ratio_force_to_move = 0.48 control_rudder_neutral_return_force_scalar = 0.85

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.