R4D Interactive VC?

[Guest Dominique]

>You'll be happy to hear there is progress in the interactive>VC arena that may lead to an eventual patch for BT and the>Douglas that will allow a more fully clickable VC. Indeed a good news ! >But we will still offer>the 2D option in the Turkey. I'm not faulting the RA Spit ->it's a masterpiece and one of my own favorite planes to fly in>FS. But as the panel designer, maybe I am just not ready to>give up my beloved 2D panels. So we'll still give you both>until someone holds a "Ma Deuce" on me and forces me to>foreswear flat panels forever! Really I'm not ideological there. Rob Young has showed that the 3D panel is on par or even better looking now and as smooth as 2d panel. Besides, with the Spit you can get fixed views, 2D like, if you care to glance sideways in a wink for instance.AS many people with higher machines and loving wonderful planes like the Spit or yours, I just dont use 2D anymore, at all. So you add useless costs to your design and delay time to market as far as I am concerned :)Thanks for the good work anyway, keep it up !

[Dark Moment 0]

:)>>>>There are still many who prefer 2D panels for changing settings while flying, Dominique, not to mention the clarity on more complex gauges. I fly VC in the DC-3 a lot, and love the perspective and scope it gives me, but with Active Camera latency enabled, trying to change radio freqs. or make fine setting adjustments to OBS or Heading is pretty well impossible. You end up chasing these things all over the screen with your mouse.No, 2D rules in crowded skies, that's for sure. When we fly with 20 aircraft aloft in our multiplayer sessions over at DC-3 Airways, we don't want to be having to play "chase the panel" :)Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

[Guest pollard]

Bill,DON'T EVER STOP MAKING THOSE BEAUTIFUL 2D PANELS!!!When FS no longer supports them, fair enough we'll all move on, but until then please don't abandon them. IMO the best developers support both sides of the argument and cater for every taste. Not one single aircraft, and I have MANY of them, supplied WITHOUT a full compliment of 2D views has survived on my system, NOT ONE! And there were some otherwise excellent ones among them.I use both 2D and VC equally. One for precise instrument manipulation and the other for craning my neck back and forth when I'm looking for something or I'm landing. Try turning knobs in the VC when you're flying in terrible conditions and have Active Camera installed! This is where 2D is a godsend - it's a perfectly motionless interface on which you can rely without having to ruin that full-motion atmosphere in the VC!Long live 2D AND 3D and all of the wise and wonderful developers who continue to support both!!Sir John (Boy am I ever ready to fight for this one!) :-samurai

[Guest Dominique]

:-) I don't use Active camera and in my Spit' I don't have any difficulty to tune anything I want even in turbulent weather ... Trimmings helps. A 2D "perfectly motionless interface" kills all suspension of disbelief for me.Have you flown Rob Young's baby (the Spit') ? BTW the SF260 is gonna be updated with a Spit' like VC :-cool

[rambow 0]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, there are still simmers with the opposite point of view. Just in the past few days I have gotten two mails or seen forum posts here - I forget which at the moment - in which the simmers declared they never use VC's! Personally, I use both.>Rob Young has showed that the 3D panel is on par or even better looking now and as smooth as 2d panel.I think Rob would be the first to point out this is Sean Maloney's department. Let's give that very talented developer his due in our discussion. >So you add useless costs to your design and delay time to market as far as I am concerned What costs? Like all my partners, I work for free! ;-) Seriously, though, where do you think the 3D panel comes from? Aside from the 3D bezels and other structures Jan builds on top of them, the panel bitmaps are adapted straight from my 2D ones. All the gauges, where by far the bulk of my work and time are expended, are the same ones used in the VC, so there is no duplication of effort there. The 2D sub-panels would still be used, as RealAir does too, even if we dispensed with 2D panels, so no wasted work there. Trust me when I tell you our package releases are never waiting on panels to be finished. In fact, in BT after finishing them I produced most of the textures for the bombardier's, waist gunners' and upper turret gunner's compartments for Jan and still had time to spare. So your assumption that canning the 2D's will speed up the release is erroneous - sorry. If you really want to speed up the TBM project, order and deliver a sunny, warm Saturday at Reading so we can pull a bunch of planes out of the hangar. I need to get the Turkey into the light of day to do the photo shoots that Jan and I both require for our work. The weather gods have been singularly uncooperative these past couple of months! Nothing but cold gray skies, snow, or rain, or all of the above, every weekend. Maybe you have some influence with the meteorological deities!Bill Rambow MAAM-SIM - Rambow, Visser, Banting, Young, Womack, Sodja & Beaumonthttp://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/maamsim_logo2.gif

