>Generally speaking it's kind of interesting to note that>whenever PSS is mentioned, PMDG and LDS are never too far away>sentence-wise. It's really sort of a back handed compliment,>as if the level of complexity that PSS does bring is so much>higher than average it makes one expect them to go further to>get them to the highest 'level'.>>As a matter of fact, it is superior to the 767 in terms of VC>funtionaliry and simple ease of use, and superior to both 767>and 744 in terms of ease of fuel loading and of course>integrated wx radar. Now patched, Rob Young's fdes make them a>dream to fly as well.>>I'm not daft - of course I see the differences, and wish the>general gap were closed too, but for me and others, I guess we>are the 'hardcore lite' who never use failures etc, the 777 is>really not a 'step down' for normal ops.>>regards,>Mark>http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpg>XPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256I haven't used the 777 but I have 175 hours of flying the Level-D 767 and a hand full of PMDG 747 time. I can do everything in the 767 VC than I can do in 2D except set the airspeed bugs and set the transponder code which I am told works if you use the lower res VC. I know you can't use the FMC in the panel but there is a button right there on the VC panel to pull it up. Frankly the one you can use in the 747 is a little small to read for me. There are buttons or click spots to pull up all the 2D panles except the stanby instruments and FO instruments, both of which you can already see. I don't know how much more functional you want to get. As far as 767 fuel loading goes it seems to be the same as any other planes I have except the 747 which could not be more simple. All you do for the 747 is set the total fuel and it takes care of the rest. Actually I wish they all would do that. Out of curiosity how does the 777 fuel loading work?My only thing is that PSS seems to get so close to the top and they just stop. They are almost there and it seems like after all the effort to get there it wouldn't be much more to make an equal product. Also unless I am missing something it seems a lot more cost effective to buy the boxed version for $45-$50. It comes with 3 planes and 19 liveries which if I have done my math right would cost over $300 from the PSS site. All that being said the 777 will likely make it into my fleet.

Hi Tom,VC functionality meaning I find clickspots a bit tiny for some buttons, I cannot change mcp values without clicking the actual numbers rather than their corresponding dials - those two are my main 'gripes' with this fantastic bird :) - on my wishlist would be the fully 3d overhead and a working 3d fmc.The 777 uses an innovative (and really cool) in-sim setup panel for fuel loading and other options - even the truly great 744 requires menu selection to apply the preloaded fuel quantity. Hey - it's a nice touch :)AFAIC the 744 has the overall best vc. while the 767 with it's clicking/dimming during power source changes has the best overall ambiance - enjoy them both tremendously.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

AMEN! We should all be so happy with what options we have.

BrianThe person "behind my aircraft" flies all of them to their full potential and gets maximum enjoyment out of all of them.Try to lighten up and not take things so seriously.Max.

Very interesting discussion, guys!! :-hahSomething else that I thought of regarding the 777 series in MSFS, is that ever since the days of FS98, we haven't seen a highly detailed freeware 777 panel which is developed at the same standard of Lonny Payne's 757 panel, Bill Grabowski's ERJ-145 panel, Simon Topmann's A300-600 panel and Eric Marciano's A320 and A330 panels. I'm not saying that a highly detailed freeware 777 panel should be at the same level of complexity of the iFly team's 747-400, I'm just saying that it should be at the same standard of the freeware authors whom I just mentioned before the iFly team.What I meant by mentioning the days of FS98 is Kentaro Kaneko's 777 panel for FS98. For those of you who don't remember this fantastic panel, check out these old articles from Avsim:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0199/blue_ribbon/panels98.htmhttp://www.avsim.com/pages/1298/bz_feature/panels.htmRegards,

