Don't forget that the PMDG 747 is soon to be landing at a virtual airport near you. Might be worth hanging on to see what everyone says about that. It could be the best thing since sliced bread, although personally I'm getting tired of Boeings. I wish they'd do a proper...no, I won't say it.RegardsIan

>Don't forget that the PMDG 747 is soon to be landing at a>virtual airport near you. Might be worth hanging on to see>what everyone says about that. It could be the best thing>since sliced bread, although personally I'm getting tired of>Boeings. I wish they'd do a proper...no, I won't say it.>>Regards>Ian>O dear... I had a look at the screenshots, and I have to say... it looks awesome... (the PMDG 747). The VC shots are really incredible... Darn, that means I have to wait again... I guess... I think... Pity they don't know when it will be released. And pity no one know how for instance the fps will be. But it all sure looks VERY promising! Man, this is DIFFICULT!!! What to do...?

Level-D 767 deffinately worth every penny! :D The 767 and the PMDG 737's are completely different aircraft, with different uses. For long haul flights the 767 is the way to go. For domestic short haul, the 737. Both high quality addons, both very worthy of tons of praise... I have them both and don't regret one minute of time I have spent in them. :DKev

I just got the LDS 767. It's great for a glass cockpit AC. For something different, you might look at the DF 727. That 2D cockpit will really give you a workout. I can't believe how simple the LDS 767 is by comparison.There seems to have been a lot of complaining about the FMS database (esp SIDs and STARs) for the LDS 767 when it first came out, but I think that has pretty much been taken care of now. I d/led someone's 30 meg sid/star database, and assume that it is pretty comprehensive.scott s..

Wade and his team did a fantastic job with the original "767 PIC". It was the add on for flight sim back in its day but it aged as FS got updated - i sort of forgot about it when FS2004 was released. Everyone had to make that transition, new add ons came out etc but the 767 just faded away :( No more of those summer transatlantic crossings.Then Level-d appeared :D Their 767 blows anything to date out of the water and I can see it staying that way (for a while anyway) I feel a bit sorry for other developers because a lot of people are going to compare future developments to the level-d '67I know I am anyway.Pyjamas

Thats just preferring one over the other.. lol.. :)Depends on your preferrance though. Quality wise, they are both the same, maybe the pmdg is a tad higher, and both are very realistic. I like the NG's though. :)

>For long haul flights the 767 is the way to>go. For domestic short haul, the 737. BWhy is that...? I mean, you can fly short flights with a 767, can't you? It doesn't HAVE to be a transatlantic flight of 8 hours, right? I guess IRL it would be a waste to use the 767 for short hops (?), but in FS it's not a problem. Does anyone here use the 767 for short flights or only for realistic long flights? The fact that you can save a flight in mid-air helps a lot, of course. (Don't know if the PMDG 747 will have that option too). I don't really like 8 hour flights above the water... but I DO like the detail of the 767, so...

Of course you can use the 767 on short haul/high density sectors, within Europe for instance KLM regularly use the 767 on the Amsterdam/LHR route, especially early in the morning and BA use the 767 on the LHR-Nice route among others.A couple of years ago I flew on a BA 747 from Amsterdam to Gatwick. An ATC breakdown at Swanwick on a Friday resulted in all BA flights being cancelled during the day. At 9pm all the flights were combined onto a 747-400 and we all made it to Gatwick, thereby faring better that the easyjet pax, many of whom were still trying to get out of Amsterdam when I got back on Monday morning having had a great weekend!CheersTimhttp://members.chello.nl/t.westnutt/realair.gif

Not only is the Level D 767 a more finely polished product IMO, but I also find the 767 easier to configure and fly than the 737NG. In particular, I love the simplicity of power up and engine start, how the FMC autotunes the ILS (OK, so I'm lazy but I can't believe that the newer 737NG automates just about everything else BUT ILS autotune!), how it is much more forgiving with VNAV descents and how slow down and flap deployment on final approach involves much less trim jiggery pokery.Gary

Hi Gary,Just to correct a small misconception. The real 767 does not autotune the ILS, and there's also an option in the preferences to uncheck that option. In the real 767 you have to tune the ILS in the pedestal manually everytime, just like in the Level-D if you have the "FMC tunes ILS" option unchecked.The team chose to leave that option for users who were accustomed to old PIC767s way of doing that. But now since LDS767 models the FULL EFIS of that aircraft, including separate NAV1, NAV2 and ILS receivers, we no longer "need" such simplifications, if we don't specifically want to have it "the easy way" :).Tero

Didn't know that Tero, thanks. Either way, I like it :-lol Gary

>Just to correct a small misconception. The real 767 does not>autotune the ILS, and there's also an option in the>preferences to uncheck that option. In the real 767 you have>to tune the ILS in the pedestal manually everytime, just like>in the Level-D if you have the "FMC tunes ILS" option>unchecked.Interesting! Very interesting! I'm about to buy the Level-D 767, so I'd like to know already: what are the most realistic sttings? If I can install and set the plane up in the most realistic way, I can start learning the plane the right way right away, without getting used to bad (unrealistic) habits...

I can take a screenshot later of the "most realistic settings", and post it here... Tero

>I can take a screenshot later of the "most realistic>settings", and post it here... >>TeroGreat! I'm planning to install the 767 this evening (which is within a few hours over here), so... I'm looking forward to it! I also wonder if you all have the First Officer active or not (for flaps, gear, etc.)

>>For long haul flights the 767 is the way to>>go. For domestic short haul, the 737. B>>Why is that...? I mean, you can fly short flights with a 767,>can't you? It doesn't HAVE to be a transatlantic flight of 8>hours, right?Of course it doesn't have to be trans-atlantic flights in the 767. But from a realistic point of view (and the way I like to fly), it is not very cost effective to run a half empty 767 from Phoenix to San Fransico over a fully loaded 737. :DOther than that, it is FS, you guys and gals can do what you want. Take your 767 from Seattle to Portland, fine with me. :DKev