About VCs....

[Guest]

This is in no way meant to offend the decent VC-loving folks out there :).What is the big deal with virtual cockpits? I'm just curious as to why people like them so much and are always requesting that a VC be added to their favorite plane. I really am not a VC man myself, since I fly the heavies and I associate the VCs more with the GA planes. So, do you personally enjoy a good VC? Just curious as to what all the rage is with the virtual cockpit :).

[Guest flightpro08]

To me, it's the most realistic view/perspective FS2k2 has to offer. While right now they're not very functional, I still love to look around a 3D cockpit at 35000 feet or while cruising over the southern California coastline at 2500 feet. I think we'll really learn to love virtual cockpits in FS2k4, as they will become fully functional, and do everything if not more than 2D panels do now. Come to think of it, everybody better learn to love the VC, as it's all we'll have in FS2k4. :-)Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designerhttp://members.cox.net/santracon/images/san_logo.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298

[Guest HeavyFan]

I agree, I don't know what the Big Deal is either with the VC?!! I myslef don't even use them! I replace the panels anyway with better ones anyway, but i do like the Virtual Cabins that are made with the G-max planes, they give you a great perspective of being a passenger and can walk around inside the plane to view the wings etc..... I really like that better than a V Cockpit thingy! MIKE

[Flyer Ken 0]

I agree - I view the cockpit VCs as a curiousity more than anything else. But lately, I've been using Active camera to move around the cabin. If you want to do something cool, try landing in the Falcon 50, then enter a replay and use Active camera to seat your self in the passenger area. It's really quite cool to look out a passenger window while crossing the threshold.Once the VCs become fully functional and a lot crisper looking, I'm sure they'll grow on me. But they're not there yet.

[LAdamson 240]

>Once the VCs become fully functional and a lot crisper >looking, I'm sure they'll grow on me. But they're not there >yet. I rarely ever use the 2D's in the Dreamfleet Archer & Cardinal, Flight1 Cessna 421, and the RealAir SF260. These particular aircraft have VC's that really do look quite good, as well as easily readable gauges. Just wondering if you have any of these?

[Guest Scoobe]

To each his own, However, I think VC's give a much more realistic view than a 2d cockpit that makes me feel like Im looking at a picture of a cockpit with no ability to look around except to look to the left or right instantly which is not very realistic. True, some VC's are not that well done, but they are getting better. The ones that are well done look better to me than their 2d counterparts because I can adjust my postion in the cockpit. With the new active camera utility, flying through turbulence in VC mode is spectacular! I don't even bother downloading planes that don't have VC's at this point. The cabin views are interesting, but I want to simulate being the pilot not a passenger. It would be nice if a plane offered both, but from what Ive read from designers, its one or the other.Rob

[Guest]

For flying IFR, I use the 2D panel, but for VFR, I only use the 2D for dialing and flipping switches. The VC helps me on my turns from base to final, and basically anywhere in the traffic pattern. Sure the gauges are 'in your face' in the 2D panel, but the VCs seem a little more 'life-like' for me. If I still had my old 500MHz machine, I'd probably still be using the 2D panel all the time.

[Guest Pabra]

Those screenshots say it all! Them and the upcoming 727 from captainsim dramatically put you "in the cockpit". Combined with activecamera head movement (only 3d) just keep adding to the realism. Isn't this the way it should be, turning your head (panning) to look around? At first I also thought they were cartoonish, but that's changed totally!It won't be long before we board the aircraft via the door!Anyhow, better get used to them or stick with fs2k2 forever. (:-hang

[Guest]

The two things people fuss about I dont understand:1. 'Does it have a VC?'2. 'Is it gMax?'http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/svedude/newjpsig1.jpg

[1mikel151 71]

I used to feel exactly the same, never used the VC. If it is done well, as in most quality payware, I like it, but when I see attempts at a VC because of the FS publics complaining, what is the point, would much rather have a good 2D panel then. When I look at the pics of the upcoming 727 from Captain Sims, I can't tell the difference between the VC and the 2D, that is amazing! I fly helos mostly and there are not many with a good VC. The active camera has opened up this world to me, and I use the VC almost always now. As posted above, the ability to move anywhere in the aircraft is such a plus. It truly makes it a "VIRTUAL' cockpit.Regards, Michaelhttp://www.geocities.com/res052cd/cmhbanner.gif

