767 Level-D – Update for Windows 10 and FSX 2. By Sebastien on Sunday, April 2, 2017 FSX, News, Update. If you have suffered issues when using the Boeing 767-300ER of Level-D and Flight1 in FSX and Windows 10 environment, a new update freshly released should help you.
The Winglet Update for the Level-D Simulations 767 for FS9 and FSX includes fuel burn adjustments, visual updates and some minor fixes to the flight deck. • The drag characteristics have been adjusted to model the fuel savings - approximately 4% savings over 3000nm - in. The Level-D 767 is now functional with Windows 10 AND Prepar3d. The update released costs nothing and is included with the original installer. How do you update the airac on the fsx level d 767 FMC-is it difficult to do.
Bulletin Board Rule Changes: • Self-promotion is limited to the weekly self-promotion thread only • Accounts younger than 12 hours are now permitted to post both comments and submissions Please see this threads for more information: • • Join us on Discord! Rules • Be respectful • No NSFW content • No piracy • Absolutely no advertising or self-promotion outside of the weekly self-promotion thread • Absolutely no spam • No off-topic posts More about our rules can be found here:. Flight Sim Internet Radio • • • Guides • • • • • Flight Sim News and New Releases • • • • • • Flight Sim Add-On Sites • • • • • • • Multiplayer Flying • • • • • • • • • IRC: freenode #upvoteva Related Subreddits • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Contest Winner •. Considering making my next purchase the FF 767 for XP, and just have a question regarding fidelity.
I really enjoyed the Lvl-d 767 back in the day (2005?) before moving into the PMDG stuff. Is it on par with PMDG and Level-D? What about the IXEG Classic 737 for XP?
How would it compare to the FF 767? My only concern is not many airlines are still flying the classic. I own the FF 777 and something feels off with its energy retention (almost impossible to stall it seems), and the FMC seems a bit simplified. I remember the LD767. I liked it quite a bit in FS9, but it’s well past its prime now. My thoughts on each: IXEG733: best-in-sim-world sound, visual, and flight modelingbetter than FF and better than PMDG. Inferior to the FF75/76 and PMDG products in system modeling, mostly because it’s buggy and missing features.
For example: the still-incomplete PROG page on the CDU, certain CDU inputs cause the entire system to lag/stutter, and I’ve experienced a fair number of soft crashes (i.e. Lua/Gizmo failures) that render the airplane partially inoperable. Excellent frame rates. A lot of fun and worth the money even in its current state. I really wish it was a 737-700, because I like that airframe better (it has transcon range and relatively modern avionics; the 737 Classic doesn’t), but hey. FF767: this was the airplane that converted me to XP—the first fairly modern airliner I saw or used in XP that I thought could stand up to the better stuff in the FSX/P3D world (it was released about a year ago).
Systems modeling is very good, though the CDU behaves in a few weird ways (e.g. When entering SID/STAR procedures). Fairly stable; very good frame rates. Sound modeling is good, but not great—the good news is that it’s easy to fix a lot of that (I replaced the horrible robotic flight attendant with real cabin announcements, for example). IPad config menu is cool and works well.
Level D 767 Download
Better than the LD767? Yeah, easilybut it’s also 10+ years newer. FF757v2: airframe differences aside, everything said above about the 767 applies herethough the 757 is just a bit better in various ways (texture modeling, sound, etc). Oddly enough, it seems easier to land than the 767, which is reportedly the opposite of how it should be in reality. My current all-around favorite, but that’s in part because I really love the 757 airframe.
Level D 767 For P3d
It’s a do-everything beast of an airliner. If I could have only one of the above, I’d take the 757 in a close call over the IXEG (I'm just not a huge fan of the 737 in general). A note on flight modeling: I'm a real-world pilot, though my experience is limited to single engine aircraft (mostly recip plus a bit of VFR turbine time in a PC-12).
My impression is that civilian flight simulators in general seem to do a poor job of modeling edge-of-envelope performance and behavior (DCS, however, does a great job--as is probably befitting of a simulator where flying on the edge is somewhat routine). Most of the strong payware designers can get their creations to fly 'by the numbers' but the illusion falls apart when you do things that you shouldn't (or wouldn't) in the real world. 'Control feel' is very subjective and depends on your control settings and a bunch of other stuff, so I won't go there.
That said, I think the best flying airliners in XP are the FJS727/732 and IXEG 733.but that's very much a matter of opinion. Yeah, I have the MJ Q400 for FSX.
I like it (especially how frame rate friendly it is) but never really managed to put much time into it. The 757 is aging, but ~70% of the aircraft produced still remain in service. It's still a mainstay for US majors (Delta has something like 120 of them, and UAL and AAL both have 60-70 apiece) and freight carriers, but was never that popular in Europe or Asia. I like the 757 for several reasons: 1.) It's a helluva performer--lots of power, great brakes, a lot of wing. Blows the 737 and A320 out of the water in every category: range, takeoff and landing field length, climb rate, payload.
You can take the 757 in and out of any field the 737-800 can do, and many that it can't! 2.) I was a kid in the 1990s when the 757 was in its prime. Flew on it quite a bit around the continental US, so there's a bit of nostalgia (I also logged plenty of passenger hours in the 727, another one of my favorites). 3.) It looks good. Why everyone uses PMDG as some kind of benchmark?
There are better things out there. Alas, let's go.
It all depends what you want to do. Are very detailed systems that you will maybe use once in a while important to you? PMDG recreated NG, it's newer, it has more systems, so in that aspect it wins. Is engaging approach more appealing to you? Where you have to try to follow GS, use that rudder and crab? Do you want your aircraft to actually feel alive?