If you can afford get both. They are both top notch products, but if you ask me to get off the fence I'll have to jump down on the side of LDS 767. It's jawdropping quality .......makes your......er, jaw drop!:)

Is there an option for installing non-vc mdl?I have P4 3.2Ghz FSB800Mhz 1GbRAM GF6800Ultr pc, many input devices such as GoFligth, CHCombo and TIR4. Will it run with VC in complex payware airports, like MegaFrankfurt? Or with these specs it's better to choose installation of non-VC model?Thanks.

After install the included setup utility allows you to choose vc, non vc or vc with wing views and window refections, plus payload etc etc.My graphica card has less umph than yours and I always use vc with reflections, and remember new gen airports like mega Frankfurt are actually LESS fps hungry.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/markrey/lsd2.jpghttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

Thank you very much, Mark, for you answer. Sounds too good to be true on the gfx though.

While there are excellent replies regarding model details and FS performance I do not see anything suggesting you determine the type of routes you intend to cover. The 737s are short to medium haul and the 763s are long haul.For a brief classification go to www.airliners.net and click on the aircraft info tab. This will bring up an index that shows the intended application of aircraft.737s are used by many LCCs such as Southwest and now exclusively by Sun Country. One of the Hawaiin carriers flies US west coast to Honolulu with one so the "medium" limitation description might be misinterpreted.On the other side 753s and 763s might be used for medium hauls.Go to the web sites of your fav airlines. Look at their schedules, route maps, and fleet, and see which fits your requirements.Another way to look at airline usage is to got to www.flightaware.com and enter the IACO code of your airport of choice. In the arrival, departure, and enroute tables click on a selected flight and a second window will open showing the flight plan and aircraft detail.As another person replied, why not get both over time. Boeing FMCs are similar among variants. I have both PMDG 737NG suites (on CD packaged by Aerosoft) since I concentrate on short to medium haul flights in the US and for now Europe.

Thank you very much once again,I think the cream on the cake is going to be FS2CREW soon to be released for the LDS.Cheers,Dom

The LDS 767 and PMDG 737 are both supreb additions to FS9. If you include their 747, you probably have the best add ons for Flight sim to date.If I had to choose one though, it would definitely be the 767. Pyjamas

I flew nothing but the PMDG 737 until the LDS 767 came out, then it was the 767 all the way.However, I'm afraid FSCrew is now my deciding issue, since I got FsCrew for the 737, I haven't touched the 767.However, with FSCrew for the 767 due out soon (I hope), guess what I'll be flying then!The LDS 767 has a small edge (and I stress small) edge on the PMDG 737, but it's in all departments, performance, complexity, the lot.It's a shame PMDG have decided to stop developing the 737 in favour of selling new products like the 744, but that's their choice.

>I own both and flew the 737 alot prior to buying the LevelD>767. Haven't flown the 737 since. I find the 767, more>realistic, and much better to hand fly and better on frame>rates and more stable in FS9. I used to have intermittant>CTD's , and haven't had one since I switched to the 767.>Agreed in every respect!

The most important thing in this discussion is what sort of flying you do. The PMDG 737NG, the LDS767 (and the Flight1 ATR 72-500) are the most fully-developed simulations for FS, IMHO. I really can't compare them in terms of quality, because they're all at the top, and each has minor strengths and weaknesses that make it an apples-to-oranges kind of thing.But if flying 1-4 hour legs is your thing, the 737 is better suited. For 4-10 hour long-haul the 767 is in its element. And the ATR is great for 30-120 min legs.Also, the 767 is a "transition era" plane that doesn't have fully-integrated glass...it's a mix of round dials and EFIS. That may be important for some folks.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile