Hi folks,I noticed there's a post on the general forum regarding the new 737NG release, with some making comments relating to VC's in general and whether or not the VC is a preferred feature in new releases.I just wanted to say, that personally, i wont even consider installing a new plane these days UNLESS it has a very high quality VC. It's not about eye candy...its all about perception and depth while looking out the cockpit window for me. I feel that a quality VC used in conjunction with Active Camera really gives you the illusion of "being there"...you can pretty much "feel" and "see" when you touch down and lift off, and the visuals on final are much more realistic as far as how you see and perceive things out the window as well as proper perspectrive within the cockpit itself.Anyway, it's because of this that i hope the team will not release this product without a very sharp, clean, and easy to read VC in place....just my hopes and opinionsThanks guysDave Kalin

Dave-Thanks for your opinion. I elected not to become involved in that post because it demonstrates, in my opinion, the absolute worst of the community. I'm always amazed at how strongly people will bang down on people who don't agree with them. Personally I find it very tiresome and senseless.On the topic of VC's, folks who have spent any kind of time around PMDG know that we are a bunch of realists. If something can be done, we will push it to it's limits. If something cannot be done well, we will not push it half-way and expect it to be tolerated by the customer.If you can read between the smoke/flames of people bashing each other on the topic it appears that there are two questions that we can answer here:1) What grand conspiracy are we foisting on the community by not showing pictures of it yet?2) What is the quality of the VC going to be like?Both of these are relatively easy to answer!First- anyone who has spent ANY time hanging around PMDG during the past few years will tell you that we are a bunch of perfectionists. We try very hard to ensure that the quality of our work is without reproach- and we are not above holding a product out of the marketplace until we feel it is ready for release. Many of you who are new here have remarked that we did not show much of the airplane until it appeared to be "close to finished." This is indeed part of the way we operate PMDG- because we have found that it does more harm than good to show images of a product that is clearly not finished. Those types of images only serve to invoke threads filled with complaints about the images, in spite of the fact that we state clearly that the product is unfinished!Additionally, we don't like to show pices of the product that we do not feel adequately represent what the product will look like when completed. This tends to invoke the same thread process- and it distracts from the final result.So- to answer both questions:1) What grand conspiracy are we foisting on the community by not showing pictures of the VC? None. We simply aren't ready to show that part of the product because it has not reached a point of development that we are comfortable with. 2) What is the quality of the VC going to be like? That depends on what you are looking for. An objective look at the VC technology available leads us to believe that FS2002 VC technology is not at the level we need it to carry off the NG cockpit effectively. There have been some very strong VCs issued in recent products, but they suffer from some fundamental lapses in capability within the sim. Other VCs issued were exeptionally good (CS727 and PICA320) and represented a tremendous amout of development effort on the part of their authors.At PMDG, we discovered very early on that the strength of our cockpit (the displays, FMC, MCP) did not interface well with the FS2002 VC capability. In fact, in order to bump the complexity of the displays to the highest level possible, we had to surrender the ability to display them correctly within an FS2002 VC. We spent time examining ways to work around this limitation, but found that we could either "dumb down" the display capability in order to satisfy the VC requirements, or push the display capability out to the very limits and accept that we would have problems with the VC.We decided to accept weakness in the VC for a few reasons:1) This limitation problem is a FS2002 problem that becomes erradicated in the transition to FS2004, thus allowing us to keep all the functionality in either the 2D or VC cockpit after the move to 2004!2) Our primary purpose is to produce an airplane that functions like the real world counterpart. Dumming down the displays to make it "fit" the FS2002 environment runs counter to our development criteria.3) Knowing our development skills, we felt confident that we could make a VC dance and sing at the level we feel it should, but doing so would cost us up to 4 months in additional development time that would then be wasted in the transition to FS2004.4) Much of the functionality that we want to add to the FS2002 VC will become a simple development matter in FS2004.5) VC is not the primary focus of our development effort. The complete simulation of the airplane and it's systems is the objective of our development, and this is well represented already by the work completed and displayed. We were not willing to compromise the completeness of the airplane in order to make it fit within the very limited framework of the existing VC technology.So what does all of that mean?The VC will not be an A320PIC style VC. It was never intended to be. The VC (within FS2002) will be a basic VC that allows for the basic function of the airplane much as many other products have already modeled.When FS2004 is released, some additional functions will immediately become available within the VC. (Display quality will leap upward, for example!)Sometime after FS2004 is released, we will begin adding latent functionality to the VC in order to take full advantage of the functionality offered in the new sim. Ultimately we would like to have a fully usable VC with every system in the airplane controllable reaslistically from the VC if the user desires. Our ability to do this to OUR satisfaction/quality level will come. But it will not be a part of the package before September of 2003, that we can assure you!I hope that answers more clearly some of the issues surrounding our approach to VC development. I must state quite clearly that as the director of this development process- we have gone through GREAT pains to educate ourselves on what is/is not possible in the VC environment.There are many opinions regarding the value of VCs in the sim, but the ONLY thing that matters to the PMDG team is that we be able to produce a VC that eventually matches the qualitative level of the entire airplane.Many things are possible, but few can be done well enough to meet our design criteria. We would rather not issue something "half baked."

Hi Robert...thank you for elaborating on the subject in such detail and honesty...and i agree about the other post being locked, too much bashing going on for no good reason (what else is new lately right?).Anyway...as for the functionality issues within vc's...as the current technology stands within the limits of fs2k2...i feel the best compromise is to do it this way:1.Visually - should match the 2d as close as possible regarding "looks" and "guages displayed"...within reason and limitiations of course.2.functionality - for NOW, or at least until fs2004, i find the best way to add functionality is to just make sure that the necessary functions from 2d panel can be brought up in a popup window within the VC...at the very least, a popup window for the FMC and MCP Autopilot as these 2 things are among the most important during takeoff's and approach.When fs2002 was released i made myself a 737 conversion using the dreamfleet 737 plane and 2d panel along with the stock MS VC then added some popup windows in the panel cfg to use in the VC...this madeit possible to fly the 737 from takeoff to touchdown without having to go back and forth between 2d and 3d panels. (i made the overhead in a window as well)......as i said i see this as the best and easiest way for NOW...its a good compromise for whats attainable right now...visually though, the guages need to be very sharp, clear and easy to read...even if they dont offer the same robust information of the 2d gauges, at least what is there can be read quickly and easily....which also makes night lighting in the vc very important...things are usually best when there is a VERY DIMMED background lighting on the bitmap and then backlit gauges....so for me anyway...a simpler vc as compared to the 2d is fine...as long as there is good readability, convincing graphics, and popups available....perhaps this something along the lines you plan for anyway hehehe...im sure youll do a nice job...heck you been around long enough :-)...i remember way back when you first got started by releasing 747 air files for fs98 i believe?...i was one of your first customers hahahaha...it flew smooooth :-) :-)best of luck,Dave

As the author of that locked thred, it was not my intention to become involved in a "debate" with those who disagree, but only to voice my personal opine about this new product. So I elected to not respond to replys. It's a shame that certain ones wished to use this for an excuse for a flame war. Well at least those who are interested can always get honest and helpful answers to their questions right here in this forum regarding issues or reservations that they might have. Like Robert has stated (very clearly mind you), anyone who knows of the work generated by the PMDG Team know that they strive for quality and are very aware of other developer's virtual cockpits that have made an impact on the community like Captain Sim's 727. While I think it's very important for the package as a whole, I personaly could live without one. But one needs only to view the work done by Marc to realize his talents in the panel making department, so we won't be dissapointed in the quality of the VC either. So I say it again proudly, look at this fantastic airline package! [h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

