Does Anyone Realy Care About VC's?

[Guest]

Not arguing with you, but this is the first time I've heard that. Where did you get your info?

[Guest]

I understand your point. Requesting changes out of developers really wasn't my intent.

[Guest]

>Yep. It has already been stated that FS2004 will ship with >VC only. No more 2D panels from MS. I wonder what this will mean for those of us who like to pull 2D panels apart and put them on separate monitors?

[Guest jason2112]

Using the hat switch of most joysticks to look around in the VC is no fun for me! The big problem is finding the center position again. of course, you can use a key (keyboard/joystick) to reset the view, but that destroys the whole effect of smooth scrolling in the VC.For me, the solution was a rotary control with middle detent. My Saitek X45 has this feature, and I guess the Cougar should have one as well (not shure about it). I have this rotary control next to my left index finger on the thrust lever, and it makes panning around the cockpit so comfortable! As I said it has a middle detent, so finding the center position again is easy.I guess the best of both worlds would be a flight yoke with this kind of control for the VC.I have to say that I clearly dislike the idea of dropping 2D cockpits in FS2004, because multi monitor setups are so much fun. I have an old 15" screen for GPS and radio.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

[Guest]

I have to say that I clearly dislike the idea of dropping 2D cockpits in FS2004, because multi monitor setups are so much fun. I have an old 15" screen for GPS and radio.Not being able to do multi monitor would be an absolute tragedy for FS2004.Once you've tried multi monitor, you can never go back. VC just doesn't come up to scratch in comparison.

[Donmo 6]

I do not like VC myself. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice ones out there, but it's a personal preference. I have 1500+ hours r/w and nothing simulates the view as in real world. I am hearing 2004 will do away with 2D panels. Fine. I still have 2002 and it will only be a matter of time until someone figures a way to add 2D's into 2004. Yeah, it's another step for their (MS) goal of "as real as it gets", but it misses it with me. If I like the plane, I'll put up with a VC panel. Doesn't mean I HAVE to use it. Guess 2004 will change that, but only temporarily.Don

[Guest]

Dennis,Are those flat panel monitors (the black ones on the side)? I had heard that those didn't work very well with heavy duty graphics. Is that true (assuming, of course, that those are flat screens)? Thanks for sharing!David

[Guest dpc]

Flying alot of sim time without using VC developes very bad flying habits. Plain and simple. You need to get your head up off of the instruments and your eyes pointed out the windows and look around outside your plane, alot. And, don't think that flying the heavies is any different. You still spend more time looking out than down. When flying IFR, your natural tendencies should be to look out even if you can't see. You thoughts should go something like.."Damn, still can't see a thing. What do the instruments say?" Not the other way around. Using an "ok" VC is still more realistic than using awesome looking and functioning 2D. Dems just da facts.

[Geofa 108]

I would have to disagree 100%.Flying a vc with which has more "toy" like views and many panel functions not accessable vs. 2d cockpit views made from real photo's which can be easily switched with hat switches, and working, functioning instruments-just no contest imho. On my aircraft-the Debonair-the 2d view has the cowling in its' correct relationship to the my eye viewpoint-the virtual is unable. Therefore when practicing any maneuver requiring the nose reference the 2d view is much more useful-this includes all maneuvers including landings.I have used simulator's from the beginning of time to train for real flying-right now I am using it for my commercial. I can do turns around a pylon much easier with a photo representation of my real wing in the 2d view again taken from a photo from my eye perspective, than the virtual cockpit view. I can practice Chandelles and Lazy 8's by looking at the nose position of the cowling in 2d-which is exactly what it is in real life since I took the photo used for the bmp with this relationship. I have found simming has never developed bad habits-on the contrary it has been responsible for exactly the opposite.Although I like virtual cockpits-when I want to get into serious practice I always fall back to the 2d views.Here are a couple compares-takeoff (judging nose position), and a turn around a pylon....http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

[Guest]

>Hi, yeah im definately a VC fan. They just feel more real >Real light sources from within the cockpit. (not just dark >and light textures) You mean, sort of like this, from the new Socata TB20GT (freeware)?

[Guest]

Geof,I'm assuming that is you with your "best friend" and your Deb in your signature photo. What year is your plane? I'm infinitely jealous - I'm probably a year or so away from buying, but I've begun to start looking for an airplane. Man to those Deb's hold their value! Even with a partner that would be a stretch for me to afford one of those. Was that your first airplane? What do your annuals run?

[Geofa 108]

It was my first plane-a 1962.You are right about value-it has doubled in price since I bought it 8 years ago-I figure with all my costs (annuals, fuel, hangar, repairs,insurance) I will pretty much have flown close to free or fairly close in the time I have owned it-not a bad deal!I put 25g's down and a bank loan when I bought it-a low interest rate and 15 year time period-it really wasn't much more than a car payment (about $300 a month and I drove crummy cars)-so it is do-able-especially with a partner.My worst annual has been around $3500- my lowest $1200-but each year is of course different. I had a few terrible years when I had to replace fuel bladders/ landing gear, flap motors-and then a period (knock on wood) of 4 great years with almost no troubles.Do figure on about 4-6 g's a year as an average cost with everything-hangar, insurance, annual,fuel,repairs-plus any payment. The good news is you may get it all back-or close to it when you sell it!http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

[Guest]

Just an illusion. They're both 17" Princeton CRT's that I got for $129 at Costco. I wouldn't have bought them if they were going to be my primary monitor, but they work great for what they do. They have flat screens and support 1280 x 1024 with no problem. And I like the black. I think I'm going to go back and get at least one more - I like things to match!No, flat screens aren't there yet from what I've read either. Both cost wise and quality - unless you're willing to spend the dough. But I can get a whole array of cheap 17" CRT's for the price of a nice TFT. You can tell there are a lot of heat sources in my den though... But with the chronic stuttering from WideView right now I don't know that you'd notice that the flat panel wasn't keeping up :(. For strictly panel use, a flat screen should be just fine assuming that it had a high contrast ratio so that it didn't look dim compared to your CRT.

[Guest]

Vmca,That is exactly the position that I'm coming from. Do you have a stuttering problem with WideView like I do? If not, what settings are you using? I've switched to a dedicated IPX NIC for client/server relations with internet traffic routed to a TCP/IP-only card. This has helped but there is still a noticeable problem.I guess if you think about it, we're all coming from the same position - a 2D panel and outside view are "cramped" on a single screen. The VC guys improve upon this by essentially stretching their screens and then looking around. I accomplish the same via spanning across monitors.Oh, and why is Vmca so scary?

[Guest]

Are they still going up in value at the same rate post 9/11? What has happened to your insurance during the last year? If you had to do it now, would you buy a cherry bird that required zero work (paint, engine, interior, avionics), or would you buy one on the cheap that had a sound airframe (no damage, corrosion, etc) but that needed TLC? I kind of like the idea of molding an aircraft into exactly what I want but...I wish I would have bought one ten years ago - certainly would have been a better investment than my 401k! But I'm one of those don't-borrow-money-for-anything guys (home excluded) so I've tried to wait until I could actually afford it. I just wonder where the ceiling will be for the light aircraft market. It's hard for me to imagine buying a $50k airplane today and selling it for $100k in 2012.Thanks!