I purchased TSS soundpacks for the 767 and my ATR72.  I bet they are as good or even better.  Have your choice of three different engines...P&W, GE, and Rolls.

 

My point, which I haven't stressed is this.  I have tweaked the 767 to the max.  Why should I bother spending $90 for a T7 when I fail to see the value in simply adding another long range Boeing to my fleet.

 

Appreciate all the feedback.  Sticking with my 767.  Graphics is not a game changer, nor compression as I fly on Vatsim and my VA does not allow.

 

For me the sim is about navigation, and learning procedures pure and simple whether VFR in the J41 or IFR in the 767.  Flight dymanics...really...in a sim...I bet most folks engage the autopilot 1000AGL.

 

Flight dynamics mean a lot. I enjoy to manually fly approaches, and do the 10K climb completely manual. I don't really like the autothrottle that much, and I usually turn it off when I'm on short final. This is why I've been flying my 777 so much, along with my 747. You can literally feel the weight!

 

Just to say, you're missing out a lot by not getting the PMDG 777. It's just such an impressive plane.

This thread reminds me of when I worked for Ford and the new 6.2 engine came out and a former coworker  was trying to convince me his 2001 F-350 with the 260 HP 5.4 and old 4 speed automatic was better for towing his boat then the new F-350 with the 400 HP 6.2 and modern 6 speed trans..     

 

 

In the end no matter what anybody told him he convinced himself that his current truck was vastly superior to anything on the planet. The argument got so out of control at one point he was saying the 5.4 really had 400 plus HP and that they lied on the power rating....    :lol:    Keep in mind both of us worked on these things for a living..

 

 

The level d had it's day in the sun....   That day passed long ago...  

I purchased TSS soundpacks for the 767 and my ATR72.  I bet they are as good or even better.  Have your choice of three different engines...P&W, GE, and Rolls.

 

The sound on the 777 is exceptional, with a lot of sound packs I can usually pick up sample loops or joins but with the 777 it doesn't happen as the guys doing the sound are playing multiple samples at random and the joins are spot on. Sound really makes for immersion for me and as I use VATSIM with headphones I usually buy add on sound to get that added oomph.

 

 

PMDG made this bird 20X more complex than we will ever need

 

AFAIK that is because their PRIMARY market is hoped to be commercial.

Well...This topic escalated quickly. Let me leave it on this note. If you like it...Buy it...If you don't...Well...Don't...Seems too simple to me.

The Level D 767 to me is still one of my all-time favourites as well...even if the vc isn't up to "today's standards" (whatever that's supposed to mean...) she's still an all around excellent addon for both fs9 and x.

 

 

But i guess some need the screw heads to be in 3d before they'll ever acknowledge an addon as good it seems...

The VC is part of the immersive experience along with sound, systems, FDE etc.

 

Even so would still get it apart from the fact it won't run in Windows 8, so until the update appears will not be viable for me as an add on.

 

BTE to the OP if you wanted to move away from the mangenta line then the Coolsky DC9 or A2A B337 might fit the bill, both in depth simulations that don't have an FMC etc The 377 has an autopilot that can do pitch, bank and alt hold and that's it.

B.S comment of the week. More like pmdg finally got close to what the Level-D guys did many years ago.

 

Yes the VC is slightly dated, but she's a joy to fly short or long haul. Even with all the wiz bang add-ons available, I still enjoy flying it as much or more then the others.

 

You can call it BS if you want but it's the truth.  Slight dated VC is the understatement of the week. The plane is seriously dated 

 

I am not sure how PMDG just finally got close to level-d when the MD-11, NGX and 777 all surpass  the level-d in systems simulation and modeling.  same can be said for other company add-on's as well..   the majestic q400, FSlabs concorde, leonardo maddog  I can go on.  I own the Level-d and flew it for years and loved it but I have since moved on as add-on tech has advanced, just like how I am not simming with the same PC I was using in 2006....   When the level-d 757 comes out ( Hopefully) I am confident that it will be right up with the top add-on's today, but I am not going to pretend that other developers are still playing catch up with a 10 year old add-on when they far surpassed it, to do so would be a insult to the developers of the add-on's of this decade.

