Skybird
09-04-07, 07:26 PM
The 767 package I know since it's first release for FS2000 (Wilco Pilot in command). Per patch I carried it over to 2002, and use the Level-D re-release for FS2004 now. I consider it to be the benchmark airliner which I also prefer to the B-747 by PMDG. The 737-800/900 by PMDG now I have testflown for one week.
Visually, the exterior models are of comparable quality, but the PMDG consumes more frames on my system.
In virtual cockpit, the 737 consumes significantly more frames than the 767. I wonder why, since I would rate the textures in the 767 to be a bit sharper and of better quality.
The FMCs of both planes share the same philosophy and are very similar to each other, though they are not identical. both do not have many inoperative functions, and again mimic their counterpart concerning the selection of functions that actually are operative. The PMDG takes more time to load, though.
Flightmodel: here we come to the real differences, and I hate to say it: the 737 lets me down, and very drastically so. Where the 767 always (and when I say alwayss, I mean always since the past 5 or six years!) operates extremely reliable under autopilot conditions and runs down the pre-programmed flightplan like if it is nothing, the 737 reveals serious weaknesses here. The plane cannot hold the selected course, and speed. A set speed of 300 or 310 knots it zigzags around. Acceleration up to 350, 360 knots until speed warning shows up, then throttle goes back until speed has dropped to 250, 240 knots - and then it starts again. After some time, the plane brakes apart in mid air due to structural stress. Also, the autopilot every one minute or so tends to reset the course to a sharp left or right turn (up to 130° off course), then the preset course radial has been intercepted, and then the plane brutally falls back to the wanted course, until the next minute. Also, when turning, it does often not turn without loosing altitude which it then tries to comensate by a nodding nose - a phenomenon I also experienced in straight flight. the plane simply has probolems to hold speed, course and altitude wothout becoming an eccentric actor. While flying by hand is okay and feels a bit more agile than the 767 (which also is said to feel agile in reality, compared to it's size), the FMC-controlled autoflight condition is very immature and is a great disappointment. Here, Level-D is ahead of the PMDG-737 by a huge lead. Interestingly, by tendency I occasionally witness the same problems with the PMDG-747, but by far not so often as with the 737. Also, both PMDG planes, although inferior in autopilot-related functionality, consume more frames.
So, to my surprise is must see the good reviews and comments about the PMDG-737 as not justified. I picked up an old edition of FlightXpress, which is a FS-related print magazine, a years old edition about the very first release of the PMDG-737 ever. Although the plane meanwhile has been substantially improved, as I read in several online reviews, initially it was a total disaster, they wrote, with many high calibre bugs that made the editors wondering why it was released at all. The 737 that I had seen the past week now is not that bad, but definitely shows me that it came from that bad origin back then.
Conclusion: the Level-D 767 remains to be the reference design for complex airliner simulation modules in FS2004. It works reliable, offers quite a bit of additonal functions that I searched in vain for in the 737, by type design the plane has a better ergonomic design in the overhead panel layout (in comparison the 737 all look chaotic - but okay, that is Boeing's business, not the fault of PMDG), so although it is higher in complexity, the 767 is more friendly on frames. This has been the second PMDG plane I experienced, and both did not really convince me. If you wish to get yourself only one high fidelity airliner package in FS2004, go for the Level-D 767. On the 737 I say it is a nice package for manual airliner flying, with an overall good impression but quite some weaknesses - but if you are after automated flightplan flying and leaving control to the FMC, there is a clearly better package available than this one.
I will not be able to test it (no plans to go with FSX), but since I already have seen the same team putting the same plane together for the earlier FS versions, I am very confident that the FSX version of the 767 carries on with that tradition of delivering benchmark quality, functionality, and complexity.
I should add that both packages come with extensive pdf-documentations. The PMDG adds more tables stuff, but the manual on instruments and cockpits and FMC and operations are of the same volume. I found the Level-D manual a bit more logical in structure, and slightly more explanatory on some issues and instruments.