[Flyer Ken 0]

>I rarely ever use the 2D's in the Dreamfleet Archer & >Cardinal, Flight1 Cessna 421, and the RealAir SF260. These >particular aircraft have VC's that really do look quite >good, as well as easily readable gauges. Just wondering if >you have any of these? Larry, in answer to your question:Yes I do have the Archer and the Cardinal. They don't look as good on my screen as they do in your screen shots. Maybe my hardware just isn't up to the task. :(

[Guest jase439]

Aside from the sensation of "being there" and the ability to sight-see from any vantage point, the biggest win w/ regard to virtual cockpits is the ability to scan the airspace around you (which is now even better with the addition of ActiveCamera). Additionally, the VC greatly improves one's ability to fly a visual approach and/or make closed traffic around a field. In the 2D cockpit, you're always "snapping your view" trying to judge the exact time to start your turn to final. It's often difficult to gauge your position relative to the airport in 2D mode. With the VC, you can keep your eye on the airport through the entire turn, making constant adjustments to your bank. The VC also gives you a better "spatial" feel with regard to your relationship to the outside environment - better depth perception...better "feel" for how the aircraft is moving through the atmosphere.This type of flying however is much more prevalent with GA and small turbo-prop craft and doesn't have much applicability to the larger heavies. In these cases, the VC buy you little - and I rarely use the virtual cockpit when flying the big metal.The VC is definitely tailored to the VFR pilot. IFR pilots generally prefer the nice crisp (and highly detailed) images of the 2D cockpit. This is starting to change as Virtual Cockpits become much more detailed and real-to-life (i.e. PSS A320, the upcoming Cap. Sim. 727). What's truly needed is a fully interactive Virtual Cockpit.J

[Guest Moghdad]

LAdamson's screen shots say everything that needs to be said. If you are flying strictly IFR and don't spend much time looking at the scenery, then maybe a 2D panel is all you need. If you want to simulate VFR flight in a realistic fashion, you simply can't do it with the limited perspectives available in 2D. Visual flight means you are constantly scanning in every direction: up, down, diagonally, etc. Impossible with the standard 2D views. They are just too limited. If you doubt this, try this experiment: Set up a flight into a busy uncontrolled airport and try flying a few patterns as you would in real life, maintaining visual contact with the other planes around you. Try it with the 2D views and then with the VC.However, it is a tribute to the depth of this amazing sim that people can enjoy it in so many different ways.

[JimmiG 244]

I fly both heavies and GA planes.When flying heavies, I only use the VC while taxiing. It gives a better view of the taxiways, signs and other planes.When flying a jetliner with the VC, you constantly have to switch back to the 2D panel to make changes, because there are so many little gadgets and complex instruments on those panels, that you can't modify from VC mode. So for the rest of the flight, I use the 2D mode.When flying GA planes, I almost only use the VC. Those planes don't have as complex panels, and most functions can be modified by using the keyboard. When flying GA planes, I do it for sightseeing, and flying around the pattern. When turning final using the VC, I'm usually aligned with the runway. When using the 2D panel view, it's much harder to get the final right, because you don't have the same visibility.Try landing on or taking off from a remote airstrip in the mountains in 2D mode...you'll mostly like end up as someone's camp fire on one of the mountain sides. With the VC, and the panning speed turned up, you can quickly look around so you don't get yourself stuck in a valley without enough power to get you over the mountains.Also, with the VC, as you are just over the runway, you can look slightly to one side to get a better perception of the height above the runway, and make a smoother landing.

[Guest gooper]

I myself am skeptical about VC's but if it is true that all future editions of FS2002 are only going to support VC's then I guess i will have to get used ti them. mY biggest concern is the readability of the instruments especially the "heavies' like the upcoming wilco A320. i will definitely hold off purchasing that until i hear some comments from people who buy it along with Capt. sim 727- i think a large monitor (at least 19") is going to be almost a must have to really bring VC's to their full potential.