What Is the Purpose of the virtual cockpit?

[Guest]

I've flown FS2002 for over a year now and aside from the fact that the virtual cockpit looks "different" from the 2D panels, I'm still trying to figure out just what it's supposed to do beyond a 2D panel. Is it supposed to support mouse-panning view or something; if so, I haven't been able to make this work -- just the usual snap views. What am I missing here -- what's the point of the VC?

[CraigC 0]

For me at least, the VC view adds freedom to change your view to any certain point you want out of the entire 360 degrees available. It doesnt do much good using the keyboard to change the view (especially while shooting a VOR approach in a fast moving aircraft), but other options like a 4 or 8 way hat switch work great as far as Im concerned. There are other options available like the TrackIR or the new Cam2Pan, neither of which I have tried.The limitation that I really cant get past is the functionality of the VC, which is basically nil. I will normally take off in 2D mode, switch to VC enroute switch back to 2D for the approach and back to VC mode again for the last mile or less of the approach. Basically I feel the need to switch to 2D whenever the workload is high in the cockpit, but nothing beats the VC view. Supposedly Wilco was working on a clickable VC, but since the release of Airport 2002 I havent heard much about it.Another downside to Gmax modelling and VC's and such is the time that goes into designing an aircraft with all of these features that everyone wants. It is such a long and tedious process that unless you have a fairly sizeable team put together to split up the workload, most designers probably wont be able to incorporate all of these great things into their models and put out more than 2 or 3 before the release of FS2004. We are already less than a year from that release and I feel like FS2002 hasnt even gotten a good start yet. I wouldnt have a problem if MS skipped 2004 and let this sim mature a little bit. If not, I doubt that we will ever see all of what 2002 has to offer. Unfortunately, MS is a business and if they think (and theyre right) that people will buy 2004, theyll have it out right on schedule. Anyways, sorry for the rambling on when all you wanted to know was about VCs, but its all kind of related. :)Craig

[Guest SlimDady]

Using programs suck as active camera you can pan the view using your mouse.Some prefer the VC over the 2D panel. It gives u the ability to see your surroundings much better. I know I enjoy the perspective it gives.

[Guest]

I started experimenting with the VC about a month after getting FS2002, since I do not like the 2d cockpit at all. "Looking around" in the VC is so much more realistic than the "snap views" in 2d and the cockpit appears to be much more "real" rather than a 2d BMP.Controls are a big issue since most FS2002 aircraft "NEED" the 2d panel - however I normally fly the FSD Commander & Cheyenne which are pretty good for the VC (although not perfect), along with the Falcon 50 - which I have edited the panel to give me a snap in with all the main controls along the bottom of my VC, this let's me fly from start to finish with no use (at all) for the main 2d view....

[Guest cwright]

I think the 'purpose' of the virtual cockpit is to make the whole flight simulator experience more realistic. Of course, in FS2002 the VC is in an early stage of development. In the next version I expect the VC to be fully functional, and will probably make 2D panels redundant. Meanwhile, I strongly recommend Active Camera. Apart from other great features such as a flyby view, you can use the mouse to smoothly pan around the virtual cockpit. It's definitely one of the best add-ons for FS2002. Best regards, Chris

[Guest FS_freak]

It all comes down to what each person considers to be more realistic. A hand drawn virtual cockpit with working (albeit barely readable) gauges and square angled, bright colored untextured polygons to represent everything from the seats to the center pedestal and throttle quadrant, versus a static 2D view made from one of the excellent cockpit, cabin or wing view photos available on the internet. I personally think the later is a lot more realistic. As for the ammount of vision you get out of a 2D view it depends on how you configure the bitmap. Currently I run a 727 with photo real right side (45,90,135) cockpit views matched with a rear open door cabin view and last row left window and mid-fuselage left wing views. When looking rear left you can see the engine intake and the tip of the wing, the rest is scenery. Try to beat that with your average VC!Mauricio

[Guest]

In the virtual cockpit I pan quickly and accurately using the hat switch on my joystick. This freedom of view fits nicely with VFR flights in smaller aircraft (Archer II, sf260) and on all aircraft looking ahead during landing pattern turns. For larger aircraft flying IFR and with more cockpit workload I still find the 2D panel the best. Perhaps this also will change in the future as the virtual panels become more precise and functional. Steve J.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

