>My concern would be that if it were someones first complex>airliner they might be overwhelmed. There is no reason they>can't start out with the PMDG 737 and then go to the 767. >>I remember flying the default 737 in the game and I had a>ball. Then moving up to all the systems on the PMDG was>daunting, not to mention trying to learn the FMC properly. I>know a lot of units are sold, but I wonder how many 737s and>767s sit in the back of the hard drive hanger simply because>the learning curve proved to be too steep and it takes a>pretty long time to just set up for a flight. I am aware of this. My only experience with airliners are the DF727.I am considering these alternatives because I wan't to try all kind of flying including complex airliners.Are there any difference in learning curve and how easy it is to learn the plane when you compare LDS767 and 737NG?

I have both and would recommend both ...... They both are very good ..With both you would two very good aircraft .. one to cover the short/Medium haul and on to cover the long haulVern

>> Forget either, take that money and go fly a cessna for a>little time ;-), in this way you avoid all this back and forth>bickering about who has the bigger airplane.>>>[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]Actually, save the money that you'd spend flying the 20 year old Cessna, and the money you're going to spend on a Game Boy and Grand Theft Auto (so you can look for the sex scenes), and buy the 737 and the 767. Then you can play with those for a little while, and save some more money, and buy the 744, after it's been shaken down for a while. :) Of course, you may need to get job....:(

>Are there any difference in learning curve and how easy it is>to learn the plane when you compare LDS767 and 737NG?Hard to answer. Both need time to get used to. But I lean towards the 767 being a little harder to learn.

You know I started my serious flight simming with PIC 767. No one can take away what PIC has achieved, they were the first to develope a desktop sim for flight simulator that pilots could actually practice on. Was PIC "perfect"? No, but even 10,00000 dollar motion sims could not claim that, in fact, nothing short of the real thing could ever claim "perfection". Wade and team have provided thousands of simmers a shimmer of reality from their living rooms. Is the PIC worth the price? It is worth much much more. I thank LDS for their time and effort, for pushing flight sim to a level never before seen. We all owe much to the PIC team, to them I tip my hat. PMDG, I believe, are developers in the heart of PIC. They too desire to develope very realistic sims for all us us to enjoy, following real AOMS etc. The 737, when first released was up against the best and had alot to live up too. At first it did not look to good, many were left questioning the status of what appeared to be an early release. After a few patches the PMDG 737 was flying very well. I know an airline pilot who even uses it to teach trainees the 737 systems. But is it perfect? No. Again there is nothing perfect for the personal computer but there are levels of simulation that surpass any price tag the average simmer might spend even if that price surpasses the sim platform. I truely believe that we simmers should unite under a common flag, this flag being our support of developers who strive to produce the very best of their abilities whether freeware or payware. As an example, I am constantly amazed at Flight 1/Dreamfleet's offerings. I sit in front of my computer and say WOW, this is amazing! I have purchased almost every single aircraft from them. Why? Because they fill a desire of mine and should be compensated to continue their work. When I am flying over the neat Alaska Scenery in one of their planes I feel a sense of gratitude not easily expressed on a forum. I know in my current circumstances that I will not pilot any of these wonderful aircraft, yet, developers like them have provided me with a joy known to many of you, a joy money cannot touch. So in closing I would like to express mt gratitude to all developers everywhere who work trieless hours providing me with a glimpse of reality on a personal computer. Your work is the building block for generation to come, making dreams come true for folks like me. THANK ALL OF YOU [h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]

Most people on here so far have said the PMDG, I'm going to be slightly contrarian and vote for the LDS 767. The PMDG 737NG is a wonderful product, I bought it recently and enjoy it. But the LDS 767 is a little easier on the framerates (at least on my not-very-powerful system), incredibly realistic, very polished, and just overall the pinnacle of jet sims...but please note that I haven't tried the PMDG 747-400 yet. :) I also don't think you can get the entire PMDG NG series (600/700 + 800/900) for less than the LDS 767-300. The entire downloaded NG series is about US$65, unless they've changed it in the month or so since I bought mine, in which case, that just shows you what sort of luck I have!The one area in which the PMDG might be better is in hand-flying the plane. Both planes have fantastic FDEs, and good systems modeling, but since the 737 is so much smaller than the 767, it's a little easier to handle. I think the LDS has the edge on systems modeling, and I chalk that up to being FS2004-only, and also just because it's newer. The LDS documentation is just about the best I've ever seen, it tops the PMDG docs and that's saying something because the PMDG docs are also quite good.I don't think you can go wrong with either one.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

>I have both and would recommend both ...... They both are>very good ..>With both you would two very good aircraft .. one to cover the>short/Medium haul and on to cover the long haul>I suppose both could be done for short/medium haul? Or is the 767only used for long haul in real world?My impression have been that these planes (real world) are very similar or am I mistaken here?

