CAPTAIN SIM FORUM - What were the reasons for not Including RR?

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Poll

Question: Which model would you like to see with RR engines?


-200 5 (7.0%) -200ER 47 (66.2%) -300 16 (22.5%) None, waste of time 3 (4.2%) Total votes: 71 « Created by: Captain Sim on: Jan 25^th, 2013 at 9:32pm »

Pages: [1] 2

Send Topic

What were the reasons for not Including RR? (Read 13184 times)

froggy Full Member Offline Posts: 44 Joined: Jun 26^th, 2012	What were the reasons for not Including RR? Jan 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm	Print Post
	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.


	IP Logged

Captain Sim CS Team Offline Posts: 4357 Joined: Nov 7^th, 2005	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #1 - Jan 25^th, 2013 at 9:32pm	Print Post
	Ok, let's see how many people will vote. Possibly we'll build one.

	Customer Support
	WWW Facebook YouTube IP Logged

Highflyer2010 Full Member Offline Posts: 203 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2012 Gender:	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #2 - Jan 25^th, 2013 at 10:59pm	Print Post
	They gunna make one Captain Sim wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 9:32pm: Ok, let's see how many people will vote. Possibly we'll build one.

	Captain Sim 757&&Captain Sim 777&&&&Sean
	IP Logged

0815 Full Member Offline Posts: 28 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2012	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #3 - Jan 25^th, 2013 at 11:40pm	Print Post
	Captain Sim wrote on Jan 25^th, 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.


	IP Logged

froggy Full Member Offline Posts: 44 Joined: Jun 26^th, 2012	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #4 - Jan 26^th, 2013 at 1:20am	Print Post
	Highflyer2010 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2013 at 10:59pm: They gunna make one � � � We can only hope.... is there an "all of the above" option?


	IP Logged

rammsteinfan New Member Offline Posts: 1 Joined: Jan 26^th, 2013	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #5 - Jan 26^th, 2013 at 4:43pm	Print Post
	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.


	IP Logged

Markoz

CS Team

Offline

Posts: 12445
Location: Victoria, Australia
Joined: Apr 24^th, 2009
Gender: Male

Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Reply #6 - Jan 27^th, 2013 at 2:18am

Print Post

rammsteinfan wrote on Jan 26^th, 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. Wink

-200	YES
-200ER	YES
-300	YES

IP Logged

dbhally Beta Team Offline Posts: 445 Location: KSFO Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2010 Gender:	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #7 - Jan 29^th, 2013 at 1:39am	Print Post
	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

	Dave
	IP Logged

froggy Full Member Offline Posts: 44 Joined: Jun 26^th, 2012	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #8 - Jan 29^th, 2013 at 3:33am	Print Post
	dbhally wrote on Jan 29^th, 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


	IP Logged

dbhally Beta Team Offline Posts: 445 Location: KSFO Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2010 Gender:	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #9 - Jan 30^th, 2013 at 5:47am	Print Post
	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!

	Dave
	IP Logged

froggy Full Member Offline Posts: 44 Joined: Jun 26^th, 2012	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #10 - Jan 31^st, 2013 at 10:24pm	Print Post
	So, Captainsim, do we have a verdict?


	IP Logged

dbhally Beta Team Offline Posts: 445 Location: KSFO Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2010 Gender:	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #11 - Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 7:29pm	Print Post
	froggy wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 10:24pm: So, Captainsim, do we have a verdict? yes please, do tell

	Dave
	IP Logged

dbhally Beta Team Offline Posts: 445 Location: KSFO Joined: Jul 2^nd, 2010 Gender:	Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR? Reply #12 - Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 7:44pm	Print Post
	froggy wrote on Jan 29^th, 2013 at 3:33am: dbhally wrote on Jan 29^th, 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 btw...seeing that CS has included the reg 300 AND the 300ER got me going on this again.

	Dave
	IP Logged

Adamski_NZ

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 67
Location: Auckland, NZ
Joined: Dec 29^th, 2008

Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Reply #13 - Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 11:51pm

Print Post

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

-200	YES
-200ER	YES
-300	YES

+1

The vote should really be a *multiple select*!

WWW

IP Logged

Markoz

CS Team

Offline

Posts: 12445
Location: Victoria, Australia
Joined: Apr 24^th, 2009
Gender: Male

Re: What were the reasons for not Including RR?
Reply #14 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:40am

Print Post

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

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

-200	YES
-200ER	YES
-300	YES

+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

Cheesy

IP Logged

Pages: [1] 2

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›


	Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register