I'm a happy owner of both the LDS and the DF727. I'm thinking about one of the PMDG747F and the Super80 or SSTSIM (for different reasons). It seems clear all of the above are fantastic, so what I'm wondering is, given reasonable limits on FS-time, and given the learning commitments etc., is it "worth" adding another similar complex add-on and spending the time learning it properly?- For those that own the 747 and 767, is there anything about the 747 you enjoy significantly enough over the 767 that you'd advise the purchase? i.e. any particular reason you often choose to fly one over the other?- For those that own the 727, Super 80 and/or SSTSIM, same question? Anything in particular that has you flying the SSTSIM or Super80 as a first choice?- Should I just get the Herc instead?Personally, I'm not too concerned about esoteric system "x". I typically fly offline, but following realistic flight plans, departures, approaches, checklists etc. as closely as possible. With the LDS I get the satisfaction of "being" a virtual pilot using current technology. With the DF727, there's just so much to DO (a good thing) and I'll typically fly 1-2 hr hops, so there's "Never a dull moment".Finally, I'm not planning to flip to FSX in the immediate term so dropping another $50 on FS9 isn't a major concern.Thanks in advance.

the 727 is great but like you said, so much to do. I enjoy the PMDG because you can easily fly it, everything is so automated. I like the Queen over the 767 because you can do everything from the VC and it looks amazing! I have framerate troubles with the 747F in the VC though.k

THe queen and the 767 are the two major complex planes, but I think the 767 is a tad more complete than the 747, but then I dont think it models brake overheat or engine flameouts in heavy rain, but it has a few hardly noticable features and buttons to push, so I have to go with the 767.

Thanks for the early comments. To clarify my request:I own the 767 and the 727 (amongst a bunch of other stuff), and am about ready to cave in to another. Among the 747F, Super80, SSTSIM and perhaps the herc, which would you advise as the "best next" (not next best!) purchase, and why? Thanks

Hi there,Why don't you read some reviews on the mentioned aircraft...I'd go for the Super80. both from Lago and Espen's are great. I have Espen's and i's joy to fly because it's real tring. Complicated? No! Real yes! Why it has a complete check out build in. You can learn all systems by guided checklist. The Herc...mmmwaaahh its nice, that's all. About perhaps not complex but interesting planes why not Rick Pipers Hawker Siddeley HS.748. Very nice and free..:)Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://fool.exler.ru/sm/fly2.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

I have them all except for the Concorde, so I would say it all comes down to whether you want to fly really long distances or short domestic routes. I love the Super80 my framerates in the VC never drop below 24, in the 747, they never get close to 24. Anyway, they're both really nice, and support from both developers is great. The C-130 is incredible as well, what a great simulation of a military aircraft, lot's of stuff to keep you busy in that plane, I'd fly it more often except that I don't quite get the frames that I desire in the VC. The 747 is the most modern of the three as you know, so you're entire flight is pretty much managed for you, and the other two don't really have any sophisticated avionics onboard, but they both have weather radar. My computer specs are P4 2.8 x800 pro, 1 gig 2700ddr ram by the way. Hope that helps.Jeff

I find the Super 80 (Flight One) very immersive. As in all the MD8x series, there's lots to do if you want to fly with the auto-pilot. No FMC as such either. The VC is just awesome, especially at night with just the gauges lit (floodlight off). Very easy to fly manually too. However, it's a dated aircraft, not many around now, so you need to go back in time a bit to realistically simulate airline ops with it (as you do with the 727).I find that the S80 makes a nice contrast with something like the B763, or more so the B744, both of which come from a later era and have glass and FMC's. Support for the S80 is excellent, but so it is for all the good stuff.Bruce.

>THe queen and the 767 are the two major complex planes, but I>think the 767 is a tad more complete than the 747, but then I>dont think it models brake overheat or engine flameouts in>heavy rain, but it has a few hardly noticable features and>buttons to push, so I have to go with the 767. how is the 767 a tad more complete? infact you gave examples showing why the Queen is more complete. Now Im not insulting the LDS bird one bit, she is a great aircraft, but the PMDG is by far the most complex and realistic simulation out there. It is amazing. You can say you like the LDS better, but claiming it is more complete is just wrong

> I >typically fly offline, but following realistic flight plans,>departures, approaches, checklists etc. as closely as>possible. With the LDS I get the satisfaction of "being" a>virtual pilot using current technology. With the DF727,>there's just so much to DO (a good thing) and I'll typically>fly 1-2 hr hops, so there's "Never a dull moment".After reading the above, I've gotta ask: do you use the FS2Crew addon for the LDS 767? If you're into procedures and such and you already know most systems and procedures in the LDS sim, FS2Crew will really kick the LDS enjoyment factor up a notch or two.

I'd go with the Super80 as it's a complex feature rich short hauler for those times you only have an hour to fly. Another plus is you can zoom the time with the Super80 without the autopilot going crazy on you... :-)

Chris Woodward wrote:"I'd go with the Super80 as it's a complex feature rich short hauler for those times you only have an hour to fly."That's the formula for me. An hour or an hour and a half at most with lots to do in the cockpit. The Super 80 sounds like the 'next aircraft' for me. So are you Super 80 users saying that the VC frames are good in the Super 80? I thought I'd read somewhere that they weren't so good. Have I got this wrong? Comments appreciated. I do like the look of the tutorial setup included in the package.

I find the frames fine, although the panel (VC) does take a while to load initially. However, in the setup options, you can choose to not load a lot of the 2D panel layers which I gather makes quite a difference. Of course, when doing so, you loose the training mode for the panel. You can turn the additional 2D panel layers on and off at will then re-load the a/c to see the change, so it's no biggy.Bruce.

>>THe queen and the 767 are the two major complex planes, but>I>>think the 767 is a tad more complete than the 747, but then>I>>dont think it models brake overheat or engine flameouts in>>heavy rain, but it has a few hardly noticable features and>>buttons to push, so I have to go with the 767. >>>how is the 767 a tad more complete? infact you gave examples>showing why the Queen is more complete. Now Im not insulting>the LDS bird one bit, she is a great aircraft, but the PMDG is>by far the most complex and realistic simulation out there. It>is amazing. You can say you like the LDS better, but claiming>it is more complete is just wrong Both aircraft can be flown very realistically from real pilot's points of view. The 747 is more advanced in terms of FS adaptations (VC, exterior etc). As for systems, its not something really to compare since both are very different system wise BUT with both you can find little things that don't reflect the overall picture. Its funny to see some guys posting things that are not technically correct that even pilots don't know or have ever thought about yet this seems to be something some naysayers hold on too to bring these great planes down (pun). Finally, I would say you win with either sim..................Randy J. Smith................CAUTION! My views represent no one but my own. While I do help companies test products - this in no way means I represent them in ANY fashion.[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]

Thanks Bruce, that's helpful. I think I'll go for it as my next purchase, been hankering after an MD80 for a while now.

I love the Super 80 but I get OOM errors with it. So my flights are limited to 1 hour or so. It is the only addon airplane I get these errors with.It is also a pain programming SIDS abd STARS into the omega navigation system (you have to program coordinates not the names). It mianly uses the default FS9 flight planner.I LOVE the PMDG 747, bot the regular and F versions. If you like the LVD 767 your going to love the 747F.For the record I fly the DF727 over the MD80 almost all the time while my heavy time is spent equally between the 747 and 767.Also of note, you need to own the regular 747 before you can own the 747F version.