>also don't think you can get the entire PMDG NG series>(600/700 + 800/900) for less than the LDS 767-300. The entire>downloaded NG series is about US$65, unless they've changed it>If I go for PMDG I will get the boxed version of 800/900 whichI have seen for sale for

Gary,how would you know about being a valued LDS customer - you publicly stated that you were refusing to buy it, because you have issues with Eric Ernst and in particular who he works for. Therefore it is extremely disengenious of you to go around on public forums slating 1 company while butt kissing another because you have personal issues with 1 company.

Especially if you're a disgruntled former TWA pilot that's made such a nuisance of yourself that you're now essentially persona non grata on the LDS forum. Eric Ernst, one of the driving forces behind the PIC 767 on which the LDS 767 is based, is an American Airlines pilot (they bought TWA), and Gary took his AA vs TWA takeover grievances to the LDS forums, where nobody really wanted to hear it...especially since Eric isn't part of the LDS development team. So many there treated Gary badly when he didn't take the hint.Back to topic...they're both very good. So my advice, is that if you an only buy one, look at the kind of flying you do. The 767 is a long-haul bird...best suited to long legs and big airports. If a VC is important it's also the more advanced of the two. The 737 is more suited to short to medium domestic trips, but can fly a 5+ hour leg if needed. The LDS gives you round dials versus the 737NG's integrated glass displays. The AIRAC nav data is more complete in the PMDG birds...SID/STAR data is sparse and harder to manage in the LDS.Gary...whaddya say you climb down off that cross you're on, use the wood to build a bridge, and get OVER it?RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago, Chile

Gary Hawk wrote:>".......Hands down PMDG. Just hang around the PMDG forums for a>while and look at how great PMDG treats their valued customers>vs. Level D. Your money will be much better spent with PMDG>products........."This is absolute twaddle. Just don't mislead people please. The LDS forums just about equal PMDG in terms of support. I know nothing of the 'office poilitics' that someone above alluded to (AA v TWA). I'm simply an average addon customer who has purchased both PMDG and LDS. Both products are second to none and both support forums are fantastic too!

I know of 767-300s being used from London Heathrow to Seattle (circa 12 hours) and London Heathrow to Paris Charles de Gaulle (circa 1 hour). They are a very versatile aircraft, as is proved by their popularity.That said, I personally would go for the B737. No real reason why, just personal preference (Ihave both PMDG 737 packages and LDS767).Cheers,Ian P.

The 767 is also used on Toronto - Montreal flights and Atlanta - Miami flight... so no the plane in the real world also does shorter routes for many airlines..I am actually tracking DAL1462 JAX to ATL... with the B767-300I have both the 737ng and the 767... Both products are well worth the money.Dennis Di Franco

I have both, you won't be disappointed with either.I think the ability to save & resume flights is a big plus for the Level-D 767.The issue of the 737 having a virtual cabin is irrelevant to me - I don't use it anyway. But be aware that if you do value this feature, you will have to buy FS Camera additionally in order to see it - think that's right isn't it?I think your deciding factor should be, what airlines are you interested in and type of flights do you want to do, short haul or medium/long haul? Think about that first, do the airlines you are interested in use 737's or 767's?Here in the UK, the low cost airlines (Ryanair, EasyJet etc)use 737NG's but not the premium carriers (BA, BMI). Most of the charter airlines are on Airbus A320 series too.However, BA and the charters use 767's on some short-haul and quite a few medium haul flights.So the Level-D 767 (with the ability to save and resume flights en-route) is presently more interesting to me.It maybe true that the 767 is more complex if you want to go the whole-hog, but in terms of getting into into the air and doing a 80% realistic flight, I don't think there is much difference in the learning curve you have to follow.

>I think the ability to save & resume flights is a big plus for>the Level-D 767.>I really agree here.>The issue of the 737 having a virtual cabin is irrelevant to>me - I don't use it anyway. But be aware that if you do valueThe same apply for me but I do already have Active Camera.>I think your deciding factor should be, what airlines are you>interested in and type of flights do you want to do, short>haul or medium/long haul? Think about that first, do the>airlines you are interested in use 737's or 767's?>When it comes to what type of flight then definitely short medium long haul. I havn't been thinking about airliners at all.