Dear PMDG Flyers, 1)How often % you guys are using the virtual cockpit? 2)If yes, in what kind of Flight phase...? 3)What is the most instrument (eg. MCP, CDU....etc) use in virtual cockpit 4)Do you think, Virtual cockpit should develop as real as 2D panel Or 5)Do you need the better FPS by reduce the realistic of Virtual cockpit development or design...?B/Regards...Alex Ooi

I like to use VC during takeoff and landings with ActiveCamera. It helps with the illusion of that shaky inertial accelerated feel. But I switch to 2D during critical times such as adjusting the AP because of the lower framerates of the gauges and controls in VC. I wish they had a separate 2D bar for the autopilot like LevelD 767.

1)How often % you guys are using the virtual cockpit?Never. I prefer the 2D view. Better frame rate, gauges much more readable and with cabin zoom locked at 68% I got a good field of vision.Regards,Scott

ditto Scott

Never.Miquel Egea.

Alex1) I only operate from the VC - never use the 2D.2) all - from startup to shutdown.3) all - quite literally all instruments.4) yes - with PMDG its very nearly there now anyway.5) no - but you do need sufficient processor/graphics capability.

Always use the VC + Active Camera.have defined views to every single detail in the panelEven the FMC is programmed from the VC, so no 2d pop-ups at all.

Not tried VC yet.

1) Maybe 20 to 30%, hard to tell.2) Only in late climb, cruise and early descent phases when things have settled down, the AP is in command and I have time to enjoy the scenery below.3) Actually MCP and FMC/CDU... The virtual cockpit is suitable for having a quick check on the progress of the flight. My rig is too slow for displaying PFD, ND or EICAS with a reasonable frame rate. 4) If user computer specs and developer skills allow it, why not? Still, I wouldn't want to fly the critical parts of the flight from the VC as long as there is a nice, sharp 2D panel available.5) The cockpit itself should be as detailled as possible, but when it comes to useless and performance-eating things like complete virtual cabins, virtual avionic bays and virtual lavatories, developers should consider spending their efforts on other items.So, as you see, I'm a bit on the conservative side when it comes to VC flying and still prefer the good ol' 2D panel...Now how much money do I get for taking part in the survey?!! ;-)Kind Regards,Holger SeilzBAW0715

I use the VC approximately 90% of the time. The other 10% is the period prior to taxi and the rare moment when frame rates are unacceptable. I will usually knock my AI traffic to 0% before reverting to 2d from VC. With Active Camera, the feel of the VC adds to the realism.Ed Lin, D.O.S.

Only once in a while to see the local time.Bob

Almost never, perhaps once in a great while taxiing or cruising and just looking at the scenery but for flying functionality, never.Jay EklundCAT IV Senior Captain KDENhttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/812321/764.png

I got hooked on the VC using the A320 PIC and never looked back. I use the VC 100% of the time and after using it for more than a year, the 2D panel looks cartoonish and ruins the suspension of disbelief for me.Mike T.

I don't.Sooner have the frame rates and clearer panels.

Never,And I've actually edited the .air file to remove the VC completely.So if I click to the VC, I get a beautiful view of the great outdoors. Cheers