CS B767-300 Is Available.

[FAC257]

http://www.captainsim.com/products/b767/

FAC

[Kavehpd]

10 out of 14 repaints and 3 out of 4 variants "will be available in version 1.1 (free of charge)."

How about you hold on to it for a while, Mr Captain Sim, and release it when it's ready?

[deathfromafar]

Is a fine looking model! Still enjoy my 757 a lot.

[Scratch]

yawn.................another stinkin' toob.................:kilroy:

[Kiwikat]

Surprisingly it is the same amount as the LDS 767. Wasn't expecting that...

Still not going to get it. :mixedsmi:

[Cag40Navy]

yay, its the first peice of crap CS has made!

[d0mokun]

yay, its the first peice of crap CS has made!

Have you bought it already? If so, I'm sure a few around here (myself included) would appreciate a good review.

:icon34:

[PRB]

yawn.................another stinkin' toob.................:kilroy:

Yeah, we hate these kinds of planes! Large, complex, with many accurate systems modeled, heck, you pretty much have to fly them by the numbers if you want any hope of successfully landing it. Pretty challenging, who needs that? ;)

[Cag40Navy]

well, just stick to the LDS till the other models come out

[gajit]

Have you bought it already? If so, I'm sure a few around here (myself included) would appreciate a good review.

:icon34:

I agree -but I dont think that Captain Sim do themselves any favours they way they promote their products with just a limited number of screenshots -8 Im going to wait (which is not in my nature) to see a bit more first.

[harleyman]

Yeah, we hate these kinds of planes! Large, complex, with many accurate systems modeled, heck, you pretty much have to fly them by the numbers if you want any hope of successfully landing it. Pretty challenging, who needs that? ;)






LOL :ernae:

[CG_1976]

I'll hold off buying till that E767 AWACS is available.

[VFR Reviews]

Still looks like a great plane- They must be pretty confident, cause they're making a ton of expansions, like the famous C-130 had.

[flewpastu]

People can say what they want, But Captain Sim makes some really attention to detail products, I know that their customer support has a lot to be desired BUT Damn they got products that are as real as it gets.IMHO

Bill

[VFR Reviews]

:ernae:

[Kiwikat]

I know that their customer support has a lot to be desired BUT Damn they got products that are as real as it gets.IMHO

As real as it gets... like VNAV that makes your plane climb to 30,000 feet at 3000 FPM randomly during your descent. No other plane I have that has VNAV does that... (PMDG 747, MD-11, 737, LDS767, Super 80 Pro) :ernae:

[Bjoern]

yawn.................another stinkin' 767.................:kilroy:

Fixed.

[An-225]

Well, the model is quite old now, and I've heard the 767 shares a lot of systems with the 757. I think this was actually a good decision, since they had a lot of the components ready to go. Plus, you don't see Level D producing an E767 or a KC767 do you?

[VFR Reviews]

Good point An-225 :ernae:

[Kiwikat]

Well, the model is quite old now, and I've heard the 767 shares a lot of systems with the 757. I think this was actually a good decision, since they had a lot of the components ready to go. Plus, you don't see Level D producing an E767 or a KC767 do you?

I'd rather have one model fully accurate and working correctly than a bunch of models that are just OK. It would take something insanely good to defeat the legend that is the Level-D 767. I don't think Captain Sim is up to that level yet.

This isn't blatant CS bashing either. The VC looks stunning. I love their C-130 too and would recommend it to anyone. For a plane like this though, systems modeling and accuracy is far more important to me. Not to mention the CS one suffers from lower FPS.

As I said on Avsim, if someone can show me that it gets better FPS than the 757 and their VNAV was fixed, I'd consider buying it.

[deathfromafar]

As real as it gets... like VNAV that makes your plane climb to 30,000 feet at 3000 FPM randomly during your descent. No other plane I have that has VNAV does that... (PMDG 747, MD-11, 737, LDS767, Super 80 Pro) :ernae:

I never had any issues wit CS's Box. VNAV works perfectly for me every time. Of my my friends who was a 767/757 FO(now a 737-800 Captain) ran this Model and Box and was impressed. You have to punch the perfs in each stage correctly to get the Box to fly the right way in each stage of flight. Just like the real plane, errors cause the automation to do things that aren't in profile.


Well, the model is quite old now, and I've heard the 767 shares a lot of systems with the 757

On the real birds, the checkout is good(cross over) for both types.

[Kiwikat]

I never had any issues wit CS's Box. VNAV works perfectly for me every time. Of my my friends who was a 767/757 FO(now a 737-800 Captain) ran this Model and Box and was impressed. You have to punch the perfs in each stage correctly to get the Box to fly the right way in each stage of flight. Just like the real plane, errors cause the automation to do things that aren't in profile.

It seems to be random, that is the odd part. Some users experience the VNAV issues, others don't. All I know is that it never screws up like that in those planes I listed. I'll have to do some more flying with it to try to figure out what is causing the VNAV errors. It's just painful getting 20 FPS with that when I can be getting 35 with the MD-11, 767, and super 80 pro...

