56 replies to this topic

[Alaska_MD-83]

Is this the Standard or lite mode? As I believe there is an option.

The QW product is, in my opinion, an excellent purchase if you want bang for your buck. Look at what you do get, stellar models, hundreds of high quality liveries, a brilliant VC, and a panel with an FMC. I might even consider consider purchasing it for myself. But I am going to WAIT until they iron out some of the kinks, and I can read an AVSIM review of it.

However, One place where I do not complement QW  is how they marketed it. I, and it seems like many others, were under the impression that this was going to be another hyper-realistic plane, that had every little switch, knob, and breaker functional. Even though they released the Manual beforehand, and did not lie, the screenshots included pictures of a full overhead, with each button modeled. The Average Joe is not going to read the Manual before he gets the product, he is going to look at the quick info page on the website, see LNAV/VNAV, look at some screenshots of a Panel with what appears to be a full overhead, and then push buy now, expecting that he gets a plane that rivals the functionality of PMDG, Level D, and SSTSIM.

That is my only Gripe, I think they could have done a little bit better in the area of telling people what they are getting. But it still looks like a fantastic product, and I look forward to perhaps flying it in my sim someday.

[The_Great_North]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Are you people blind? It's the same people complaining about Airsimmer. They quite clearly stated what the product was and who it was aimed at. I fail to believe that you didn't know what you were buying-if you were buying something from a shop, do you blindly pick it up and pay for it blindly?

Use your head.

Edited by The_Great_North, 12 December 2009 - 05:31 PM.

[AirlinePilot83]

Da_KGB, on Dec 12 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

It seems like many others, were under the impression that this was going to be another hyper-realistic plane, that had every little switch, knob, and breaker functional.

If people bought this aircraft thinking that it was a hyper-realistic plane then it's their own fault for jumping the gun. The developers said from the outset that it would not be a complex aircraft. Heck, the slogan they use is "Complexity, simplified!".

They even released the manuals ahead of time to let simmers see for themselves what is modeled and what isn't.

I do agree that the average joe is not going to read the documentation ahead of time. However, if you are going to spend $45.00 you better do your homework before buying.

Edited by AirlinePilot83, 12 December 2009 - 05:45 PM.

[LittlePilot]

AirlinePilot83, on Dec 12 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

If people bought this aircraft thinking that it was a hyper-realistic plane then it's their own fault for jumping the gun. The developers said from the outset that it would not be a complex aircraft. Heck, the slogan they use is "Complexity, simplified!".

They even released the manuals ahead of time to let simmers see for themselves what is modeled and what isn't.

I do agree that the average joe is not going to read the documentation ahead of time. However, if you are going to spend $45.00 you better do your homework before buying.

                        Exactly. Good point made. I couldn't have put it better myself.  

[Buziel-411_RED]

Also, the modeled systems are clearly listed on the site:

Quote

• Detailed 2D Cockpit featuring both Widescreen (16:10 aspect ratio) and Standard (4:3 aspect ratio) resolution bitmaps
    • Standard 757 gauges or Retrofit LCD displays upgrade based on real world 757/767 Cockpit Retrofit
    • Autopilot with VNAV, LNAV, Flight Level Change and Autoland capability.
    • Detailed Flight Management System (for detailed information please check out the User's Manual)
    • Thrust Mode Select Panel
    • Traffic Collision Avoidance System with aural warning sounds (TCAS)
    • Option of using Round ADI or Speed Tape ADI, as well as single cue and dual cue flight directors
    • EICAS System with accurate differences between Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney
    • EICAS Messages as well as EICAS Aural Sounds modelled
    • Customizable Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) with FULL Altitude Callout. You choose which callouts you want!
    • Customizable V-Speed and Landing Checklist Callouts
    • Detailed but easy to use Overhead panel with simplified IRS alignment
    • EFIS Control Panel
    • QualityWings Control Panel, allows you to choose ADI and flight director preferences, control all of the doors on the aircraft and more
    • Standard and LITE panel modes available on the fly via the QualityWings Control Panel. Standard mode balances realism and simplifed approach. Optional LITE mode available for those who REALLY want things SIMPLE

http://qwsim.com/ind...57-family-panel

[Romario_]

Thanks for the post Shaun. Didn't know the systems on the QW were that basic. But it is great for beginner pilots. I guess for pilots who prefer to go through all the procedures, I guess the CS757 is a better option. Nevertheless, this looks like a great product! Excellent work from the QW team!

[Shaun-NCL]

Thanks Macbeth.
Everyone seems to think I posted this because I want to make QW look terrible and crap!
When I most definatley don't they are a fantastic company, I was just letting people that had not read about it know what was going on.

[VFR_Pierre]

I really like the panel, that's a plus.

