I want to buy a Boeing, But there are also others, I have the feeling that PDMG:s is the best, but I don't know for sure. Anybody that have any of the other products and can compare? Georg

Well this sure is not the place for an un-baised opinion for a comparison ;) PIC 767 is the only aircraft that is in the league of a good comparison with this NG product. I have been a PIC 767 fan for a long time but do not fly it any longer if that tells you anything. I WILL fly PIC version 2 though. There are a number of things that have been worked out for the next patch which will help many think the same way about the NG once released, sid-stars have been a bit of a issue as with some other details but you will not be dissapointed in your purchase. The level of detail in this product is reaching a state well beyond the average add-on. [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/196432/winglets_lg.jpg

>Anybody that have any of the other products and can compare? I have almost all of the other products, and believe it or not, I like them all. Not any of them is perfect, of course, and each has its good and bad points (which I won't go into), but if you enjoy flight simming and want variety, you should buy whatever you can afford.Cheers!Joel

I think it's difficult to compare the 737NG with the "other" products, as they have IMO a different focus.PMDG has put the focus more on the flight and flight relevant details. You get a great flight model, custom programmed autopilot and displays with a detail level that didn't appear in any addon so far. Also, if I take the mouth-watering comments (of testers like crvm :D) on the upcoming SU2 patch into account, an FMC functionality that really stands out.You can take a Dispatcher/Router program like "Flight Operation Center 2003", put real world 737-700 data in, then fly your basically real world flight plan in FS and down to the total fuel consumption it's right on the numbers. That's fascinating !That having said, IMO the "other" products you mentioned are more targeted to the mainstream crowd. Focus more on general and optical gimmicks, but the flight part and autopilot behaviour not on top of their priority list. I couldn't think of any better choice than PMDGs 737NG for short and medium range flights and the upcoming 767V2 for medium to long range flights.Michael

The replies you have got should give you a good idea of what we all think about the PMDG 737 and IMHO mikealpha has given the best all round situation.But the bottom line is what do YOU want from an a/c.If you just want to jump in and fly then any quality freeware, such as POSKY, will give you a good looking Boeing that can be flown with the default auto-pilot.If you want things to be more 'immersive' and are happy with FS2k2 then the PSS products are next up the line followed by the DF737 and finally the top of the tree is still, IMHO, the 767PIC.Unfortunately none of the above are fully compatible with FS9 and reading the support forums none of them will be patched for FS9 as they are old models.So for FS9 that leaves you with just the PMDG 737ng and I would put it slightly above the DF737 for its 'immersive' level, somewhat behind for eye candy in that it doesn't have interior cabin views and wing views (PMDG EDIT: actually, the PMDG 737NG has both wing views and cabin views ;-)), if that is your penchant. Also the PMDG functionality is behind the DF737 at the moment because of the current glitches although I am sure SU2 will correct most/all of these.Oh, I've realsied a missing one :-)If you want real 'immersivity' and to get back to 'real' flying check out the Ready for Pushback 747-200 from the 'steam driven' age of flying. Be prepared for a lot of learning and a high work load, the warning on the web site about the suitablilty of this a/c is accurate and not hype. RfP 742 is patched for FS9.http://www.panelshop.com/ for RfP 742.HTH and whatever you choose enjoy your flying.Dave

SU2 really should silence any complaints about the FMC - it's really coming together now... ;)Ryan

Dave have hit this one on the head! The PMDG (even with the glitches) and the RFP, to date, leave the rest of them way behind. (that is for AC fumctional in FS9).Go for the former if you're into glass cockpits or the latter for the older 'stem driven' stuff. Either way both are very comprehensive and exceptionally well rendered.//Mike

I must say that my first impession is very good. But I have the feeling that the resolution is optimized above 1024 x 768. Am I right?Georg

The panel bitmaps are rendered out at 1280x1024... but they reduce well in MSFS to 1024x768 if that is the resolution of your choice.VinPMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.vinscimone.com/dancnkid.gif

Just one comment Vin.That resolution is unusual, I think. My understanding was that FS resolution ratio was 4:3 which would be 1280x960 or 1024x768. If they are 'drawn' at 1280x1024 surely round or square objects would no longer be so at a screen resolution of 1024x768? Or is the difference so small as to be irrelevent?Dave

Hi Dave,I think it all depends on what hardware you view the image on. With a CRT 1280*960 would be the correect aspect but TFTs are able to display equally accurately at 1280*1024. This was explained to me by Paul Croft at the FS Show in Birmingham yesterday (where were you BTW?). Once the 1280*1024 panel is dragged to the edges to completely fill the screen it then looks identical to a CRT image and round shapes stay round.Please don't ask me to describe why. I don't have a TFT to experiment on but I trust the word of Paul as I'm sure you will.Cheers,

My mistake... they are 1280x960. Sorry for the confusion.VinPMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.vinscimone.com/dancnkid.gif

You WON'T be sorry with the PMDG! I've been flying this beauty almost entirely in 2002. I have FS9, but my frame rates aren't stellar, and I prefer the Ultimate Traffic, therefore I've been flying much more in 2002. Having said that, I have the DF734, PIC767, PSS A320, and a couple others. The DF734 is nice, but it has a problem with FMC descents and approach patterns (e.g., veering off course). The PSS Airbus Pro is only good for full automation IMO, has horrible FDs, and is too expensive for add-on liveries. The PIC767 is still something I fly, and it is second to the PMDG, however, it is old.The PMDG is excellent at properly calculating FMC descents, has perfect FDs, offers the best panel and VC out there, and looks great in spot view. I can't wait for SU2 and the 800/900 series!Thanks PMDG!Chris

Let me be candid, there is not another flight add-on (airline wise) that is as accurate as this bird, flamers need to provide NUMBERS thank you ;)[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/196432/winglets_lg.jpg

I will tend to agree about the good things being said about the NG here. I was one of the smart ones who waited and waited and read the forums and all the flames etc. until the latest service pack came out, and then I bought it. Can't say that I'm too disappointed. Would really like a TCAS and the missing stuff in the FMC. But, flying the 2D panel version only, my FPS are good and although the livery options (I go for real world and only fly in the continental US) are limited, I've been having fun with SouthWest, Alaska and Continental.To be honest though, I only bought it because I couldn't stand the "Frankenstein" setup of the PIC767 panel in FS9. As soon as PICV2 comes out, if its as good as the original PIC, then I'll be shelving the NG. This isn't a reflection of PMDG, its just that I am a Die-Hard 757 nut. And I dont really like 737s. Now, if someone will only do a really good rendition of my second favorite...the MD83.......(That was a Hint PMDG :-wave )