>They are smoother than PIC's but still fall short of Flight1's>Meridian gauges which are totally smooth. >>Michael J.I don't agree - I think they look just as good as the Merdians. Did you crank up the LCD Refresh rate?Ryan

You can only get so much smoothness when you are getting only 7fps (in cruise!) in the 2D panel.Lee Hetherington (KBED)

Forget it Lee and others, the PDMG Marketing Department will not stop till they realize all further sales opportunities on this forum have been exhausted. Perhaps they are getting close to that point as they are now loosing more friends than they are making.Sad thing is that one day I might shell out too many dollars to also become a beta tester. But the appeal continues to be diminished with the endless streams of "Reality", "Future", and "Goodbye to PIC

I'm trying hard not to extend this debate any longer than necessary, Daniel, but.... :-)"- Gauge clarity and sharpness."Before I was able to fully register PMDG's NG, I had to fly using the Standby Instruments only.... On a 17" CRT the Standby Instruments are near impossible to read (unlike PIC's). The main NG instruments are difficult for me to read also in some viewing modes (except by clicking on them.... which I don't find realistic... unless you are lucky to have a multiple computer setup and can display them in the correct positions)."- Electrical and pressurization system implementation (since we're being picky, I might as well point it out)"If you don't get the default Cessna set up properly before you boot up the 737NG, not even the Battery Switch will operate properly. The Standby Power switch has to be unrealistically cycled from AUTO to OFF and back again to get the Inverter to work (Even then PMDG models only two out of the 3 Stby Power switch positions... No "BAT" position). The PMDG hydraulic system is somewhat buggy (still) and, as I understand it, is missing some of the backup systems. The Electronic Clock doesn't work as per the Boeing Maintenance Manual...if you can find the clock, that is. Re pressurization ...I know Laurent was working on a pressurization system, which I'm sure would have equalled anything PMDG produced (and, who knows, we may yet see it). Wade has shown he can produce a perfectly good TCAS system (but now we have Lee's anyway). We have yet to see a TCAS system in the PMDG aircraft.... along with other essentials, such as IRS's (A system which will undoubtably cause the PMDG the most headaches because it affects so many aircraft systems. It will be an integration nightmare...unless they oversimplify it)."- Integration of side panels, overall look of switches, and panel perspective."Like the invisible FD and A/T switches, the MCP LCD displays which don't line up with the windows, the switches that turn themselves off (other than the WTAI switches)... etc, etc? Of course, panel perspective will be better in a VC cockpit (comparing apples and oranges here), but I would need a new computer to run the VC stuff. In 2D, the overhead panel is no more perspectively accurate than PIC.... Unless you're flying the NG from the Observers seat/middle of the aircraft."- And finally, package extras (none were included with PIC)"I'm not sure which packages you're talking about.... unless you mean the -800/-900 (which will cost extra... and are so far away from production, may not appear)? Or the PMDG FMC Users Guide??? BTW, did PIC need extras as badly as the PMDG aircraft?Having said all that, I will happily work with the PMDG guys to help them improve their product (if they'll let me).... until it is as good as PIC :( (I already have a rapidly growing bugs list which I will present to the PMDG team when things start to settle down.. and their hair starts growing back :-lol ). I'm no 737 expert, but I can read a Maintenance Manual/AOM as well as anyone else to know things aren't quite right in PMDG land. The 737NG appears to be a technologically simpler aircraft than the 767, but it doesn't seem to have helped the PMDG team model it any better.In your words... "I think I've made my point, so I rest my case. Good day."Cheers.Ian.P.S. BTW, for some unknown reason, from Day 1, the PMDG 2D panel has taken over 6 (!) minutes to boot up on my computer (PIC takes seconds). Still waiting for a member of the PMDG team to show any interest in solving this "little" problem.

Lee,don

People always forget that the original PIC panel was done by Eric Ernst in 1998/99 for FS98. So just consider how much time has been spent to the 767 PIC until it

Mathias"People always forget that the original PIC panel was done by Eric Ernst in 1998/99 for FS98. So just consider how much time has been spent to the 767 PIC until it

Of course it depends on system specs (P3-933, 512MB, 128MB nVidia Quadro4 750XGL, W2K Pro). You need a lot more horsepower to fly the NG than PIC. With FS9 sliders almost maxed, I can get my lock of 20 in default aircraft, DF Archer, and even the NG in spot view. Open up the 2D panel and it comes way down. I'm seeing 2-3fps in the VC! And those numbers are with the NG's gauge refresh rate turned all the way down to 5.What part of my statement do you doubt? I didn't say everyone will see those frame rates, did I?Lee Hetherington (KBED)

>People always forget ...>PMDG did it all in just a half of a year.Hmmm, people seem to forget that PMDG developed the 757/767 for FLY! (Aug 2000), the 777 for FLY!, and the 757/777 for FLY!II. People forget that they had developed a functional FMC that exceeded the capabilities of the FMC implemented in the 737NG - SIDs/STARs w/transitions and Approaches. It is not as if PMDG started up with zero experience and from scratch. So, yes, they went from announcement to product in half of year, but they had a basis of knowledge and a useable s/w design for key components that they were able to leverage. I agree with you on your main point - people always forget. ;-)-michael

Please let us stop here. If you want to read more about the PMDG 737s advantages and disadvantages and how issues are handled, please go to the PMDG forum.In my personal opinion, this is still a 767 forum where we talk about 767 issues. I think we should stop to compare two completely different aircrafts and to IMO equally different approaches in simulating these aircrafts. Andreas HermesEDDH

Sure you didn

As a complete package nothing beats B767 PIC!It is hands down the best in it's class.

.>PMDG did it all in just a half of a year. Matthias,Half a year - and it shows. When people claiming to have such superlative team (some PhDs), so technically versed, so well read in Boeing's manual release such product with so many obvious flaws it makes you wonder about their competence. Unless they are open about it - we release prematurely with many bugs - help us test it, we give you a big price discount. But it did not happen this way.Michael J.

>I think we should stop to compare two completely different aircrafts and to IMO equally different approaches in simulating these aircrafts.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

>That's not the point. If the add-on barrier isn't pushed it'll>be boring regardless.>I guess you mean pushed *BACKWARDS* regarding the PMDG 737???>Now, I see I am kind of talking to a wall here, since you>continue to claim PIC is perfect. I understand you are a fan>and all, but every add-on has a lifespan, even PIC. Only if YOU limit its lifespan yourself. Where else would you find the "law of the limited lifespan of add-ons"?>I think for your comments to be>objective you need to validate them by telling me where PIC>has not been reached (I will not say surpassed to avoid>arousing another "PIC is perfect" argument). Certainly the FMC is not as good as PIC