This is a very hard topic to find a single answer. There are no one size fits all. I like reading what is said about the VC and I'd like to what I think of it.IMHO, the VC if done properlly (with a correct visual cue of your engine for reference to the horizon for example - not talking about aesthetics here), then, it can provide the feeling you have when flying VFR. However, the drawback is that because of some design flaws (many posts about this in the "acft & panel forum"), the gauges are not refreshed fast enough to allow any precise "instrument" reference. It is hard in any VC I've flown so far to have an appropriate visual scan during final, as I learned to do, i.e. RWY / IAS / RWY / VSI / RWY / IAS ...To me, the VC is good to look at the scenery, do some basic VFR flying, and when precision is not a factor to land the aircraft as well. The 2D is the best experience I have anytime I fly IFR, and try to recreate my real wold experience in the Sim.Hope this helps!

[LAdamson 240]

> It is >hard in any VC I've flown so far to have an appropriate >visual scan during final, as I learned to do, i.e. RWY / IAS >/ RWY / VSI / RWY / IAS ... IMO----- there are a few VC's out there that greatly enhance the pattern and landing experience. Until virtual cockpits came along, I generally dismissed pattern work. As for instrument scan, I find it much easier to just use the "shift z" digital readouts for indicated airspeed during my pattern turns and final approach. I never worry about "vertical speed" during real landings, once the runway is in sight, so I don't when simming either.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

> For larger aircraft flying IFR and with more >cockpit workload I still find the 2D panel the best. >Perhaps this also will change in the future as the virtual >panels become more precise and functional. Same here! Love the ArcherII and SF260 virtual panels. With the DF Cardinal and Flight1 Cessna 421, I'm split between 2D and VC, but use 2D's excluisivly for larger commercial type aircraft. I just don't find any large aircraft VC's looking real enough, let alone usuable to serve as a form of virtual reality. The Flight1 DC-9 is an example. I'd prefer 2D bit-maps for side views as an alternative to VC views, like Dreamfleet does with the Cardinal and ArcherII.L.Adamson

[Mike S KPDX 597]

simple...I allows one to actually move into a postion of 'sitting in the pilots seat' as there is no single 2d panel on the market (freeware or payware) that does this. The only expection to this is the user modified VFR landing panel for the 767PIC product - and that is the only one, period.Review the PIC forum here at avsim and see the photo that BBall took while actually landing the '67 and it will become immediatly clear to you just how bizzare standard 2d panels are.Developers still cant let go of the 2d position even when designing the 3d VC's, I have actually seen VC's that have the yoke move toward the center console to more closely match the 2d screen - freakish indeed.

[Damian Clark 1,139]

Hi,I love the VC!!! Can't live without it. In fact I won't even fly an FS2002 aircraft without one. I get a much better suspension of disbelief when in VC.Problem with it of course is you can't do any cockpit work so for high-workload times it just won't cut it.However, I have had some success in strictly using the VC and pop-up panels (shift 1-9). In VC, pull up a pop-up, click away, then hide the pop-up. But, most panels have important controls only on the main panel (shift-1)... bringing up the main panel hides the outside view in VC. I have flown some add-on aircraft that have sub-panels for most main panel functions and this works great!Now all we need are more aircraft setup this way! :)-Damian[table border=0" cellspacing="30" cellpadding="0][tr][td align = "left"]Damian ClarkHiFi Simulation SoftwareDeveloper of ActiveSkyThe next-generation weather environment simulation for FS2002!http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky[/td][td]http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxresmallbanner.jpg][/td][/tr][/table://http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/ima...][/tr][/table

[LAdamson 240]

Cessna 310 "prototype" by Dreamfleet. The textures just keep getting more realistic.http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/8464.htmlL.Adamson

[Guest cwright]

>............When looking rear left you can >see the engine intake and the tip of the wing, the rest is >scenery. Try to beat that with your average VC! >>Mauricio Mauricio, You can do this easily with a VC, though of course it depends on the individual design. In my Constellation design I can 'walk' back into the passenger cabin and see the wings and engines. Of course, if I change my position the perspective of the wing and engines changes naturally - something impossible with static views! Best regards, Chris

[Guest jaapverduijn]

The main purpose of virtual cockpits is to remind us how good 2d panels are (grin)!Jaap Verduijn.