The Level D 767 to me is still one of my all-time favourites as well...even if the vc isn't up to "today's standards" (whatever that's supposed to mean...) she's still an all around excellent addon for both fs9 and x.

 

 

But i guess some need the screw heads to be in 3d before they'll ever acknowledge an addon as good it seems...

 

The Level D was beyond good for it's time it was the best add-on for FS..   but that time was a long time ago......   

 

It's not that I need the screws modeled in 3d but visuals and sound are part of the simming experience, plus the depth of the systems has been surpassed by other add-ons. I own the level-d and loved it at one point in time but I have a limited amount of time to sim and I want to spend it flying the most up to date deeply simulated add-on's I own.  I don't want to fly in 2d with systems simulation that was great in 2005 but not up to today's standards.  

Yes I agree It harks back from 2005, but seeing how many persons here and elsewhere label a perfectly servicable addon as simply "old hat", "unflyable" or "outdated" just because some of the buttons in the cockpit do not protrude to me is a bit unreasonable. It's right up there in outright systems depth with the other addons mentioned a couple posts earlier, just not as pretty.

 

 

For me I use my simming time mostly as a hobby, but also I keep sharp on my instrument scan and flows. FSX's vc field of view is limited in that regard as in real life I'm not tilting my head to view different panels...I'm simply moving my eyes - hence 2D panels being important [for me] as they present the gauges normally present in my field of view forward, up, down, etc...thus I'm able to keep flow and scan techniques. In the VC i have to be panning around and/or zooming out (to see a typical forward view) or zooming in (to read labells) - In a real cockpit I have my primary instruments, engine Instruments and radios in my forward field of vision, In FSX at default zoom that's not the case. I'm not hitting VC's or anything as im perfectly at home in both 2D/VC.

 

In short, whether the VC differentiates if a panel screw is a phillips, flathead or allen, or if it has a vc at all, is not a game changer for me. What matters is how accurately the aircraft FDM itself, systems (including instruments), panel layout, model, and sounds (i.e. reasonable accuracy) are protrayed.

Honestly, what I dislike the most about the 763 is the PFD and how little info it provides relative to the 744 or 762 PFD.  But, too, the flat overhead panel is hideous to behold.

It's not just the VC it's the deep physics modelling similar to A2A where the behaviour becomes emergent. 

In short, whether the VC differentiates if a panel screw is a phillips, flathead or allen, or if it has a vc at all, is not a game changer for me. What matters is how accurately the aircraft FDM itself, systems (including instruments), panel layout, model, and sounds (i.e. reasonable accuracy) are protrayed.

 

I never felt that 2D panels were like real flight. I experimented with sub par 3Ds back with FS98, just to improve the illusion that I was flying. To me, 2D only works (well) for IMC practice. There is no look of peripheral vision, the panel covers too much of what you'd see out the wind screen, and you miss out on other sensations that can be created with outside visuals. I want my mind to have enough information, that it can fill in some gaps between real flight, and virtual flight. 2Ds just never came close to a 3D perspective.

 

FWIW--- I do find IFR work, to be rather boring. Almost 20 years ago, I paid for all of those instrument flight lessons, just to toss the "foggles" and enjoy all of the mountain and desert scenery that surrounds me, in the Mountain West. Panaramic scenery is the reason I wanted to fly. Not... seeing the runway threshold, at the end of hours of multiple gray shades. Therefor, my 2D thoughts, may be a bit skewed, as compared to others.

 

 

Nice comment. Hard to feel the full immersion as well when just to the right of vision is a window where I can see the dog playing on the lawn.

 

Simple answer, get both and enjoy both.

 

....haha or when there are two toddlers next to me singing and dancing while watching Bubble Guppies.

 

I agree, get both!

Anyone else think/suspect LDS are "secretly" working on a new 763 along the 752?