[Guest pollard]

This argument will rage and rage for ever... 2D VS 3D... Why can't we have both?Of course you can tune your radios in turbulent weather if you're NOT using Active Camera, your 3D cockpit is as motionless in flight as it is in a 2D cockpit! AC is the module which makes the 3D experience even more realistic (in terms of fast mouse viewing all over the cockpit) so I'm surprised (but not critical of the fact-each to their own!) that you're NOT using it. If you don't like the turbulence effects you don't have to activate them but the mouse viewing is a must-have in the VC (hat-switch panning is atrociously slow and very unrealistic but this has been hotly debated before and I'd rather not drag it all up again).'Trimming' You say? If been flying my aircraft long enough now (nearly 8000hrs) to be able to trim them easily for hands-off flying so I won't comment on this one...Yes I have the RealAir Spitfire XIV and it's one of the most beautiful pieces of software created to date. Those VC gauges are superbly fluid and utterly convincing... But take too long to load... Especially in an aircraft where split second view switches are paramount. Nothing kills the illusion of flight for me more readily than waiting for those awful G-MAX 'cardboard' colours on models to render their photo-realistic bitmaps! This isn't RealAir's fault, of course, but FS. FS needs to be able to store ALL of the aircraft's external/internal textures and settings etc (after initial loading) in it's memory for at least the duration of the flight or we'll always have this cursed problem. 2D bitmaps load instantly everytime and maintain the illusion. If you have to use fixed snap-views in your 3D cockpits then you're missing the whole point of 3D aren't you?With Respect, Sir John:-sword

[Dillon 2,198]

Saw this old thread and I'm wondering does the DC3 now have a fully functioning VC for FS9. The FSX version has been released so I'm wondering if this age old issue for FS9 has been resolved. I haven't been around MAAM's forums in quite some time do to other commitments but thought I'd check in after the FSX announcement.

[rambow 0]

Saw this old thread and I'm wondering does the DC3 now have a fully functioning VC for FS9. The FSX version has been released so I'm wondering if this age old issue for FS9 has been resolved. I haven't been around MAAM's forums in quite some time do to other commitments but thought I'd check in after the FSX announcement.

First of all, the "FSX version" has not been released. If you read the PR you will see that this is still a port-over from FS9. It's just an installer that combines the previously released FSX Basic Compatibility Upgrade and Transparency Fix for SP2 so that the customer no longer has to go elsewhere, donload the patches and install them. The native FSX R4D is still a long way down the runway.As for your original question, the C-47 enhancement planes, originally released as free add-ons and then added to subsequent CD and DL releases, do have interactive VC's. But there is and will never be an extension of that to the older planes in the package. That would involve rebuilding the models and that is just not in the cards.

[Dillon 2,198]

First of all, the "FSX version" has not been released. If you read the PR you will see that this is still a port-over from FS9. It's just an installer that combines the previously released FSX Basic Compatibility Upgrade and Transparency Fix for SP2 so that the customer no longer has to go elsewhere, donload the patches and install them. The native FSX R4D is still a long way down the runway.As for your original question, the C-47 enhancement planes, originally released as free add-ons and then added to subsequent CD and DL releases, do have interactive VC's. But there is and will never be an extension of that to the older planes in the package. That would involve rebuilding the models and that is just not in the cards.

O.K. thanks... :(