I finish with the 737 now, and will start to examine the ATR-72-500 by Flight One, which also landed on my HD last week. I am confident by what I read that the ATR will convince me much more.
Visually, the exterior models are of comparable quality, but the PMDG consumes more frames on my system.
In virtual cockpit, the 737 consumes significantly more frames than the 767. I wonder why, since I would rate the textures in the 767 to be a bit sharper and of better quality.
The FMCs of both planes share the same philosophy and are very similar to each other, though they are not identical. both do not have many inoperative functions, and again mimic their counterpart concerning the selection of functions that actually are operative. The PMDG takes more time to load, though.
Flightmodel: here we come to the real differences, and I hate to say it: the 737 lets me down, and very drastically so. Where the 767 always (and when I say alwayss, I mean always since the past 5 or six years!) operates extremely reliable under autopilot conditions and runs down the pre-programmed flightplan like if it is nothing, the 737 reveals serious weaknesses here. The plane cannot hold the selected course, and speed. A set speed of 300 or 310 knots it zigzags around. Acceleration up to 350, 360 knots until speed warning shows up, then throttle goes back until speed has dropped to 250, 240 knots - and then it starts again. After some time, the plane brakes apart in mid air due to structural stress. Also, the autopilot every one minute or so tends to reset the course to a sharp left or right turn (up to 130° off course), then the preset course radial has been intercepted, and then the plane brutally falls back to the wanted course, until the next minute. Also, when turning, it does often not turn without loosing altitude which it then tries to comensate by a nodding nose - a phenomenon I also experienced in straight flight. the plane simply has probolems to hold speed, course and altitude wothout becoming an eccentric actor. While flying by hand is okay and feels a bit more agile than the 767 (which also is said to feel agile in reality, compared to it's size), the FMC-controlled autoflight condition is very immature and is a great disappointment. Here, Level-D is ahead of the PMDG-737 by a huge lead. Interestingly, by tendency I occasionally witness the same problems with the PMDG-747, but by far not so often as with the 737. Also, both PMDG planes, although inferior in autopilot-related functionality, consume more frames.
So, to my surprise is must see the good reviews and comments about the PMDG-737 as not justified. I picked up an old edition of FlightXpress, which is a FS-related print magazine, a years old edition about the very first release of the PMDG-737 ever. Although the plane meanwhile has been substantially improved, as I read in several online reviews, initially it was a total disaster, they wrote, with many high calibre bugs that made the editors wondering why it was released at all. The 737 that I had seen the past week now is not that bad, but definitely shows me that it came from that bad origin back then.
Conclusion: the Level-D 767 remains to be the reference design for complex airliner simulation modules in FS2004. It works reliable, offers quite a bit of additonal functions that I searched in vain for in the 737, by type design the plane has a better ergonomic design in the overhead panel layout (in comparison the 737 all look chaotic - but okay, that is Boeing's business, not the fault of PMDG), so although it is higher in complexity, the 767 is more friendly on frames. This has been the second PMDG plane I experienced, and both did not really convince me. If you wish to get yourself only one high fidelity airliner package in FS2004, go for the Level-D 767. On the 737 I say it is a nice package for manual airliner flying, with an overall good impression but quite some weaknesses - but if you are after automated flightplan flying and leaving control to the FMC, there is a clearly better package available than this one.
I will not be able to test it (no plans to go with FSX), but since I already have seen the same team putting the same plane together for the earlier FS versions, I am very confident that the FSX version of the 767 carries on with that tradition of delivering benchmark quality, functionality, and complexity.
I should add that both packages come with extensive pdf-documentations. The PMDG adds more tables stuff, but the manual on instruments and cockpits and FMC and operations are of the same volume. I found the Level-D manual a bit more logical in structure, and slightly more explanatory on some issues and instruments.
I finish with the 737 now, and will start to examine the ATR-72-500 by Flight One, which also landed on my HD last week. I am confident by what I read that the ATR will convince me much more.