I've been thinking about something lately, and decided to post something here about it. Please don't take this as a criticism of freeware aircraft - I marvel at how much time aircraft developers spend on these things and then release them as freeware - but...I have to say that I've gotten spoiled by the quality of some freeware and payware airplanes'/helicopters' virtual cockpits. Nowadays, if I download an aircraft and its VC is one of those "fuzzy" ones with static instruments, it gets deleted from my system. I would like to encourage developers to take the time (and use the tools required) to implement a VC that closely resembles the 2D cockpit in appearance and resolution.Today's "Bear's Picks" article mentions a couple of aircraft that have wonderful VCs, and that is in fact what prompted me to post this little rant. Check out this awesome work:http://www.avsim.com/pages/0203/bear_2-9-03/zenith_02.jpgand particularly this Twotter (wow!):http://www.avsim.com/pages/0203/bear_2-9-03/twotter_02.jpgI would *love* to see a helicopter with a great VC like the ones I've used as examples - something along the lines of: EC120/130, S76, MD500E... I'm pretty tired of the stock Bell these days but I still fly either it or the Bell 47 due to this VC thing. (I keep hoping that one of the payware companies will turn their attention to helicopters but there doesn't seem to be much interest.)Note that I tend to use the VC in the helicopters I fly a lot more than in the seized-wing aircraft - I find it's easier to hover, land, etc. in the VC due to the somewhat increased field of view and also the "3-dee-ness" makes it a lot more realistic. Which is why I posted this here rather than in the general FS2002 forum...Thanks for listening.Dave BlevinsKRHV

Hey Dave, while I agree with you that we need more helis with good VCs and that they are neglected by payware designers, you should think about this, not everyone is capable of making a VC. I have encounterd several designers that had a great exteriors and had no idea on the VC (the only reason they included one was because of public opinion such as this). The pic of the inside of Eric's TWOTTER looks fantastic, but have you seen the version that was the original? The guy that retextured it completely transformed it from good to great with textures only, that is a skill not everyone possesses. Eventually others will step up and produce new works of art such as the Dauphin or the GMAX Bell 47, but you have to realize most (sub-great) aircraft are a stepping stone and learning experience on the way to the masterpeice, the last thing we need to do is discourage a designer, because it doesn't live up to our spoiled expectations.Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

i agree with you...did you know that we have great MD-900explorer at works? go at hovercontrol.com and look at screenshot-design pics.I hope that that one will have good VC...maybe even with working switches,like in fs9.

As I (more or less) said in my post, I had no intent to "discourage" aircraft designers - I just wanted them to be aware of how important a good VC is in helicopters - again IMO, more so than in airplanes.I know the learning curve is steep - I briefly dabbled in GMax and went partway through a tutorial, but decided that I'd rather fly than design. So I'm leaving that to the experts - whose efforts make this such a great hobby.Dave Blevins

Michael,You hit the nail smack on the head. I wish....I wish,....I wish that I knew how to produce a good VC.....but I don't. Now, if someone was prepared to offer to produce a VC for future choppers that I produce, or teach me how to do it myself, I would be a VERY happy bunny. :-beerchug

I would be more than willing to do paintjobs (photoshop) but I've only done 2D panels and never aircraft.So what (programs and other stuff) does it actually take to make a VC?-halabraham