>I just wanted to say, that personally, i wont even consider>installing a new plane these days UNLESS it has a very high>quality VC. It's not about eye candy...its all about>perception and depth while looking out the cockpit window for>me. I feel that a quality VC used in conjunction with Active>Camera really gives you the illusion of "being there"...you>can pretty much "feel" and "see" when you touch down and lift>off, and the visuals on final are much more realistic as far>as how you see and perceive things out the window as well as>proper perspectrive within the cockpit itself.I wanted to reply on the "other locked thread" also. IMO --- some aircraft such as the RealAir Marchetti SF260 are a natural for virtual cockpits. With the 260, I never use the 2D. I go 50/50 (VC/2D) for planes like Dreamfleet's Cardinal and Archer which have photo- 2D panels.But for large commercial aircraft where the panel & it's operation becomes the most important, I could care less about "wasting" time to include a VC. I've never seen a large aircraft VC with the detail I prefer. When I switch to VC's of commercial airliners......... my own sense of "being there" diminishes, because the illusion is such a let down. In fact, I can't stand great looking 2D's that switch to a poor looking VC for side views. Like I said, some smaller GA aircraft are a blast to fly from VC mode, because it ups the realism factor when flying in certain conditions. But large complicated panels in VC modes, are perhaps still a few years away. Looks like MS realised this, when they still included 2D's for FS2004.L.Adamson

You bring up an important point. I too mostly use the virtual cockpit for the SM 260 and the DF Cardinal. Their VCs are certainly up to par with most 2D panels and more important, I fly those aircraft mostly VFR, whereas I prefer the 2D environment in an airliner where my gauges are of most importance for IFR. My main bird-PIC 767 (soon to be replaced :)) does not suffer from the lack of a VC and although we have seen what is the (beginning of clickable type VCs) as highlighted with Wlco's A320, there's much room for improvement, not to mention the hardware needed to have a smooth flight. It's an intriguing technology but still has a way to go. Let's not forget how many were upset about not having a 2D panel in that aircraft and how many said "No 2D panel and we won't purchase". PMDG has shown us that they do care about user options, one example of this is the recent mention by Robert about the IRS system maybe having the option later on for those of us who desire time alignment element as a possibility. As a friend of mine says " It's all good".[h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

L.A.-(Nice to see you hanging round these parts again!)You know- next time I have to write a long winded response like the one above- I'm gonna send it to you and let you paraphrase it for me...Your comment about some aircraft like the S.F. being good for a virtual cockpit and some (like our 737) not being good interfaces for a VC is exactly what I was trying to say...(In so many more words, of course!)Thanks, Larry- you helped clarify my point!

G'Day everyone.This is a question for the PMDG team..When the change is made and you move on to FS2004. Will updates be avaliable for existing users of the NG737? or will a totally new addon be built? I ask this as I intend to buy this aircraft when its released and dont want to have to buy a new one in a few months time.I read that you intend to make the aircraft systems as real as possible. I support that 100%. As for the VC. What will happen?Did that make any sense?If not. No worries. lol.Sorry i this has been asked and answered before.Cheers,Ryan

I answered the poster in that locked thread only to voice my opnion of VC's and his derogatory tone toward PMDG, It gets really old hearing people bashing every developer that comes out with a new aircraft that has not been released yet. I hope non of my comments where taken as a criticism toward PMDG, It was directed at the posters comments toward you. I think what you have done so far is fantastic , and regard this aircraft as the only one that has interested me since PIC767. Thankyou-

Ryan-Oh MY! We wouldn't think of charing you twice that way! (although....now that you bring it up....) ;-)The version you purchase for FS2002 will move into FS2004. After the move there will be some functionality that is added, and this will not cost you anything.It is important to note that there are other functions that will be added as a part of the 800/900 package, (enhanced Event Modeling, new PFD/ND layouts, etc...) and you would need to purchase that package in order to have access to them!As for the VC- I see that as an on-going enhancement process. I think we are going to learn alot during the first 6 months that 2004 is available- and it'll take some time to incorporate those enhancements. But I'm sure we'll hand them on to you! That is part of the fun....

OK. Kool. Thanks for clearing that up.Im planning on getting all the models that you release (If I have the money)Cheers,Ryan