Update to the post above:

I've been checking the CaptSim forums and other places and there is some rather negative feedback going on regarding update 2.3.  I wonder if somebody didn't just screw up and put up the wrong patch?  Since there are a number of 727X users on Simviation, I am sort of curious as to what others are experiencing with this aircraft and this patch.

But the Captain Sim 727 is the only FSX compatible one out there...

BSW727 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:


yeah, but I understand that you have QUITE the "virtual" cockpit to fly from!

I'm not a member of Flightsim.com, but I've seen your pit over there on Paul Golding's forums.  Maybe you could do the fs community a favor and bug him to hurry up with his FSX version!!   I suspect that serious 727 devotees like yourself probably carry some weight and could get him to cough up some status on that project....

I would be afraid to crash that thing.  You probably have a small automobile suspended above that drops down and smooshes you (for maximum realism.)

Concerning CaptS, when I made my original post I was a bit hesitant...I thought "oh no, what if all these things I'm complaining about work great, and I just screwed something up."  However, I just visited the CS 727 forums and it looks like there is a minor rebellion going on over there about the quality of this latest patch.  I think they might be deleting a number of comments too.

I don't mean to be so darned critical of this product, but it almost seems as if they are intentionally making sure that things don't work a certain way or get fixed.  Maybe they are afraid if they deliver something excellent (which I think is within their capability) that customers will start holding them to that standard or something...hhmmmm...I mean I'm reading that with this latest release even the seatbelt signs have quit dinging...

JeeS wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 9:50am:


You are correct:  Somebody on their forum did in fact report that the epr works correctly now.  However, I am virtually certain that they are mistaken.  If I may paraphrase the poster over there, he states that he tested cruise EPRs vs real charts and it looks correct.  I would concur with this even back in version 2.1:  I found fairly accurate EPR readings for expected cruise at .78 mach based on "other" charts not provided by CS.  However the poster over there also states that he did not test the EPR for either climb or descent because no TAT guage exists.   Unless every other flight sim jet I've ever flown including pmdg, flight1, etc is wrong, I can tell just by looking at how the needle behaves that the EPR is definitely NOT fixed.  I have tested the climb and descent EPRs against real charts, regardless of the lack of TAT guage and I can tell you that they still must be screwed.  In fact, it is not even possible to set your power to correspond with the charts because EPR falls off right after takeoff to a level that is already below the minimum climb thrust...I think I am adequately allowing for any reasonable discrepancies between the engine variants modelled in the CS 727 vs the dreamfleet and or real 727 charts. I don't know if the actual thrust being produced is accurate, or if it is just a guage problem.  No idea.

Concerning the use of CS manuals as opposed to other 727 reference materials:  You are again correct.  If CS decides to provide adequate charts to plan and conduct a flight realistically, I should and will use them.  But they simply don't exist.

Current CS manual provides Takeoff V speeds not adjusted for outside temperature, a climb chart with climb rates specified in feet per minute (what???), and Vref + manuever speeds for flaps. 

However, the CS manual does not provide TakeOff EPR power settings or Climb EPR charts.  It does not provide enroute climb charts, low alt cruise, max cruise, economy cruise charts.  It does not provide a chart of altitude capabilities for step climbing.  It does not have any material whatsoever to calculate fuel-burn.  It does not provide charts to plan top of descent.  Sorry, this aircraft does not have a FMS...pilots have to do it all by themselves and for that, they need reference data which simply isn't provided

And from my experience as a measly flight sim jet pilot, the reason they don't provide "the numbers" is because the aircraft doesn't fly to them.  That is fine if you are a gameboy, but as bsw727 has pointed out above, some of us are "book flyers".  It is very difficult for me to judge of course, not being a real pilot, but there are actual real 727 pilots who have noted the very same issues regarding this plane's flight performance, such as epr and descent problems.  I don't expect 100%, but I have seen much much better.

What am I supposed to do with this aircraft?  Just ram the throttles forward and takeoff into the wild blue yonder I guess, because that is about all one can do with this bird.

In regards to "this wasn't that bad an aircraft to begin with";  I must respectfully disagree.  Up until the release of 2.3 (last week), this aircraft, I must reitterate, did not even have a accurately functioning VSI, a buggyish Altimeter, incorrectly functioning Autopilot(or did it function correctly in 2.2, but is now worse I'm reading??), bad VOR capture logic etc..!  But it did have a flushable toilet in the lavatory.  If one is to do flight simming instead of gaming, for instance, it is nice to be able to stay on the glideslope by knowing what your vertical speed actually is.  I think they fixed that one at least, but I'm still reading about rather glaring problems with the others.  This plane has been out, what a year or so?  I understand that this plane is what it is;  But I have seen 100s of posts that make this a/c sound like it is the best thing since the cat's meow, and I felt compelled to put out a view that sincerely and hopefully respectfully differs.  Liking or disliking is, obviously, a matter of taste and opinion.

I am absolutely not out to bash CaptSim:  Nobody would love to love this aircraft more than me, I just can't at this time because it isn't accurate and it doesn't look like it ever will be.  I know that a lot of people bought this a/c during the Xmas sale and I think the purpose of this forum is to have a frank discussion about its merits or its flaws.  So therefore, I really do appreciate your inputs.  If I'm wrong about my observations by all means feel free to correct me and point me in the right direction.  If someone can point out that I've incorrectly labelled something as buggy, when in fact it works correctly, by all means correct me.

BSW727 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 10:44pm:


Who said the klaxons don't start ringing even when she is perfectly configured..

No seriously:  I am perfectly aware that it isn't smart marketing for any company to cater to some small part of the diminishing market when 90+% could care less.  I've been playing with flight sims since childhood days and have forgotten how much of a handful this stuff can be without getting into some of the nit-picky stuff.  I only really got into it as a hobby with FS2004, but by that time I had enough of a background that I could afford to get into the nitty gritty details simply because the overall aspect of flight sim didn't overwhelm me.  Only then did I start to care whether something was actually accurate or not (and for a non pilot that is usually difficult to answer)  On the other hand, sometimes I feel companies like pmdg even insist on too much accuracy to the detriment of other aspects of the sim (like turn your turbulence off because this plane is so accurate that it can't cope with the incorrectly modelled fsx turbulence!).  But you can tell that their planes are an absolute labor of love:  The last time I applied a PMDG patch I couldn't even believe how arcane some of the fixes were...correcting tiny little inconsistencies that even the most experienced flight simmer wouldn't have noticed in a million years!

You introduced a problem that they're too lazy to fix. Simple as that.

...say no evil, and there is no evil.