Does Anyone Realy Care About VC's?

[Guest]

Perhaps it's just that I have yet to be enlightened by a really good VC, but from what I've seen so far I find that VC's detract from the simming experience. In a VC I always feel that I'm looking for something - looking for a switch, looking down at a instrument, looking left at the runway, back at the horizon, left at the runway and so on. True, this is the way it works in the read world, but in the real world my neck is a much better "UI" then the hat on top of my joystick is. I would rather see developers focus on detachable sub panels and exterior views that fit well and work well when spanning across monitors and across PC's. On a single-monitor single-PC system then I guess a VC would be more valuable, but it seems like a large number of users are going multi-monitor anyway.

[Guest]

The best way to see developers design what you want is to become one. Then you'll really have something to offer.B

[Guest outtatimeiii]

I personally dont like VC's. Only type of VC that I like are on planes where you can move to a virtual seat look out the window LOL. When I usually fly, I want the least number of guages possible, and VC's are a distraction. I can never get the zoom right either, things look way too big at 1x, and stuff in the cockpit look good at .5X except out the window. I have found the best way to fly is with the "w" mini panel loaded, it provides all the info I need, since I fly VFR.

[Cruachan 705]

Hi Dennis,Have you tried the SF-260 SAIA Marchetti? Only one word to describe it: Simply outstanding! Oh, okay two words :)Mike

[Guest cwright]

VC's 'detract' from the simming experience? Extraordinary! For me it's the exact opposite. I can only say that, for me, virtual cockpits are the only way to fly. I simply don't use flat panels any more. VC's come far closer to the feeling of actually being there. Using Active Camera, I can easily pan around with the mouse, and the head latency effect brings it to life even more. Having reassigned the VC move commands to more logical keys, I can easily move around, raise my head for a better forward view - or move over to the co-pilot's seat, or take a stroll into the passenger cabin! Best regards, Chris

[JET 1 0]

>> VC's come far closer to the feeling of actually being >there. Using Active Camera, I can easily pan around with the >mouse, and the head latency effect brings it to life even >more. Having reassigned the VC move commands to more logical >keys, I can easily move around, raise my head for a better >forward view - or move over to the co-pilot's seat, or take >a stroll into the passenger cabin! >I'm with you completely! The only planes I really like to fly nowadays are ones with a good VC, like the Falcon 50 and Flightcraft A340. I also use Active Camera and I find it very easy and realistic to pan around with. A TrackIR would be better though..:( Even the poorer VC's are very useful when taxiing or doing a flare. You can switch to 2d for the other phases of flight.If the Wilco's A320 PIC proves to be as good and as it sounds, it will be my choice for the future. It is supposed to have a similar pan-around function and latency effects.

[Guest]

I totally agree with you Chris. VC's are the only way to fly for me nowadays. My setup for flying is relatively simple: 2 monitors (21 and 17 inch), the big one for the VC, the small one for a selection of 2D instruments (radio's, throttle-Q, etc) that i can operate with the mouse. Therefor i don't use active camera. This way, and with added support of my own little homecockpit (basically some hacked USB joystick and gamepad giving me 3 axis and 20 buttons) i can do everything directly, be it VFR or IFR operations. The buttons on my yoke are all setup for viewing purposes in the VC.So, VC's are (for me) the greatest improvement over previous versions of FS.Cas.

[1mikel151 71]

Dennis, I used to feel the same way and still do about some VCs, but with active camera, the experience has changed! I to, like the ability to walk down the isle and go back to the back and take a seat next to the window! I LOVE that! You can adjust the pan rate in the FS2002 cfg to allow for faster panning in the VC mode if that helps. With the head latency feature in active camera, it is very realistic feeling on approach and takeoff. BUT... if the quality of the VC is sub par (I know it is hard to achieve, so I am not knocking any designers!) I would prefer a good 2D panal with side views over a crude VC. Example, I recently found the Porter by FSD for FS2000 and it has the most incredible 2D panel with side views!Active camera makes it happen for me!Michaelhttp://www.geocities.com/res052cd/cmhbanner.gif

[Guest freequest]

Well at first i thought they were a waste of time i used the 2D panel and outside view then i got the Robin DR400 REGENT that has such a good veiw out of the VC that i now use the VC for landing about 90% of the time.Thats landing small GA's and light twins...Damn its so easy to line up the runway...Well thats my 2c worthhttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest]

I'm not a big fan on virtual cockpits (unless they look real). It's just my opinion, but I prefer realistic 2D shots, rather than square windows and square seats etc.Some aircraft models are just outstanding, but the virtual cockpit spoil the aircraft. Some of the virtual cockpits remind me of FS95 days, just a bunch of flat and square things.. I wished when aircraft designers sell aircraft, they give the buyer an option of a virtual cockpit, or no virtual cockpit..Just my four cents worth..Example, which cockpit view do you prefer? http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3de1b01c69ba7ec8.jpghttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3de1b02369c1b245.jpg

[Guest]

Currently I do not use VC's at all. The reason is the awkward joystick hat control for view direction changing. An 'ideal' view direction control for me would be a VR-device or glasses which you mount on your head. The build in small monitors should always display the view corresponding to head movement.Does anyone know of such a VR-device currently in planning or development?

[LAdamson 240]

It's a matter of picking and choosing. The above pics are a no brainer in favor of the 2D panel. Other aircraft such as the RealAirSF260, and freeware Robin DR400 are "naturals" for using the VC as the preferred mode. And with others, such as the Dreamfleet ArcherII and Cardinal, I'm split between 2D and VC modes depending upon what I'm doing. As of now, I also prefer commercial catagory aircraft in 2D mode.L.Adamson

[Guest oyvindhansen]

I accept having poorer graphics in exchange for the better perspective and head motion. Especially when using Active Camera i think the immersion factor is higher than what can be achieved in a 2D cockpit. Having said that i only use the very best VCs, like the sf260, Falcon and Robin. Now if MS do away with the 2D cockpits entirely like in many combat sims, developers could concentrate on making som really great VCs. - Oyvind

[RobdeVries 28]

:-lol Read the post above my friend : eDimensional - TrackIR Hands Free Game Controller and 3d glasses. Look here: http://www.edimensional.com/headtrack.htmlRob "Holland&Holland" de VriesFor accurate and custom made ambient and nature sounds(sets) for Lago's FSSoundscape go to:"What Is It Like to See with Your Ears"

[Guest gooper]

I only like VC's in GA aircraft like the 260 and the Cessna 421 where there is not a lot of gauges to use. for airliners i think they absolutely suck at the currenttime and unless they improve significantly I guess i will not be buying future issues of MSFS if the rumours are true about MS doing away with 2D panels altogether.