You guys are aggressively addressing issues. �Good job and good luck with your new release. �I just downloaded and it is so far even better than my 757 in looks (due to night lighting improvements).

I just couldn't hack the 2D VC overhead and general poor graphics job on the competitor. �Great product back in the day, and deserves a place, but the 2D overhead is a usuability issue for me, not just aesthetic.

Of course, we have the usual moans, too, but don't let those bother you. �There are legitimate issues you can work on, then there are people who make a career out of complaining about Captain Sim. �I've heard divorced women carry on less about their exes, for cryin' out loud.

But now you've given me a big problem.  I have to fit a 767 on my sig banner.

Thank you for kind comments, Tim

The other 767 has been out since the days of the dinosaurs and has had many updates.  For gosh sakes, give Captain Sim a chance.  He hasn't even had a chance to release the first update!

signmanbob wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 12:51pm:


Point taken, we are partially going by the history and current state of its sibling the 757 though.

If you fancy some sort of procedural trainer and think you are going to find one for $40, we all know what you pick.  It's a choice and I'm not knocking it.  Personally, I don't use that "systems depth" anyway and couldn't tell you how to set up a failure on two products I have that are known for that sort of thing (both old).  I just want to enjoy pretending to pilot s big complicated airplane and enjoy the visuals.  Normal operations.  I don't want to be the smartest kid in the room and pick at details that don't have anything to do with the way the thing runs or gets used.

The CS 767 says 1.0 but is really more like 4.3 out of the chute   In other words, we've been through most of the teething pains with the long development cycle of the 757.

We also know what issues might remain, too (although some of those are getting addressed already).

ACE loads the plane in that it rewrites the config file.  They do want you to check the fuel/payload page in FSX.  That was their design decision for whatever reason.  It is different than some other products, but whether you are looking at a page outside the sim or one inside the sim, there is no practical difference to me.  Of course, everyone is free to have their own preferences.  Sorry this spoils it for you.

I'm used to it now, so it doesn't bother me.  Actually, I like knowing how FSX is "seeing" things for certain and have started using the nav log as a fuel planner for other aircraft, as well (adding appropriate minimum fuel and covering contingencies).