• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Capt Sim Previews their 767-300 for July Release

One question. Why?!

The level-D 767 is legendary. Some might even say it is the best aircraft ever produced for MSFS. It will most definitely cost more than the Level-D offering and will be more FPS intensive if the 757 is any indication.

Captainsim, work on that B-52 of yours instead...:173go1:
 
It doesn't cost them much to make it because they can use most components from 757. Being a new model developed exclusively for FSX, it will surely look better on promo screenshots than the one from Level-D, and will have worse FPS for sure. But you won't find FPS on promo screens. ;)
 
Ok it may look better, but at the price it is likely to be, and the subject material, only the most serious flight simmers would consider buying it. And those serious flight simmers would rather have FPS and reliable systems modeling.

I just don't see this as being worth it for CS. Maybe I'm missing something? :monkies:
 
I just wish they would release that B-52 that's been talked about for what seems like years now.

Darrell
 
Why-O-Why can't someone make a descent 777 for FSX!!!! Why do company's feel the need to repeat high quality aircraft that have already been done?
 
WOW!! I agree with every single post here.

1.WORK ON THE B-52!!
2.I WANT A TOP OF THE LINE 777!!
3.This will probably be as unuseable as the 757.
 
I have no problem using the B757. That's down to your rig and settings you use. Yes, it is frame rate heavy, but that's not surprising given the way they have modelled it. In my far from expert opinion, it should have been done in a more frame rate friendly way than it was, but CS have always built for looks over frame rate consideration. If you don't know that by now, when they have been modelling since FS2000...?

That said, I can't really understand why they are doing a B767 either - particularly a -300, given the popularity of the LDS model. That is, though, getting very long in the tooth now and while a phenomenal systems model, it's nowhere near state of the art regarding the modelling and texturing though.
 
Playing devils advocate here :), I dont fathom some posts above, on the one hand people dont want another 767, one reason cited is the FPS loss...well I'm sad to say thats a CS trade mark.

On the other hand people are advocating the B-52 from CS, will that not also suffer from FPS loss ?, there are no indications to say that it wont.

So FPs loss is acceptable for the B-52 but not the 767 ?.

Regarding duplication, well its going to happen, always has and always will, you'll find that most of the duplication is down to what people actually want to build, you'll also find that most of the questioning about duplication comes from those that dont build or model. Its really simple, most people are now building what they want to build, not what y'all want us to build.

Look at it another way, build a 767 thats duplicated and share the sales with a'n'other, total sales for this debate is 2000, you sell 1000, ok now build something a little more off beat, total sales come to 1000, you dont win or lose anything, but ! and heres the big but, you enjoyed the hell out of the 767 project but the latter was just a 'job', I think a lot of developers are now going about 'enjoying' themselves and I think you'll see more and more duplication as time goes by, theres only so much mulla in the pot, far better to have your slice for something you enjoyed doing, than the same slice for drudgery.

Just my humble POV, above all, just have fun :).

Best

Michael
 
michael davies said:
Playing devils advocate here :), I dont fathom some posts above, on the one hand people dont want another 767, one reason cited is the FPS loss...well I'm sad to say thats a CS trade mark.

On the other hand people are advocating the B-52 from CS, will that not also suffer from FPS loss ?, there are no indications to say that it wont.

So FPs loss is acceptable for the B-52 but not the 767 ?.

[\Quote]

For some reason my system (old or new) has ever had framerate problems with CS planes, so I wouldn't anticipate any issues with the B-52 :ernae:

Darrell
Click to expand...
 
I can't wait for this I love all the (realistic) airliners. I say Flight1 767 systems and procedures are not a gulling as others like PMDG. The FMS/FMC is more complex and has more working functions then the Flight1 767 (Plus Flight1 767 is able to CAT land on any RW (Witch is way off). All these aircraft run heavy FPS loads because as soon as you start running calculations on the FMS/FMC that is taking a large amount of CPU tasking to do. These same thread are ran on the real aircraft with much stronger on board computers. More then even the finest home level computers. I have always noticed better FPS with FMS/FMC off. (But that is not fun) I know most of the crowd here is GA, prop, VFR flyer's, or combat aircraft, but flying aircraft with more complex system and procedures is more rewarding for me to understand the systems and procedures. If I want to go exploring I do not mine GA prop aircraft, but when done it was Minor simulation vs the tubliners.
 
Aw hell, i just want the B-52 to go with my C-130. but on my system, for some reason, i find i get better frames with CS aircraft. i think there C-130 is my fav to fly round.
 
Cag40Navy said:
Aw hell, i just want the B-52 to go with my C-130. but on my system, for some reason, i find i get better frames with CS aircraft. i think there C-130 is my fav to fly round.
Click to expand...

C-130X It is indeed a lovely bird and a joy to fly. It runs very smoothly on my crippled machine. But it lacks glass cockpit which is a major let down.

Unless there is a stand alone AWACS, I wouldn't pay a penny for their 767. I find 767's nose to be one of the ugliest amongst airliners!

If it has to be Boeing, I'd pay for a 777 or 787.
 
And no pax cabin, thank you very much! If want to go to the loo, I get off my seat and go to the loo. I won't press SHIFT+A!!!
 
Capt Sim's cash would be better spent if they employed a customer services professional who had the ability to answere e-mails and at least attempt to resolves issues.
As for that B-52, how long exactly has that been promised? Over 5 years at least.
 
I to have long awaited the B-52. Wasn't there one also on the mil-viz site? Maybe that's the one Capsim is doing?

Bob
 
b52bob said:
I to have long awaited the B-52. Wasn't there one also on the mil-viz site? Maybe that's the one Capsim is doing?

Bob
Click to expand...

No. We are not working with CS on the B-52. Their exterior model is much better than ours is. Don't know about the pit yet.

Thanks for the thought though! If they weren't doing one, believe me, we would do so.

kc
 
No matter how you feel about Captain Sim's marketing or support, you have to admit that they're some of the best modelers and texture artists in the biz. Those shots are knock-outs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top