OK, rather than spread replies out, I'd rather consolidate them into one post, lest points be lost in the shuffle.Mark Rey:"Generally speaking it's kind of interesting to note that whenever PSS is mentioned, PMDG and LDS are never too far away sentence-wise."How is this interesting or even surprising/unexpected ?"It's really sort of a back handed compliment, as if the level of complexity that PSS does bring is so much higher than average it makes one expect them to go further to get them to the highest 'level'."Huh ? It has nothing to do with it being so much higher than anything, it has everything to do with the expectations, realistic or not, not being met across the board. Ya know what, I was gonna continue to quote you, but I want you to understand something first:I am not trying to begrudge you, or anyone else, your enjoyment of the product. I'm glad you enjoy it, and am certainly not trying to convince otherwise, as if I could anyway.I obviously do not feel the same way you do. I've said before, that maybe it's my expectations that are out of line, and that very well may be the case. My feelings also go a bit further towards the attitudes of each respective developer, but that is much more abstract a comparison, I guess.At any rate the result is the same; the bar has been raised high enough now, that a product that doesn't even make the effort to hit those marks, will not be acceptable, for a good number of us.It could be argued that PSS never made claims that they were shooting for the top, and this would be entirely true. However, I think they had a large role in inflating expectations pre-release, from what I've observed, and it's not surprising at all, to me, that many are disappointed.I don't think anyone expects perfection, even if we do ask for it. All I can say for myself, is that my money won't be spent with companies that don't, at the very least, try.

You are right about weather radar, but both my Level D and PMDG 747 get better FPS, must be system dependent. Don't get me wrong, I get very flyable frames 20 fps or so, but better in the PMDG 744 (22-24) and Level D (28 -30). These values are from the virtual cockpit.

>I like them all... :-hah >>I'm with you Dillon! I can't decide what one to fly I like them all so much.I fly the LD 767 more than all only due to the fact it does both short and long haul.I love all my planes (PMDG 737 series, Wilco 737 PIC, LD 767 PSS 777), each one for it's own reason.

Brian,Apologies if I seemed sarcastic - I can see how it may have sounded that way - not my intention at all. Really were general objective observations not aimed in any direction.Take care and see you at the LDS757 release party :-wave...you don't happen to know when that is do you??regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/mar.../sup_banner.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

Hello Brian:I apologize for pressing your buttons.I didn't even begin to bring the calculator out for proof of any point, and I am sure you are correct in your math even though I fear you are missing my point. Your case is well taken.I concede I did not buy the multipack for the PSS 777, but for me personally, that was not considered as necessary.I don't remember when I Purchased the Airbus 340 as my first PSS purchase (and no, I am not going to go back and search to find out, nor the price.)If I am not mistaken and I confess there could be an error soemwhere, but I don't think so, I bought the PSS package including the Airbus A319, 320, and 321 (all included in a single package), the PSS Concorde, and the PSS Dash 8 for $12.00 each. (Seems like there was another, but I can't determine what it was at the moment). Repaints were $5.00 per shot if I remember correctly, and even at that price, I somewhat share your view. I don't like priced and restricted repaints and I sincerely hope PSS changes their policy concerning this issue.Granted, when the PSS 777 came out I bought the Freighter, and the 300ER, both of which negate me as an authority on anything. Immediately after my purchase, the option I passed on set the distant record and is the prime repaint option. I probably still will purchase it at some future point even though you apparently feel it is overpriced.You said: "I understand US pricing may not factor for much of the community, but it does for me." If I understand what you are saying, "PRICING" certainly does to me as well, and I also am in the USA.What I try to do is budget so much per month relative to future itemspurchased for MSFS. For the high dollar items, obviously a month, or possibly a few months must be bypassed in order for the sum to equal the applicable price for a desired item.When the PSS 777 became available, I purchased what I purchased (No, not the multipack) at the special price offered at the time. It fell within the envelope (of my budget, and no I don't remember the particulars). Unfortunately it took a bit of saving and (monthly bypassing) to get the PMDG package, which was the only way all of the bells and whistles were offered. I found myself continually bumping the PMDG package for what I could get at a lesser price elsewhere, and inspite of granted, the PMDG package being superior in quality, it had to be put off for another month or two (or three). At least some portion of the PSS 777 offering especially with the introductory offering did not have that limitation.Finally, let me make sure nobody including you misunderstands! I do not mean to imply any negative tint in any way relative to PMDG (One of the benchmarks and finest)or any other contributor to our FS enjoyment. A few dollars more, quite a bit of quality more!I personally feel (And you or nobody else has to agree)that there are many offerings relative to what is included in their distribution and price that are worthy of our consideration. PSS, including their 777 is one of them (IMHO).Respectfully and Happy Flying:RTH1585368CFI

Not exactly but i am positive it will be the biggest party of all the 757 parties.

