I came to think (and I think it has crossed my mind before) ..I get the impression lately that there is a real struggle here. Some folks would do anything to get a 100% true copy, while others chose for somewhat more generic and get 100% functionality.Now .. which one of those 2 is the most fun ?This makes me think that maybe I should do a somewhat futuristic version of the F50 cockpit.Perhaps even if Fokker hadn't gone down, it would produce F50's now with glass cockpit .. ? F70's with a more advanced glass cockpit .. ? Who knows.I am concidering changing the plans and do the entire cockpit as real as possible with exeption of the MIP. I've seen the Fairchild Dornier 328JET-300 cockpit and ... that MIP shows something like what I have in mind.The reason why I am concidering this change is that I am starting to feel that .. going 100% true copy of real thing brings up a few limitations and unconfortable situations. Not at least the situation where you can't see the gauges properly trough the panel windows from both seats. Then also having steam analogue gauge in digital version looks silly.Why not make it modern and FUNCTIONAL ?Give me your thoughts on this pls ! Meanwhile I'll be editing a F50 picture with Photoshop to show what I have in mind.

http://users.skynet.be/plipke/F50_glass.jpgAt the moment only the center & right have been changed as you can see. If you check this pic and it has full glass cockpit, means I have done the left panel as well and uploaded a new version.Still I think this does look promissing, does it ?

I say go for it. It is a cool idea and it does give you some literary license to experiment. My T-38 will not be an exact copy. I am one who believes in the experience over photo realistic copies. John

My personal philosophy and approach in tackling a hardware setup that talks to FS2004 is to make it somewhat generic. My justification, such as it is, is as follows:- emulating every control/switch/knob/slider that exists in a real airplane is amost impossible, (perhaps) other than for a very small number of dd-on airplanes, given FS2004's state of the art. Some aftermarket airplane add-ons for FS try to emulate all of those controls, but very few (if any) make every one of those controls available for hardware control. (I.e. most add-on airplanes that try to be very accurate depend on mouse clicks for control of some cockpit functions, and don't provide keyboard shortcut equivalents to *all* functions.)- flying the same airplane day after day becomes boring, even for the real-world pilot. I am thinking of one friend in particular that got to fly a KingAir for parajumper operations - sometimes doing the same mission six or seven times a day - and no matter how neat the aircraft is to fly the first five or six times, it will become a matter of rote after mission 20 8^) .My personal setup consists of a combination of CH Products primary flight controls, a Precision Flight Controls avionics panel, and a side console that contains several GoFlight panel products. This configuration controls 100% of the possible controls in stock FS aircraft, and 75% or more of the controls of most add-ons. I am continually frustrated with the lack of total control of aftermarket add-on aircraft for reasons mentioned above, but nonetheless I have what I consider to be a best-as-is-practical hardware interface to the sim. So in sum - you may have a favorite or targeted aircraft that you want to build a "cockpit" around, but you should consider how well your planned hardware setup will work with other aircraft.Dave Blevins

>- flying the same airplane day after day becomes boring, even>for the real-world pilot. I am thinking of one friend in>particular that got to fly a KingAir for parajumper>operations - sometimes doing the same mission six or seven>times a day - and no matter how neat the aircraft is to fly>the first five or six times, it will become a matter of rote>after mission 20 8^) .Depends - there is a lot to learn that applies to all planes. A small turboprop can be used to train IFR procedures, etc - which gives you new stuff to do even though the plane is the same.This is pretty close to my personap approach too: I try to focus on aircraft systems. I am building around the Dreamfleet Cessna 310, but I dont care if it looks like the real plane - basically it is a "light piston twin" - those are all more or less the same. Throttles, cowl flaps, etc. I found this interesting: http://www.fergworld.com/articles/article_twin_comanche.php- what I am interested in is "how to operate a light twin engine plane" - not "I must create this Cessna 310 cockpit" - so I wont be needing real parts etc - the important thing is to create a cockpit that can be used according to the real-world procedures. Then it becomes helpful in learning. Of course this is my personal approach to this stuff, and very much shaped by my own situation.I have a PPL, and I fly the common Cessnas etc which are fun but slow and easy to fly - we have a Piper Lance at the airport that I might be interested in flying later on, with a bit more hours. Basically it's a Piper Cherokee Six, 6-seater with a T-tail (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/417353/L/) - its faster (~150+kts) and has constant speed prop and rectactible gear. Quite a handful, I have flown it with an instructor once. This stuff can be practiced very well with the home cockpit too, so dealing with the stuff like adjusting power, leaning etc can become familiar stuff, so it will reduce the workload if I am to get the "complex plane" rating later.. It also helps to get used to the idea that the world moves 1.5 times faster in the windscreen.. Also, the Cessna being EUR95 a hour, the Lance 180 a hour, you can see why I dont build hours really that quick :) - the sim helps me to keep the procedures and flight planning and practical things fresh in my mind - it really helps in keeping the routine.A lot of the light turboprops and jets basically use the Honeywell avionics and such, so well, they differ a bit by the flight characteristics, but the cockpit is more or less the same. It really is a good idea to focus on the systems level, and try to recreate logical things: if your plane has hydraulics system, try to focus on how to recreate it in your cockpit so that it appears functional and you understand what it does. It's pretty silly to build a cockpit with knobs and levers you dont know what they are for :)>My personal setup consists of a combination of CH Products>primary flight controls, a Precision Flight Controls avionics>panel, and a side console that contains several GoFlight panel>products. This configuration controls 100% of the possible>controls in stock FS aircraft, and 75% or more of the controls>of most add-ons. I am continually frustrated with the lack of>total control of aftermarket add-on aircraft for reasons>mentioned above, but nonetheless I have what I consider to be>a best-as-is-practical hardware interface to the sim. >>So in sum - you may have a favorite or targeted aircraft that>you want to build a "cockpit" around, but you should consider>how well your planned hardware setup will work with other>aircraft.Yes. that's the other important thing: If one wants to build a specific plane, find an add-on, see if it can be interfaced, get yourself the operations manuals etc, learn about the aircraft operation procedures and systems - focus on the recreating the operational environment on your cockpit, so you can fly the sim like the real one is flown. It can have dummy switches even, when you know what they are for.//Tuomas

Dave,It is my understanding that if you use FSBus, you can input mouse clicks from switches which should mean, if it requires a mouse click, you can assign this to a switch>>>>(I.e. most add-on airplanes that try to be very accurate depend on mouse clicks for control of some cockpit functions, and don't provide keyboard shortcut equivalents to *all* functions.)<<<<

*quote* It is my understanding that if you use FSBus, you can input mouse clicks from switches which should mean, if it requires a mouse click, you can assign this to a switch */quote*If I'm not mistaken that switch 2 mouse click input towards the panel works only if that very panel is visible. Simply because you can not click on something you don't see. Even if it's not you clicking.Therefore it would require an extra display somewhere, on which you show all your panels ... ok sure that is doable .. I think with a good enough resolution and a 21" monitor you can scale all panels to be visible and add the clicks.I've tried "key2mouse" once and it did work but I don't plan at the moment to show any panels.Then again .. if a push button toggles an option on/off ... with a key2mouse system you will never know for sure if the option is now on or off .. except if you look at the panel .. though that might be a small drawback for some at first .. it does remain extremely important information which I think .. you can't go without !

To make virtually ANY panel interfacable, here's what you should do:Build an interface which holds key input + software which monitors the key status and on a trigger it will perform a mouse click at certain co