>I will echo many opinions here and say that the PMDG is>indeed a good buy because it is first and foremost a darn good>piece of work. Secondly, PMDG has excellent customer service.>>>And finally, PMDG is the only developer that I know that>actually puts in little things that customers ask for, whereas>most other developers give you the line "nothing new will be>added", or just simply ignores you.>>Having said that, I would also state that no one can come>close to the bitmaps produced by the guru Lou Betti and that's>a FACT. (And before anyone starts slamming me.........this>statement is just my opinion :) .......its amazing the petti>things people get annoyed for on the forums these days).>>Although the PMDG panels have improved with the upgrades, it>is correct that the cartoonish look takes away from the>immersion. It is my opinion that if PMDG could get someone>with Lou's talent (maybe Ed? :) ) to do thier panel bitmaps>using real photographs, and also devise some sort of means to>have the correct perspective on the main panel, this bird will>be the best ever for FS since the PIC days. And that's a FACT.>(Please don't hit me.....its again my opinion). >I am sitting in my office at work ( I know I should, be working :)) looking at a poster that I was given by the check pilot, after flying a 767-400 Motion Sim a couple of years ago ( prior to 911 of course). The poster is about 3' x 5' and depicts the entire 767 cockpit with panel and overhead complete with all switches, throttles, flap handles, , 3 FMC's, and is complete down to the smallest detail. Sure there are differences between the PMDG 737 and this poster, but in reality , there are many more similarities, then there are differences. So when I read about the "cartoonish look" of the PMDG, sorry, I just don't seem to see that when I look at my PMDG cockpit while flying the 737 just about every evening. In fact, the PMDG 737 reminds me a lot of the $27,000,000 sim I flew a few years ago. Great bargain , considering it cost about $70.

>LOL >>Well even on "real" 737NG simulators you can save the current>situation and return to it the next day. So PMDG should offer>this in future releases IMHO!>I guess so. As long as PDMG does not also supply 'live' flight attendants to provide coffe, meals etc... during the flight, one should be able to 'occasionally' leave the deck :-)

Hi Geof,"Even though I seldom fly jets-I will be looking at his recomendation-and I thank him for his enthusiastic endorsement."Second that!...and YOUR Bonanza IS the best one out there...

ooops, never mind.

>So when I read about the "cartoonish look" of>the PMDG, sorry, I just don't seem to see that when I look at>my PMDG cockpit while flying the 737 just about every evening.>In fact, the PMDG 737 reminds me a lot of the $27,000,000 sim>I flew a few years ago. Great bargain , considering it cost>about $70. When you take screeshots of certain FS panels (freeware and payware) and blacken the outside view or paste these panels over a real world scenery photo, 99 % would think this was a real world panel.When you do this with the PMDG NG panels, one can straight away say, that this is only a computer animated panel and nothing from the real world. This is meant by cartoonish panel.Wolfgang

>You can quible about the term "best freeware"http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

Thank you for all your comments eventhough a good part of them are way OT. I will go with PMDG then.

Just hibernate the PC.Jos

>Just hibernate the PC.>>Jos

What the hell are you talking about?? It will a long time before the game looks like a photograph. We might be seeing some of it now, but it uses a large amount of system resources to get that effect. Not to mention, some here are thinking of the 600/700 panel, which looks nothing like the 800/900 panel after you upgrade. It's asinine that people bag on PMDG for their panel when the majority of add-ons out there are not photorealistic. Not one seems to complain about those panels.Why so many inferences into everyones posts on here anyhow? If rendered or photorealistic makes or breaks an add-on for you, then you're a very short-sighted individual.

>>>>>>>What the hell are you talking about?? It will a long time before the game looks like a photograph. We might be seeing some of it now, but it uses a large amount of system resources to get that effect. Not to mention, some here are thinking of the 600/700 panel, which looks nothing like the 800/900 panel after you upgrade. It's asinine that people bag on PMDG for their panel when the majority of add-ons out there are not photorealistic. Not one seems to complain about those panels.Why so many inferences into everyones posts on here anyhow? If rendered or photorealistic makes or breaks an add-on for you, then you're a very short-sighted individual.800/900 panel was a definite improvement over the 600/700, but its nowhere near the quality of the DF737 and the CS727 panels because its still not photorealistic. This of course doesn't take away from the hard work done by PMDG and I would always recommend them to anyone who want's to buy an addon. They're a great bunch of guys who do great work. I don't agree with their philosophy of hand drawn panels, but I don't let that keep me from enjoying the bird. My opinion (which I'm entitled to) is that given the choice between photorealism and hand-drawn, all other things being equal, I'd take the photorealistic panel every time.

Yes, and the upcoming ATR from Flight1 is highly photo-realistic and it has no bearing on the "resources".Also, I might add - there were around some very well done rendered panels. Take for example original FLY!2k panels. Outstanding work and highly pleasing visually. Finally it all boils down to quality of work and how much effort was put into - either photorealistic or rendered.Different strokes for different folks. The elusive "immersion" factor is usually a very intricate mixture of artwork and technical excellence.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2, Omega 2.7.90 (4xAA 16xAF)

Wolfgang,I have to agree with you, although I like the PMDG 737NG and have flow it, and tip my hat to its function, I also have to say that the look of the panel, which is what I would be looking at most of the time is NOT what I consider a panel bitmap of what I would see if I were in a real cockpit, or would expect of the price PMDG gets for its wares.I cannot fault how it flies, or how it functions, that is a given, but the panel and it's appearance, in my humble opinion sucks and they need to revamp it. In truth, I've seen freeware panels which look tons better. I have no ax to grind, and don't wish to be mean, however I just don't like the panel and that is what kept me from buying it.BestClaywww.dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/727/preview_home.html|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/Forum_Banners/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Hey clown, I meant resources for an entire sim, not just the panels, LOL. How is it I'm a know-it-all? Because I think limiting yourself to photorealistic panels is dumb. And what about all those VCs every loves so much? Real photorealistic :-roll Wanna know what's a crock? The attitude by the majority of the Internet users who feel compelled to chastise every single person who they think is stepping on their precious egos. A recap for those who don't get it:My first post was simply that photorealistic panels don't make or break an add-on for me. Then I get a smarta$$ reply about this which infers I'm for regression! ******* Christ, stop reading into my posts so GD much.My second reply to that above was to imply that the entire sim, NOT JUST THE PANELS, define resources and a panel alone shouldn't define whether an add-on is worthy of purchase or not. Then comes a sim bipolar who argues I'm preventing them from having an opinion by stating mine! How does that work in your world?

BTW, Michael, my post wasn't aimed at you. :)