Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Does Anyone Realy Care About VC's?

Recommended Posts

Guest

clearly developers tell you what they like best by what they develop. Thus your comments do not further a "chat" about that subject, the real outcome you hoped for is a change in the output of developers. Here's my rant: "What is with the philosophy on this board that the people who think their time is so valuable that they can't "waste" it learning to develop think they should have a say in what freeware developments do occur"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi, yeah im definately a VC fan. They just feel more real and immersive. Gone are the days where i feel like im flying round with a static bitmap stuck in front of me. Im glad MS and ditching 2d panels, cause soon we wont need them at all. The next phase VC's might be in FS2004 - the active panel ones where switches are usable. That 'is' awesome, nuff said.:D Im also like alot of people here, i do expect high quality VC's, anything less, i refuse to fly the plane. Thats why i ignore all the POSKY 747's (no VC) but absolutely love their CRJ-200's.:) Features that would make the perfect VC imo: Fully 3D high polygonal interiors. (fully rounded curves and seats) High-res textures. (no washed out textures and unreadable gauges) Active panels. (usable switches like that in a 2d cockpit)Real light sources from within the cockpit. (not just dark and light textures)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anticyclone

*******************************************I'm concerned that the new "clickable" VCs will actually be the worst combination yet however. No VC I've seen to date provides enough detail to actually click on gauges and see the changes effectively (Kohlsman window for example). Performance is also sure to suffer too. As it is, most VCs tax even the high end systems, at least more than 2D panels. I'll certainly give them a good try, but as I say, I am skeptical. THe worst of both worlds!*******************************************David,- if the textures used for the panel have a good resolution (providing details)- if you can quick pan and zoom with a mousewheel- if there are preset views (shortcuts)- if some parts of the VC are undockable (good for monitoring)- if the cursor changes when reaching a clickable zone (switch, gauge, ...) Then believe us, the VC immersion can be different.Anyway we agree with you at 100 % when you say the VC's are frame rate eater, especially if the 3D panel is complex. Regards,Serge BAYE and Guillaume DARIERwww.anticyclone.be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>"I hope I didn't come off as being too serious on this issue - just passionate!"No, not at all. I just get weary of the politically correct expectation on this board. I understand that there are a select few who instigate developer bashing, but jeesh! They are just opinions folks! But, no you didn't come off that way at all. Passionate is way you should be.>"Do you have pictures of your setup?"I don't post many pictures so I'm not sure if I was smart enough to get the picture to attach or not. If it doesn't, here's what it is: right now I'm running a 19" and a 17" on a P4 1.9 with an ATI 7500 dual head. A client PC (1.0G w/ ATI 8500) is running a second 17". I have a forth monitor (15") that I was using, but the old Diamond Stealth PCI card seemed to be having a resource conflict so it's temporarily out :(. My next step is to build a new desk so both 17's are side-by-side below the 19". I want to have a stretched PIC panel spanning both. I'll use the 19" as a primary, the 15" for FMC and throttle. I'll then need a monitor for overhead and then even more for clients. That is, unless I sign up for your TrackIR theory... ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know if 9/11 influenced the prices or not. I think they will in general always go up-after all-to replace with a new similar aircraft would now be around 500k-so still a bargain at 1/5 the price. I think I would buy the cheap one and redo it-with the rapid change in avionics right now it seems like that would be the way to go.My insurance has stayed pretty much the same since I've owned it although it did go up $100 this year-around $1300-which compared to car insurance is a bargain. It helps that the Deb as far as I know has the best safety record for a retract.Anyway-if it was me-I'd try to get a cheap one that needs paint and a new interior, and an avionics upgrade.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Vmca, That is exactly the position that I'm coming from. Do you have a stuttering problem with WideView like I do? Not yet. I'm just running multiple monitors via the one box with a few video cards. I'm hoping to go to WideView soon.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. How much of a boost did doing this give you?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. Single screen feels totally inadequate after using multiple monitors. If this capability is hamstrung in FS2004 it will be an utter disaster. The VC guys improve upon this by essentially stretching their screens and then looking around.I personally don't like this solution. I get a greater feeling of fidelity by placing the instruments where I want them. Nothing detracts more for me than having to call up another screen rather than just glancing across.Oh, and why is Vmca so scary? I had an "eventful" time when it came to do the Vmca demonstration during my multi training. We stalled before we lost directional control and ended up in a spin. Got a bit closer to the ground (well water actually) than was comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jalok

Don't agree with you, sir. Time to upgrade from 800x600 or 1024x768 to 1600x1200 or 1920x1440. And even if it's not possible to some users, a mousewheel zoom might be the solution, just like ActiveCamera works.>I'm concerned that the new "clickable" VCs will actually be >the worst combination yet however. No VC I've seen to date >provides enough detail to actually click on gauges and see >the changes effectively (Kohlsman window for example). >Performance is also sure to suffer too. As it is, most VCs >tax even the high end systems, at least more than 2D panels. >I'll certainly give them a good try, but as I say, I am >skeptical. THe worst of both worlds! >David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

These days I rarely post, but just have to disagree on a few points..."Flying alot of sim time without using VC develops 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."For sim only pilots.... maybe. But in 15 years of mixing desktop simming with my real world flying.... I have never had any trouble remembering to look outside in the real world." And, don't think that flying the heavies is any different. You still spend more time looking out than down."No way! Large and widebody aircraft require more precise instrument techniques and procedures than ever, and in the real world, like it or not, large jet drivers spend a great deal of time heads down even in VMC conditions. The non-flying pilot is primarily responsible for looking outside, as is the flying pilot, but the reality is far more heads down than many realize... Though the new "electric jets" are helping this issue some... but that is another subject altogether." 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."The above is the sign of a pilot who has not yet become truly competant at instrument flight, and I would be un-nerved to fly with anyone that admitted to that style of flying during IMC! Really competant instrument pilots do just as well, and are just as comfortable with their instrument interface to the airspace as they are looking out the window.... You know you have arrived as a good instrument pilot when you don't even consciously notice the difference, but automatically transition back and forth between visual and instrument orientation without even realizing you are doing it! "Using an "ok" VC is still more realistic than using awesome looking and functioning 2D. Dems just da facts."It's purely personal choice, and has little impact on performance for me anyway. My personal choice is 2d though, even though I train pilots for jet type-ratings in full motion sims for a living these days. For my desktop needs, it works fine, and does not interfere with doing it for real.Sorry to disagree with your perspective, dems just my opinion!By the way, even though I work in building with more than two dozen full motion 6 axis sims (level C & D), I still enjoy coming home and flying my desktop.... even when I can have my pick at work when they are available! :DBest Regards,Tim SandersATP,B-747,B-727,DC-8,C-141,DA-20,DA-10 Simulator Instructor and Checkairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>"How much of a boost did doing this give you?"I don't have hard data, but the discrete IPX link probably reduced stuttering on the client by 10-15%. WideView is a strange bird - the data passed is far below the capacity of a 10T circuit, let alone the 100T that I'm using, but yet it the client always seems starved for data. The frame count on the client is usually maxed at the 20 fps lock that I have it set to, so I don't think it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this