Hi,The current results of the votes on the most used panel views is quite interesting.Am I wrong if I assert that the "virtual cockpit view" concept is either overdone or not practical for most users. One would surely argue that the kind of computer power needed for the use of virtual cockpits is not yet affordable by most users. Other who have the adequate hardware will say that accurate monitoring and flying the aircraft is somewhat more difficult from a virtual cockpit panel. This raises the issue of developing and marketing aircrafts which include virtual cockpits. Is it worth it? Could the time devoted by programers be better used in deeper development of flight management systems, greater accuracy, vital components such as ACARS, weather radars, TCAS etc...? Last but not least the cost of development of virtual cockpits are included in the aircraft package whether the virtual cockpits are used or not. Reading the results of the poll it would be a good bet to say the buyers of aircrafts should have the option to buy with or without virtual cockpits.Having said that I am convinced that sometime in a not too distant future virtual cockpits will be the most used panel view. It will come down to the price/hardware power ratio.DISCLAIMER:The above reflects only a personal opinion and was written without any intend to offend, harm or criticize in any way or manner any individual, institution, association or company including PMDG.Michael

Hi Michael, I both agree and disagree with everything that you said in your post. I agree that the VC is currently limited by high-end hardware requirements. I also agree that, in the future, the VC will be the primary view used by most/all people. This is the portion I don't agree with:>Other who have the adequate hardware will say that accurate>monitoring and flying the aircraft is somewhat more difficult>from a virtual cockpit panel. I have adequate hardware, and I fly 100% in the VC. The only time I use a 2d panel is to access the overhead or throttle quadrant via the shift keys while in the VC (only because they are currently not clickable in the VC). I believe that the VC is much more immersive and provides for a "better" head position and field of view. I understand that, since we are looking at a computer screen, peripheral vision is not possible. However, I find the VC gives less a sense of the "blinder effect" than other views. People have their preferences, and I am the first to "agree to disagree". I don't think developers should discontinue making virtual cockpits, but I like your idea (at least for now) of making it an optional component with a variable pricing model. For example, I don't use the virtual cabin at all. I would love to pay a few bucks less for a plane without it, and I would pay a few bucks more for a quality VC like the ones that PMDG produces.I am anxious to read others view points. Take care,Jeff

Hi folks, And I feel strongly for 2d only. I feel on a flat monitor the vc is overkill. I never fly with vc on any aircraft and prob won't til I can have the total immersion experience wit FS18 or so. ;-)Chris

I would hate to see the VC/Cabin disapear!Once i'm in climb/cruise, I love looking around with the VC, stepping back into the passenger area, etc.I would feel ripped of if I didn't have the VC, and feel that I was NOT in a realistic aircraft.For what it's worth - I'm a real world pilot.Gavinhttp://www.interprom.com/gavhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

I would use the VC 100% of the time if all switches/functions were made available in the 3D environmentThanksJohn

I would use the VC all the time IF the graphics could compare to the 2D panels, they are getting close but they still fall short, although DreamFleet's and RealAir's GAs look damn close to perfection.[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg