CAPTAIN SIM FORUM
777 Captain (32-bit) >> 777 Captain (32bit) - General >> What were the reasons for not Including RR?
https://www.captainsim.org/forum/csf.pl?num=1359122910

Message started by froggy on Jan 25th, 2013 at 2:08pm

Title: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Jan 25th, 2013 at 2:08pm
Now that the 1.0 has been released, featuring the 2 American engined variants, what were the reasons that caused Captain Sim to leave out the Rolls Royce Engine?
It just seems strange that CS included it on the 767 when it only (IRL) had one major customer, yet it is a major player on the 200ER.

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by Captain Sim on Jan 25th, 2013 at 9:32pm
Ok, let's see how many people will vote. Possibly we'll build one.

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by EWA111 on Jan 25th, 2013 at 10:59pm
They gunna make one  ;)  ;)  ;)


Captain Sim wrote on Jan 25th, 2013 at 9:32pm:
Ok, let's see how many people will vote. Possibly we'll build one.


Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by 0815 on Jan 25th, 2013 at 11:40pm

Captain Sim wrote on Jan 25th, 2013 at 9:32pm:
Ok, let's see how many people will vote. Possibly we'll build one.


You can not make such a beautiful 777 and then leave out the Rolls Royce engines. It would be a shame to your work if you do not make the RR engines.

have a heart for all fans of American Airlines, Singapore Airlines, British Airways, Transaero and many more that use the Trent 800.

This is about whether you have implemented the entire 777 series or just a portion. Without RR, it is only a part, but all with RR engines.

I really hope you do it because it would be a shame if you would not complete this series.

Give us the 777-200ER with Trent 895.

8-)

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Jan 26th, 2013 at 1:20am

Highflyer2010 wrote on Jan 25th, 2013 at 10:59pm:
They gunna make one  ;)  ;)  ;)



We can only hope....


is there an "all of the above" option? :D

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by rammsteinfan on Jan 26th, 2013 at 4:43pm
The Choice i want isn't listed. I really want the RR on every B777 model it is in real life. And CS thanks for this great plane which still have some issues but I know you will solve it.

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by Markoz on Jan 27th, 2013 at 2:18am

rammsteinfan wrote on Jan 26th, 2013 at 4:43pm:
The Choice i want isn't listed. I really want the RR on every B777 model it is in real life. And CS thanks for this great plane which still have some issues but I know you will solve it.

Ahhh. So you want it on the -200, -200ER and -300. I think that should be added to the list. ;)




-200 YES
-200ER YES
-300 YES


:D ;D

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by dbhally on Jan 29th, 2013 at 1:39am
am i missing something...is there a 200 model from CS?

we have or will have

777-200ER
777-200LR

777-300
777-300ER

777F

???

will the original 777-200 be included?

(regardless of whether or not they have RR's IRL)

I voted yes!!! btw :)

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Jan 29th, 2013 at 3:33am

dbhally wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 1:39am:
am i missing something...is there a 200 model from CS?

we have or will have

777-200ER
777-200LR

777-300
777-300ER

777F

???

will the original 777-200 be included?

(regardless of whether or not they have RR's IRL)

I voted yes!!! btw :)


I'm not too sure.

IIRC the 200A & the 200ER only differ by fuel capacity & MTOW (and Engine thrust), so You could just simulate the A by using the -ER anyway if that will suffice

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by dbhally on Jan 30th, 2013 at 5:47am
i would like to see as many flight/aircraft models included as possible...but will happily accept whats available. This is something I have brought up regarding the 767. Hopefully in an update...

I've tried to do a mod(since it seems I am the only one interested) but it is beyond my ability at the moment :-/

original 200s please! :)

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Jan 31st, 2013 at 10:24pm
So, Captainsim, do we have a verdict?

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by dbhally on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 7:29pm

froggy wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 10:24pm:
So, Captainsim, do we have a verdict?



yes please, do tell :)

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by dbhally on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 7:44pm

froggy wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 3:33am:

dbhally wrote on Jan 29th, 2013 at 1:39am:
am i missing something...is there a 200 model from CS?

we have or will have

777-200ER
777-200LR

777-300
777-300ER

777F

???

will the original 777-200 be included?

(regardless of whether or not they have RR's IRL)

I voted yes!!! btw :)


I'm not too sure.

IIRC the 200A & the 200ER only differ by fuel capacity & MTOW (and Engine thrust), so You could just simulate the A by using the -ER anyway if that will suffice

I know what you are saying but I have a hard time with that. I would like to see all those things in the model. I have tried to do it myself but can't figure out how to get the cdu/fmc to show 777-200 with new cfg...mtow, engines, fuel etc. I would love to figure it out but not if it's frowned upon by CS :-X

btw...seeing that CS has included the reg 300 AND the 300ER got me going on this again.

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by Adamski_NZ on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:51pm

Markoz wrote on Jan 27th, 2013 at 2:18am:



-200 YES
-200ER YES
-300 YES

:D ;D

+1

The vote should really be a *multiple select*!

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by Markoz on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 1:40am

Adamski_NZ wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 11:51pm:

Markoz wrote on Jan 27th, 2013 at 2:18am:



-200 YES
-200ER YES
-300 YES

:D ;D

+1

The vote should really be a *multiple select*!

Yeah. I haven't voted yet because there is no option to select that I want the RR version for all three:

-200
-200ER
-300
All of the above
None, waste of time



:D ;D

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by Chris the Swiss on Feb 4th, 2013 at 4:31pm
+1 :D

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Feb 6th, 2013 at 1:01pm
Bump for Verdict................

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by froggy on Feb 8th, 2013 at 11:21pm

froggy wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 1:01pm:
Bump for Verdict................



X2

Captain sim?

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by 0815 on Feb 11th, 2013 at 12:39pm
x10

Captain, i think there enough people..  ;D

Title: Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Post by CheeseStrike on Feb 11th, 2013 at 10:54pm
It would be great to see some Rolls Royce engines!
+1 to all options

Title: MAKE AN RR VERSION
Post by Zeus on Mar 1st, 2013 at 10:22pm
Great bird, but the only thing missing is the RR version. It feels incomplete without it.

CAPTAIN SIM FORUM » Powered by YaBB 2.6.0!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.