I just wish PSS made a 777-200ER

I'm anxiously awaiting the PMDG MD-11, but besides that, I'm burned out on long haulers. You have the wonderful PMDG 747 and the Level-D 767, and they're also making the MD-11 and 757 respectively for FS9. At the same time, you have other companies with long haulers already out or coming out. I think it's time for something completely different. Basically, I just can't get near as excited about long trips on a computer.Now don't get me wrong. I love the PMDG 747 and really want the MD-11 the most. I also like the LDS 767 and really want the 757. I just think after that, the companies need to focus on FSX and what they plan to develop there. The news about the PMDG A320 is cool, regardless of the fact I'm not an Airbus fan, but at least I'll have something to fly all those virtual routes with for airlines that use those.

"I think it's time for something completely different."I VERY MUCH beg to differ. ;)Dude, can't you realise how much 737 releases we've had lately? PMDG, Ariane, Feelthere, 50 North, POSKY, Kittyhawk, Mike Stone, and all the rest of the 737 authors....As for A320s, the A320 is exactly in the same position as the 777 in the MSFS world: No high-fidelity add-on for this jet has ever been released, in other words, we've never seen a PMDG or Level-D quality A320, and thankfully PMDG is going to change that. There are also the Mike Stone, iFDG freeware A320 models, as well as an upcoming all-new A320 model from Project Airbus. We also have great freeware panels for the A320 from Eric Marciano and Ken Mitchell, as well as the famed PSS A320 panel.Turboprops? Where do I start.... We have the Eurowings ATR from Aerosoft, the Flight1 ATR, the Majestic Software (Fanda) Dash-8, the PSS Dash-8, the Aeroworx B-200, and so on.... While from the freeware aurhors, we have the Premier Aircraft Dash-8, etc....Regional Jets!! Let's see.... We got the Feelthere ERJ-145, the Feelthere CRJ, the Eurowings BAE-146, and Feelthere is also coming up with an all-new Embraer Legacy (corporate version of the ERJ-135), while the author of Aerosoft's Diamond Katana is coming up with an all-new CRJ for FS2004. Let's not forget the freeware Dreamwings ERJs, Premier Aircraft CRJs and Jon Murchison's BAE-146.So you see, my friend, I fail to see how we need "something completely different" when we don't have a high fidelity 777 for FS2004 while we have all the above mentioned variety of smaller aircraft, and even more important is the fact that a lot of people have always wanted a high fidelity 777 for the MSFS series, including me.At the same time, we've never seen a high quality 777 panel from the freeware authors, in other words, we've never seen a freeware 777 panel that's been developed to the same standard of Lonny Payne's, Bill Grabowski's, Simon Topmann's and Eric Marciano's amazing freeware panels.Of course, this is all my personal opinion!! :-hah ;)Regards,

