I'm following this discussion with interes, but I can't locate the VFR panel on flightsim. Is there some secret to it perhaps?Kind regards,Stephan Haas

Pedro, if you want the EADI, or most of it in the view, here are two options:http://www.sls.lcs.mit.edu/ilh/fs/pics/vfr-512-2.jpghttp://www.sls.lcs.mit.edu/ilh/fs/pics/vfr-512-3.jpgThese have the EADI centered horizontally (probably desirable) and no MCP. However, due to the 4:3 aspect ratio, the external view is fairly small vertically. What do you propose?I tried to get the ASI in view up to about 150kts for landing purposes in the second. I suppose with some editing we could move the ASI up a bit, and the same with the altimeter and RA tape, enabling us to cut off more of the bottom, if we're willing to lose more of the EADI.I suppose another option is to widen the view a bit, letting some of the MCP in. This would make the panel consume less vertical space. Since the duplicate MCP gauges seem to cause FS crashing problems, we could either just leave the MCP bitmap without gauges. (I'd rather have no gauges rather than incorrect gauges.)How about this?http://www.sls.lcs.mit.edu/ilh/fs/pics/vfr-512-4.jpgLee Hetherington (KBOS)

An easier way to make it stick is (with NumLock on) hold 8 and then push Shift, and then release 8. To go back just push 8 again.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

How about this one. I've moved the ASI, EADI, RA tape, and altimeter up a bit. If we like this, I would fix up the shadows, etc. The external view is getting bigger.Would we want the VSI instead of the altimeter?EDIT: Of course this is all a waste of time if we cannot distribute the edited bitmap. Anyone from the PIC team have an opinion on this? What about the VFR/landing views for PIC that are out there in the libraries? They clearly have used PIC's bitmaps.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

Lee,I like it.You correctly pointed out that panel views shown in your post #46 take up too much of the screen.My only problem is that the panel above (your post #48) looks too much zoomed in. Your original landing view in my opinion was well balanced between what you see outside and inside. However if this is what most prefer I could see myself using the above version too.Michael J.

How 'bout a whiskey compass at the top right corner. And I think the RA would serves as the altimeter on final, so replacing altimeter with VSI should be okay. But thinking, the alitmeter would be necessary when flying approach, so I guess a digital altimeter superimposed in the VSI would be pretty cool.

The zoom is basically a fact of life if you want the EADI dead center and you don't want too much of the MCP in view. Since I think the (duplicate) MCP is the culprit in FS crashes, and I abhor static gauge settings, I'd like to minimize the MCP in this view.Below is a picture that might show the basic view. I haven't moved the gauges up a little, so a bit more of the ASI, EADI, RA, and altimeter could be in view.Lee Hetherington (KBOS)

Preston,That wouldn't realy work since the compass is by the center post and the post is not in view, so the compass wouldn't be in view anyway.

Hi Lee,I have to tell you, you have really done a lot of work. I see that you like the "VFR" panel. My thoughts on the "Landing panel", or the one that has the EADI is that it is what I want to be using prior to getting the field in sight. Maybe a modification of the outside world , in zoom and eye position would have to be done to maximize the runway view. I don't care for the VS as much as the altimeter. The GS or VASI will give you pitch command information and it's more realistic to have it set up like you have it above. I could see myself using the panel uuntil getting configured then going to the landing view and then the VFR panel for touchdown. As far as the bitmaps, maybe a solution is to show the original and "draw cut away lines that people can use in the original version. It's too bad Eric is not around since I think he would like this very much. I can not see Wilco giving us permission for this unless and of the people on the Team get involved and they could help us move that forward. I am really glad you like the VFR view and see the benefit of doing this. I think for too long peoeple have relied on the instruments too heavily and have not seen the benefit of flying visually. On the above view how does the runway look when configured at VREF+10 KTS? Does it show too little of the runway? I would be interested to see that. It's hard to envision without the outside world. In any case, great stuff. Regards, Pedro

Wow,I like that view. I wish I could figure out how to resize the image without messing up the scaling.Here is my latest iteration. All the gauges work, and are on the rear view (2 on the numeric pad). You can see that Flare has just engaged. (I will add the radar atl. and the autoland status gauges later)http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3cfaa4fd1fd5bccc.jpgJust wish I had that bitmap of your Lee...and could figure out why I'm getting the crashes! :)Regards,Steve Da

Hi Steve,Your view proves that it is possible to see the runway poerfectly on this kind of view. In fact, since the correct pitch on approach is about 2.5 deg, ,I am wondering if your view you be a little bit less tilted and magnified a bit for more realism. Here is where a real 767 pilot could help a lot. Also, it seems that Lee is not getting the crashes anymore somehow. In any case, it looks very good. On Lee's view he kept the same aspect ratio which results in the MCP showing a bit. Looks great...Regards, Pedro

Hey Pedro,Funny you should mention that because I had a real 767 pilot over Friday night to show him VATSIM and the PIC panel in general.It never occured to me to get his opinion on the vfr panel I was working on! (I'll have to sit him down in front of my computer and get some input from him):)I think what impressed him the most was:1. Showing me how to align the IRS, and the PIC panel modeled it perfectly.2. As we were departing 27R at KATL for a flight to KMCO, he told me they normally turn him to 250. About 5 seconds later, the VATSIM controller's voice said over my spearkers "Delta 1068, turn left heading two five zero, climb and maintain fourteen thousand."3. When I changed freqs. to departure, he noticed that the freqs. were the same as real world!Did I mention that flying on VATSIM and using Roger Wilco for voice comms. makes this experience believabley real?:)Regards,Steve DraBTWDo you check the email address you have listed in your profile? Just wondering.

Hi Steve,Yeap, many real world pilots don't know anything about flying on-line. If they did they would be very impressed. I'll check my profile. My real e-mail is [email protected] Pedro

Why would they want to do it online? They already get pay to do the real thing for a living :-lol Funny profession isn't it? You even simulate your "work" even on your days off. :)