Real airplanes hardly ever break, I don't care about failure simulations.

Real airplanes in daily airline operation have minor failures quite often actually.

Real airplanes hardly ever break...

 

Wrong... So NOT true.

 

And the Level-D 767 is not superior in simulation of systems just because there's some failure simulation.

The failures simulation is the result of the overall very good level of simulation implemented in the Level-D.

Even without the failures it's just superior (in the simulation department, period)... But of course, one has to realize that and enjoy this kind of details to appreciate what's implemented.

 

All this is just a matter of personal taste.

I, personally cannot enjoy a 767 simulation where I set ILS freq on NAV1(or 2) instead of an ILS Box, or have my flight controls moving on a C&D 767 like it's a C172 (because hyd system aren't properly simulated), or have a APU that doesn't (actually) burn fuel, ... the list goes on and on. And believe me is LOOOOONG.

In term of simulation, the Level-D is just leaps and bounds ahead of CS. Period. This just cannot be denied.

 

To each his own...

They are both excellent addons and it clearly a personal decision which you buy.

 

This topic is almost 5 full pages of reasons why they are NOT excellent and similar at all.

 

The CS is for people who want to look pretty

 

the Level-D is for people who want a real sim.

This topic is almost 5 full pages of reasons why they are NOT excellent and similar at all.

 

The CS is for people who want to look pretty

 

the Level-D is for people who want a real sim.

So, I must be drop dead handsome and one hellava pilot, because I like both. :Party:

In term of simulation, the Level-D is just leaps and bounds ahead of CS. Period. This just cannot be denied.

 

...and yet, it doesn't calculate realistic descent profiles as demonstrated... as you say too each his own!!!

The CS is for people who want to look pretty

Well, I felt ok before the CS 767, but after buying it, I easily exceed Daniel Craig's victim counts. It finally makes sense!

 

Erm, you folks did notice that the ILS box on the CS 767 actually works? And, e.g. on that APU, you've also noticed that this is a well known MD-11 bug? You can't run out of fuel there.

But of course, one has to realize that and enjoy this kind of details to appreciate what's implemented.

Well, I guess you name it.

 

 

Am I assuming correctly that your main issue with the CS plane is that it's from CS? ^_^ Now, if you can still smile about that sort of 'problem', why not try this thread? http://forum.avsim.n...-addon-threads/

I like that thread indeed CoolP... :Loser:

:Whew: That's a good sign.

This topic is almost 5 full pages of reasons why they are NOT excellent and similar at all.

 

The CS is for people who want to look pretty

 

the Level-D is for people who want a real sim.

 

You're half-right. The CS does look much better. It doesn't suffer from ugly flat renditions of 3D knobs on the VC overhead. Real Sim? They both are. As the excellent post from Tom shows, the CS models just as many systems if not more from the cockpit. Let me quote a few of his findings.

 

"Takeoff on both were about the same."

 

"Climb profiles....both a little off...with the LDS a little closer"

 

"Both aircraft followed there calculated descent profiles to a tee." But when he checked the speeds, Tom found the LD to be too slow. "So I would have to give the nod to the CS767 having a more realistic descent profile."

 

"Overall with the VNAV issue with the LDS-767, in addition as The CS models more systems, (Main panel lights, Brightness controls for the PFD, ND, and both EICAS gauges."

 

Yes, the Level D has failures, ground crew interaction, SDK and callouts. Ok, but for some a decent tradeoff would be that the CS offers you a -200 and freighter models as addons. Pick one of them and you're still at about the same price as the LDS.

 

As for the load manager, real pilots use math.

 

So I stand completely by my statement that both addons are excellent and it is a matter of personal preference and nothing more.

As for the load manager, real pilots use math.

 

Actually the CS757/767 does have a load manager in the ACE utility. It doesn't load fuel though, but that could easily be done in FSX. Neither Level-D, PMDG or CS really has a real load manager, because it doesn't have enough info to calculate what fuel you need for your flight, as flight specific data (ie:range, est winds etc) is not considered in their utilities. So you still need to do more planning either manually, or another utility for any of them!!!.

"So, I must be drop dead handsome and one hellava pilot, because I like both"

 

Great come-back, I actually prefer the CS.

Thread revival!

 

Okay, I'm also craving a 767 to play with before the PMDG 777 comes out.

 

A lot say Level-D is better, while some say CaptainSim is better. What I like about the CaptainSim is that they offer the 767-200, which is still used by some airlines. Level-D only has the -300ER. Both don't have the -400, which is a nice model too.

 

OASN, which 767 variants are still sold by Boeing? Is it only the -300ER and -400ER or what?

Well, I agree with most people on here about the Level D 767 but if FPS is also in your mind you should consider the CLS 767. It by far the most FPS friendly payware 767 that there is.

I'd love to see a -400 by the way.

Well, I agree with most people on here about the Level D 767 but if FPS is also in your mind you should consider the CLS 767. It by far the most FPS friendly payware 767 that there is.

I'm not worried about my FPS.