[deathfromafar]

What I had to do to get optimum FPS was to tweak my card settings to see what worked best. I have managed to get target FPS most if not all the time with CS products.

Regarding the FMS issues, it is hard to say why bugs appear with some users and not others. Some of it may be user errors in entering data or missing needed data(skipping steps). Some of these FMS's have limiter parameters in them meaning that whether there is incorrect data entered or for any reason you're out of profile then it might do something unexpected or off the norm. It is surprising how accurate some of these things can be in FS replicating bugs that exist in the real aircraft. As my friends who fly these "Automatic Wonders" tell me, the technology is just good enough to get you into real trouble!

[Scratch]

I have the CS 757 and I have gotten alot of enjoyment out of it , I don't think that the 767 is such a big deal. Just a new outer shell is all.

[deathfromafar]

I have to agree Scratch, I love that model. I guess it is a matter of preference on what tube to get if you don't already have the 757. Personally I love the real 757's lines over the 767 but when I have flown on long trips, I prefer to wider body of the 767. It also seemed to buck turbulence a lot better being heavier.

[Cag40Navy]

well, its is not accurate in terms of the outside.... it is not as good as some freeware ive seen, its not even as good as the LDS 767 and they should just wait and re do it so it is realistic

[Kavehpd]

well, its is not accurate in terms of the outside.... it is not as good as some freeware ive seen, its not even as good as the LDS 767 and they should just wait and re do it so it is realistic

Is that based on the two screen shots on their website or have you actually gone and bought it?

I'm not buying this thing unless there is a stand alone AWACS (i.e. I'm not going to buy this thing ever!). As for cockpit realism, I don't really care. I hardly ever get to fly for more than 30~45 minutes to care about these things. There's got to be a balance between realism and fun. RealAir Spitfire is the only one I can think of with the perfect balance.

[Tweek]

Is that based on the two screen shots on their website or have you actually gone and bought it?

I don't see why he should buy it if the screenshots don't show it in a good light.

[StickMan]

well, its is not accurate in terms of the outside.... it is not as good as some freeware ive seen, its not even as good as the LDS 767 and they should just wait and re do it so it is realistic

LDS 767 compared to CS 767, CaptainSim has modeled more FMS/FMC functions and weather radar to name a few over the past few hours I have seen. Also concidering the LDS realisam options it can autoland any RW. Also the CaptainSim overhead seams more functional a more things working over LDS 767. Only thing I think now the LDS has is the modeled FO for Flaps, Gear, and MCL trans. There may be good freeware out there but not as good as this in my veiw.

But also theres also of tube haters here on SOH and for sure CS haters.

[euroastar350]

Any new release is welcomed....no matter how bad the flight model, model, sounds, panels,gauges, systems, price and support is:icon_lol:

[MCDesigns]

Any new release is welcomed....no matter how bad the flight model, model, sounds, panels,gauges, systems, price and support is:icon_lol:

valid point to some.

I feel the issue is that with tubeliners, most serious users are very spoiled with the "pro" level of avionics that is tough to beat what others come out with

Personally, even though I don't do tubeliners, I have had nothing but a positive experience from CS and their C-130 packages. Hope this does well for them.

[euroastar350]

No issues from CS on my side...in fact, I have the 707 and 727 when they were $9.00US couple years ago. I also have the C130 and some of the expansions...so no problems so far:monkies:

[CG_1976]

I have no issues with CS C-130's or 757's. I just wait till a Pro pack is out and i want that AWACS.

[Cag40Navy]

trans, you a AWACS freak too?

[CG_1976]

trans, you a AWACS freak too?

Very massive AWACS freak. All my AWACS in FS9 and FSX sport USAF, USN and USCG colors proudly.

[Sedr37]

Have never had any issues with CS as well, enjoying all their products and will be buying their 767.

[VFR Reviews]

Me neither :ernae:

[BOOM]

I think I'll wait for the annual CS X-mass sale to pick this one up.

[Mt_Flyer]

This is my first post here, but I can't see paying that much for another stinking tubeliner. And as far as their C-130, I can't see spending over $80 dollars for any model for a game. I mean if it was real life or something, but for a game, come on!! :isadizzy:

I'm not into simming that much that you have to have the stinkin' manual in order to fly the damn thing. If you want it that damn real, why don't you get a real pilots license instead!! :gameoff:

[StickMan]

This is my first post here, but I can't see paying that much for another stinking tubeliner. And as far as their C-130, I can't see spending over $80 dollars for any model for a game. I mean if it was real life or something, but for a game, come on!! :isadizzy:

I'm not into simming that much that you have to have the stinkin' manual in order to fly the damn thing. If you want it that damn real, why don't you get a real pilots license instead!! :gameoff:

It's called "Simulation" that's why. To have real systems modeled and to be able to sit at home and fly somewhat is realistic as possible to the real thing. Sorry I cant afford the $100,000 to get my commercial license so this is the next best deal.