">Dude, can't you realise how much 737 releases we've had>lately? PMDG, Ariane, Feelthere, 50 North, POSKY, Kittyhawk,>Mike Stone, and all the rest of the 737 authors...."I see a lot of people wanting a PMDG/Level-D/Flight One/Dreamfleet 737-200, including myself! You're OP was in regards to those standards, as you even stated how the PSS 777 isn't up to the level of detail as those companies I mentioned above. You mention freeware developers, and as much as they do excellent work, especially for models, the fact is, they aren't payware quality. No overhead, no FMC, no serious bells and whistles as you're wanting in a 777. That's my point about the short to medium range aircraft.">Turboprops? Where do I start.... We have the Eurowings ATR>from Aerosoft, the Flight1 ATR, the Majestic Software (Fanda)>Dash-8, the PSS Dash-8, the Aeroworx B-200, and so on....>While from the freeware aurhors, we have the Premier Aircraft>Dash-8, etc...."Yes and no. Personally, I feel the Flight One ATR is the best turboprop I've ever had in the sim, and it's one of my overall favorites for the fact it's so complete. The look, feel, and amount of work to represent the ATR 72-500 sets it apart from a lot of others. I also enjoy the Aeroworx B200. It has a great FDE that takes some practice and looks amazing inside and out. I don't have the Eurowings ATR or MS Dash-8. Looking at the Dash-8 from MS, I think the panel is less than stellar and it's a bit pricey, but I'm only going by looks. The PSS Dash-8 is an old product and doesn't have very many features. If I were to say the turboprops used in commercial travel were neglected, I'd be wrong, and for the most part, I'm happy with what's out there in this category, even for most GA.">Regional Jets!! Let's see.... We got the Feelthere ERJ-145,>the Feelthere CRJ, the Eurowings BAE-146, and Feelthere is>also coming up with an all-new Embraer Legacy (corporate>version of the ERJ-135), while the author of Aerosoft's>Diamond Katana is coming up with an all-new CRJ for FS2004.>Let's not forget the freeware Dreamwings ERJs, Premier>Aircraft CRJs and Jon Murchison's BAE-146."This is where I disagree completely. FeelThere products all seem to be resource hogs, and don't perform near as well as they should. As you mentioned, we're talking PMDG/LDS/F1/DF quality, and FeelThere/Wilco isn't it. The 737PIC for example is something I was very disappointed with, even after all the patches. So, I have to say, we don't have any top-notch regional jets.">You see, my friend, I fail to see how we need "something>completely different" when we don't have a high fidelity 777>for FS2004 while we have all the above mentioned variety of>smaller aircraft, and even more important is the fact that a>lot of people have always wanted a high fidelity 777 for the>MSFS series, including me.>>At the same time, we've never seen a high quality 777 panel>from the freeware authors, in other words, we've never seen a>freeware 777 panel that's been developed to the same standard>of Lonny Payne's, Bill Grabowski's, Simon Topmann's and Eric>Marciano's amazing freeware panels."Just to reiterate my earlier post, I agree the 777 hasn't been developed to the standards of those four companies I belief make the best jet aircraft, excluding those who don't develop large airliners, obviously. At this juncture though, we are not likely going to get much more for FS9. FSX is right around the corner and besides the PMDG MD-11, LDS 757, and perhaps a couple others (DC-8 DF/F1?), airliners will now be developed for FSX. That's why I say long haulers really took over during the last cycle for FS9, because PMDG 744, LDS 767, and the upcoming MD-11 and 757 will round out a total of four awesome quality packages designed for similar distances. The MD-11 is actually my personal favorite and something I really wanted from the very beginning after the 737NG was released from PMDG. I never really liked the 747 or 767, but the quality of PMDG told me the 747 would be a great addition to the hanger, and I had owned the 767PIC for FS2002, so therefore I knew I still wanted it for FS9.">Of course, this is all my personal opinion!! :-hah ;)"Well, that's the idea of a discussion forum. :) For me honestly, I'm burned out on long haulers dominating the top quality market. I really want the two yet to come out, but I can count on two hands how many times I've flown the PMDG 744 and LDS 767. I have a hard time with going a long way. I want the excitement of take-off and landing. If I feel anything has been neglected, it's the regional jets and business jets. My wish list for FSX is partially getting there. The PMDG A320 is something I'm neutral on, but it'll fill that Airbus void that's missing, and it's not a long hauler, so I'll get more use out of it. We're already getting a new 737NG, so that's cool as well. The 737NG is really my favorite real world Boeing.I really hope that at least one business jet is developed (DF or Flight One). A Lear, Dassault, or even Cessna Citation. Really any newer glass panel bizjet would be perfect. I want a fully featured plane with FMC and all!Also, a 737-200. I believe Flight One were supposed to be working on one for FS9, so I hope they will pick up the ball for FSX.Other than that, I agree a 777 needs to be developed by one of the big four. I just think getting carried away with too many features will still bring your system to a crawl, and an EFB might just do that. FSX and a new system isn't going to allow us to really push the envelope nearly as far as one might think.Okay, time to bag it, I'm tired.Later