Hi Edam,ALL my IFR approaches are done using the Virtual Cockpit in fact I'm in VC around 90% of the time, so yes it can be a little weird at first but when you get used to it it's great!, give it a try.And why the hassle?, you set the ILS freq, the final OBS bearing and after that is all stick and rudder, flaps, power, gear and lights, you can do all this with keyboard shortcuts or have the controls mapped to a flight yoke, I really don't see the hassle.Best of luck.

Which airplane is that second pic above. I like that one. First VC I've seen that looks really good (with exception of Falcon50). Course I haven't tried the payware aircraft with 3d views yet. I turned off the VC views by setting "see self=0" in the main cfg file a long time ago. I use 2d panels most all the time and that way I can put in 2d wrap around views. If I want to switch to the 3d pit when I fly a jet, now and then, I just switch to the 3d view so I have the 3d wrap around views. I hope MS doesn't do away with 2d pits in FS2k4. Technology isn't ready for that yet. Especially not in a civilian sim.

I am curious-on the approach how do you tune the radio to the tower at the marker, or adjust the heading bug, or use the autopilot with a vc?I suppose one could punch a keyboard-but....The big one for me though is the smoothness of instruments-they are way more jerky in the vc than in the 2d. This makes precise ifr flying very difficult.I guess I am in the unique position of being one of the few persons that has their own personal aircraft done in FS-down to the instruments being made from photos. The 2d just looks and therefore feels more like the real craft-and I think the virtual cockpit is outstanding-it just isn't up to the same level yet. When I pan around the cabin in the vc it just doesn't have the reality of the 2d views that are also made from photographs.For record am not against vc's-I use them all the time at various stages of the flight-just find the 2d more useful for real procedures.Perhaps future improvements will keep everyone happy-but the answer in flight sims always seems to be let the end user decide what they like best.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

they really hack into my performance on a p3 500....i don

I haven't seen many VCs that cause a huge frame rate hit if any. Certainty not on the level of Wilco's Airport 2002.

We're all used to the 2D panels and getting used to the VCs does take a little bit of practice. I mostly fly with the VC now - it is far more natural. I recently got Active Camera which puts the VC on a par with IL-2. Certainly, visual flight, circuits, and landing are all easier/better with the VC because of the freedom of movement and the more natural view ahead. I don't think MS did themselves any favours though with the way you are introduced to the VC. The default zoom is wrong (should be around 0.71%) and they should have implemented panning and zooming with the mouse (thankfully resolved with Active Camera). I'm guessing that most of the VC haters are people that fly the big jets, normally IFR. I love the VC for VFR in a GA plane, but I can imagine that they would be inappropriate for IFR - you need to be able to focus clearly on the panel and control your panel using the controls on it. My main gripe with the VC is you can't control any aircraft systems with it. On a more complex aircraft you would have to remember an awful lot of key commands without the 2D panel.I'm looking forward to a VC with all the functionality that the 2D panels offer and the same level of clarity. I'm hoping to see that happen in FS2k4...

Hey, If M$ can make a truly functional VC in FS2k4, then I'm all for it. :)But then, anytime a freeware developer makes an add-on plane, a VC would have to be built into the model, correct? I'm interested to see how much different the add-on creation will be in FS2k4. Hopefully our great FS2002 planes will be compatible.

>I find it hard to understand why many have a problem with >Virtual Cockpits. My "problem" with VC is mainly esthetics. Most VC cockpits remind me of sitting in a cheap plywood constuction. And if this is so - realism goes down the drain. So try to make this Herculean mental effort and understand that there are multitude of reasons why VC are not liked by some. If you like them - more power to you.Michael J.[link:jdtllc.com]http://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

In addition, it tough to create your own cockpit using a 3D Virtual cockpit. That is, if you want to use multiple monitors to use for different instruments, you can't using a 3D model. I think....Robb

We have seen quite a progression in virtual cockpits over the years. It seems to me that the Pacfific air combat sim from Microprose had a VC quite a few years ago. It was pixelated and the instrument's didn't work. Someone else mentioned FU3 - those VC's were pretty horrific compared to FS2k2.With the next version of MSFS I think we will have increased detail in the VC's and clickable instruments/controls.For now, I have found a couple of things recently that really enhance the VC's for light plane flying:* Others have mentioned ActiveCamera. It's pretty cool. THe head motion effect is pretty darn immersive, as long as you keep it on the low end in the configuration settings. It sort of takes away the "flatness" of flying the computer and provides a greater sense of being in motion. I'm not sure if it is realistic or not (I am not a pilot), but it sure is neat.* Just using FSUIPC to configure my spacebar to zoom in and out with a single keypress makes it much easier to make detailed flight corrections and check some of the smaller instruments. I just press the spacebar, and then let go of it to return to my previous zoom setting. The detail of the instruments scale with the zoom so they might look a bit pixelated at 60% bit they are sharp and clear at 110%.However, until the state of the art of VC's get redefined (and I am in no hurry to upgrade my computer for FS2k4 - I still need to upgrade for this version!), I certainly think people have a valid reason to stick with 2d panels. To each his own. live and let live.

I guess I'm now understanding why people still like the 2D panels. It seems everyone for the most part see the advantage of VCs but are on the fence untile the technology has advanced enough to make them as functional as the 2Ds are today. I hope 2004 accomplishes this, I know 2008 will.

Exactly. The panel on a real aircraft is an interactive item and so it should be in FS. The current VC is all very pretty but it's got to become useable before it replaces a 2D panel. Memorising keypresses is not the answer.If a VC could be made of, let's say, Oleksiy Frelov's Dash 8 panel so that everything was as readable, useable and accessible as the current 2D panel then I would move to a VC - but not before then.

"realism goes down the drain"I disagree. I flew an eveining flight from KIAD to Pittsburgh Int. last night with the FSD Commander. Did the whole thing in the vc.Totally realistic (to me of course :) ). There is nothing like having the perspective of a little bit of the side view on final approach.The 2d is too 'stiff" for me.