Most people who hate tube liners are the one who get in and know nothing or to lazy to educate themselves so instead of learning they diss it, instead they fly VFR GA Cessnas etc and tell themselves there simulating the real thing. But as for you sound like you treat FSX like a game rather then a sim. Also sorry you to lazy to read a manuals.

[Kiwikat]

It's called "Simulation" that's why. To have real systems modeled and to be able to sit at home and fly somewhat is realistic as possible to the real thing. Sorry I cant afford the $100,000 to get my commercial license so this is the next best deal.

+1

Add vatsim to it and it's about as realistic as you are going to get without flying the real plane or a multi million dollar level d simulator.

[ryanbatc]

I think I'll wait for the annual CS X-mass sale to pick this one up.

lolz.....ditto! :applause:

Oh and one more thing, if you buy the plane now do you get the AWACS version when/if they release it down the road?

[Mt_Flyer]

It's called "Simulation" that's why. To have real systems modeled and to be able to sit at home and fly somewhat is realistic as possible to the real thing. Sorry I cant afford the $100,000 to get my commercial license so this is the next best deal.

Most people who hate tube liners are the one who get in and know nothing or to lazy to educate themselves so instead of learning they diss it, instead they fly VFR GA Cessnas etc and tell themselves there simulating the real thing. But as for you sound like you treat FSX like a game rather then a sim. Also sorry you to lazy to read a manuals.

Yeah, you probably are the type that will spend $100 to wear a captains hat and wings, and have a home built cockpit with the headphones and mike and 24 screens and 6 computers to make it feel real. I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of money to throw away.

And, don't call me lazy when you don't even frakin know me, A-hole!! :pop4:

[BOOM]

Mt Flyer why do you feel the need to be critical and launch personel attacks on people who enjoy things that you don't? If it's not for you fine but other people are enjoying all the realizim they can get from FSX.

[Rezabrya]

FSX can be whatever you want it to be. Some people like to use state of the art Tubeliners with Vatsim and make it as real as possible. For some people, FSX is a GAME that they just like to fly arounbd in a fast jet. Others, myself included, use FSX to fly a plane that I would never have the chance to fly in real life. I use it as A simulator to fly planes like the P-47, F-16, B-17, F-22...anything like that. Fsx is not any one thing, it just depends on who is "playing" or "using" this simulator. This argument is completely invalid for this reason. If you don't like this plane then don't post in the thread. What you see as a useless hunk of polys may be an amazing plane to another. Think before you type!

[StickMan]

Yeah, you probably are the type that will spend $100 to wear a captains hat and wings, and have a home built cockpit with the headphones and mike and 24 screens and 6 computers to make it feel real. I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of money to throw away.

And, don't call me lazy when you don't even frakin know me, A-hole!! :pop4:

Oh sorry maybe your not lazy, maybe your just illiterate. And no Captains hat... YET! What do you wear on your shoulders? Your a$$? And when I mean Simulation I mean using the systems of the real aircraft as much as possible not sitting in a computer chair with a hat on. Sorry your first post here got heat, but instead of voicing your super negative opinion like a child you should try and give better criticism, plus since that was your first post, that means you signed up just to leave you negative two cents, so theirs mine or is that 4 cents now?

[Mt_Flyer]

Oh sorry maybe your not lazy, maybe your just illiterate. And no Captains hat... YET! What do you wear on your shoulders? Your a$$? And when I mean Simulation I mean using the systems of the real aircraft as much as possible not sitting in a computer chair with a hat on. Sorry your first post here got heat, but instead of voicing your super negative opinion like a child you should try and give better criticism, plus since that was your first post, that means you signed up just to leave you negative two cents, so theirs mine or is that 4 cents now?

Well, I was signed up before you anyway :sleep:

Sorry, it was only my opinion like everybody else's. Why don't you grow up and start acting your age and not your IQ. Learn to spell and speak English, DF

If you don't like my opinion then, ***** You!! :bump:

[StickMan]

Well, I was signed up before you anyway :sleep:

Sorry, it was only my opinion like everybody else's. Why don't you grow up and start acting your age and not your IQ. Learn to spell and speak English, DF

If you don't like my opinion then, ***** You!! :bump:

Awww, all I was saying is there is better ways to criticize a add-on AND the people who are interested in it. Some here like aviation enough to read manuals and seek fuller realism in there simulation. You even said in first post your not even into simming that much, so why are you here? And more so you waiting over a year to make your first post and be a dick about it. You knock a product you do not like is fine, but in first post you tell EVERYONE if they wanted to but this add-on they should buy the real deal. Witch on your first post was your first dumb comment. No one here can afford a tube-liner OR a pro simulator. And last you end every post with a word that need to be censored.

And everyone dose have opintons, just most know how to voice theres.
And congrads on signing up before me, did not know there was a pirze for that.

[Willy]

Okay this has went far enough. I'm closing it with following administrative actions for personal attacks.