Does Anyone Realy Care About VC's?

[Guest]

True, even the best VCs suffer somewhat from resolution problems but no one can argue that it isn't the most realistic view. We can't do without 2D panels either, though, because they are needed for functionality and for those of us with multiple monitors. Those of you who poopoo VCs obviously have not tried TrackIR because once you do, the "head in a neck brace" feeling you get with strictly 2D cockpits is unbearable. As for functionality, a keyboard emulator with a few switches from RadioShack turns your system into a home cockpit pretty easily.The biggest reason to go to a VC for me? NO MORE JUMPSEAT VIEW!! Almost no 2D panel gives you the true pilot's view. They are always skewed to the right to show the avionics and more. Taxiing in that state gives the sensation of crabbing down the runway. It's horrible! In VC, you can slide anywhere you want - even over to the copilots seatI'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

[Guest]

Yeah, that digitized copy of the checklist should really help judge my turn to final from right base. ;-) For me it's all about functionality, not eye-candy. Of course, if they occur together, all the better.David

[Guest Pabra]

Better get used to them or stick with fs2k2 forever; cfs3 is all vc.Anyway once they all get fotoreal and fully operational, 2d will be like 'do you remember when..'Here we go; another vc versus 2d tread..Go simming.

[Guest]

Imagine driving your car with a neckbrace on and blinders. That's what it is like for me using a 2D only model now after getting used to TrackIR and good VCs! Use the hat to change to those gorgeous 2D quarter panels you say? Well, the hat on my yoke (and most I've seen) is on the right horn so you either have to take your hand off the throttles during the most challenging part of the flight or continue looking straight ahead. Tough choice and one we shouldn't have to make. Can you tell I really love my TrackIR???David

[Guest]

David,Everybody takes things so damn serious on this board so let me start by saying that this is only my opinion, that I respect yours, that the key is to have an enjoyable experience, and that I find these debates educational rather than argumentative. Anyway...>"...no one can argue that it isn't the most realistic view."I'll argue with you. ;) For me, I think the most realistic view is when the primary display is full screen outside and the (2D) panels are undocked on separate screens.>"...the sensation of crabbing down the runway. It's horrible!"When you undock the panel you can physically position it anywhere you want.?"...either have to take your hand off the throttles during the most challenging part of the flight"My MS stick has the hat on the top. It's no problem to throttle with my left hand and stick with my right while using the hat with my thumb. Although, I would much rather have the left/right thing in reverse so that I could throttle with my right hand when in the left seat!>"Can you tell I really love my TrackIR?"Yes!As an added bonus, undocking the main panel yields an aprox (and honest) 15-20% fps increase on my system. I typically only see ~15 when landing so an extra 2-3 fps makes a noticeable (and needed) improvement.

[Guest]

What is with the philosophy on this board that the only people holy enough to have opinions are (freeware) developers? I certainly respect the efforts of every designer/painter/modeler/author out there. Out hobby would not be what it is without them. I'm not knocking any specific product; I'm only trying to discuss what is the best way to experience FS. Sorry for the rant.

[JET 1 0]

After reading all these posts about the pros and cons of VC and 2d panels, I can't help thinking that a good give-and-take -solution would be to incorporate ActiveCamera-style latency effects to a 2d panel !!If only the panels were slightly bigger so that the scenery would not flicker under the edges ;)

[Guest]

Dennis,I hope I didn't come off as being too serious on this issue - just passionate! :-)>I'll argue with you. ;) For me, I think the most realistic >view is when the primary display is full screen outside and >the (2D) panels are undocked on separate screens. Actually, you have a point here. That really would be the best but I would still use the VC for my full screen outside view - preferably with a projector - because the situational awareness is just so critical to flying realistically.>>>"...the sensation of crabbing down the runway. It's horrible!">>When you undock the panel you can physically position it >anywhere you want. Again, that is true. Your system is really yet another rung up the ladder from what I'm talking about (and what I use).>>?"...either have to take your hand off the throttles during >the most challenging part of the flight" >>My MS stick has the hat on the top. It's no problem to >throttle with my left hand and stick with my right while >using the hat with my thumb. Although, I would much rather >have the left/right thing in reverse so that I could >throttle with my right hand when in the left seat! Well, I really can't enjoy using a stick anymore although sometimes I wish I had it installed for the SF260.Do you have pictures of your setup? Is it a true home cockpit or a work in progress (I guess they all fit the latter!). Thanks for pointing out yet another solution.David

[B777ER 2,485]

Yep. It has already been stated that FS2004 will ship with VC only. No more 2D panels from MS.

[Guest]

Believe it or not, I like the first pic better. Sure the panel below looks great and much more realistic, but it doesn't have the shadows and lighting effects as you turn. Also, with the "sticky" views, you're limited to eight directions, whereas in a VC, you can look in just the direction you want. Take another look at the above pics. Outside the window, everything is sort of blocky and crude looking, so the less-detailed VC doesn't seem out of place. Just my opinion, but I believe a VC - even a crude one - and even with the joystick mounted hat switch - enhances the sensation of being in the airplane.

[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"

[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)

[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

[Guest]

Simple question. Simple answer. Yes!VC for VFR.2D for IFR.

[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... ;).