And I wish I could get those sounds!

Gotta stop this constant bashing, it's tiring after a while.

[tommieboy]

Chief NWA, on Dec 12 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

That's perfectly fine for me. I'm not big on the whole systems thing. I'd rather just get in and fly instead of spending an hour preparing for flight....

Same here; I'll be picking this up shortly.......

Tommy

[THBatMan8]

Peter797, on Dec 12 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Fail. Captain Sim is better. Atleast you can start engines

I fail to see your point. From looking at that screenshot, the ignition mode selectors are modeled and the APU is modeled. Cabin pressurization is inop on the ground at this stage, and the engine bleeds are left open.

I don't get what everyone is complaining about.... Do you guys actually manually control everything in the aircraft like the cabin pressurization control system, fuel pumps, etc or do you just allow the system to manage itself? Once you turn these systems on during preflight, you won't be touching them again except in a non normal procedure. Does it really matter if the systems are already turned on for you?

[iGamer]

THBatMan8, on Dec 13 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

Peter797, on Dec 12 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

Fail. Captain Sim is better. Atleast you can start engines

I fail to see your point. From looking at that screenshot, the ignition mode selectors are modeled and the APU is modeled. Cabin pressurization is inop on the ground at this stage, and the engine bleeds are left open.

I don't get what everyone is complaining about.... Do you guys actually manually control everything in the aircraft like the cabin pressurization control system, fuel pumps, etc or do you just allow the system to manage itself? Once you turn these systems on during preflight, you won't be touching them again except in a non normal procedure. Does it really matter if the systems are already turned on for you?

To some it does, to others it doesn't. Personally, I like to keep things realistic. Fully modeled systems and functional buttons, even if they aren't used after startup, is what drives me purchase an aircraft.

[AirX]

The amount of work thats involved in creating many addons for any fight simulator is enormous. Freeware or payware its going to cost. What Quality Wings has done with the 3d modle would sell easily for 300$ each at 3D source sites. What you get for 45$ is very inexpensive comparing to the time and resources needed to produce many of these aircrafts.
Quality Wings is worth more than a lot of other crap out there on the market. I think they produced a decent product. It could be a lot worse.

[THBatMan8]

iGamer, on Dec 13 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

To some it does, to others it doesn't. Personally, I like to keep things realistic. Fully modeled systems and functional buttons, even if they aren't used after startup, is what drives me purchase an aircraft.

I agree with that. My point was if you know the aircraft doesn't model particular systems and you know you aren't going to buy it, then why complain about it? That's really the only thing I'm aggravated about. Quality Wings had better non-biased PR's about what their plane has vs some other developers of which I won't name. Not everyone wants a Level-D or PMDG plane and that isn't the market Quality Wings is after with the 757.

Edited by THBatMan8, 13 December 2009 - 12:34 AM.

[fredrick_thy_grt]

Look, it is a basic plane for basic simmers. News flash, the people that developed this use to be part of the POSKY team, or close friends with the posky team. Its nothing but freeware guys trying to make it in the payware world, and thats fine..you have to start somewhere. I personally think this plane looks great, but the systems are too basic for me. I'm not going to sit here and bash this because I KNOW for a fact that I could never make something like this. I make decent repaints, but I can't live up to the likes of Corey Ford..I have no clue how to do the rest. There is the option to merge the model and sounds with CS panel...unless QW is using that thing that doesn't allow you to do so..

Those of you over price vs. systems..look at CLS...


Just how I see it.

EDIT: I don't see anybody bashing the CLS 767-200/-300 and its near the same thing, only less liverys.

Edited by flynryan692, 13 December 2009 - 12:53 AM.

[E-mage]

03SVTCobra, on Dec 12 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

$45....I didn't even pay that for my Level-D...which is FAR more compex...Glad I didn't hit the purchase button and decided to wait.

I'm sure when the lds first came out it was far more expensive (in relation to its time) right?

[Fabio_Leal]

N7076A, on Dec 12 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Lealki 2010, on Dec 12 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

QW is ... poor ?

Awesome contribution to the thread.  

you are welcome !

[clum]

flynryan692, on Dec 13 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

EDIT: I don't see anybody bashing the CLS 767-200/-300 and its near the same thing, only less liveries.

The QW 757 is all kinds of more advanced than the CLS effort mate. Its got what could be described as a Smiths FMC for a start.


What it boils down to is that people are upset that they can't have fully simulated systems in what is one of, if not the best VC model around. Anyone who is whining about it being too basic is probably just upset with themselves for buying it, just for the model, or having not read the manual.

At the end of the day, anyone who's moaning should put that energy into bug finding and reporting because once they're sorted out and if the team do follow through and implement more features, then it's going to be a belter!