Looks like another 2D panel project. Nothing seems to be going on concerning a new external/VC model...

Thanks for the head up.Looking forward to this release.

Well, there are VC screenshots on the site...Edit: Oops, those were v1.51 screenies, but I can

The developers have stated back in January:The new Maddog will come in two versions, without VC and with VC. The version without VC will be available first (probably vey soon...), while the VC version will come later.

>The developers have stated back in January:>>The new Maddog will come in two versions, without VC and with>VC. The version without VC will be available first (probably>vey soon...), while the VC version will come later. >>I'm betting the VC come at an additional cost. If so, then I think it's redliculous. I don't care what the reason, there's no excuse why a plane can't be complete anymore.

>I'm betting the VC come at an additional cost. If so, then I>think it's redliculous. I don't care what the reason, there's>no excuse why a plane can't be complete anymore.Why are you betting if you don't know what you are talking about?Better read the forums before jumping to conclusions and start a rant.

>>The developers have stated back in January:>>VC. The version without VC will be available first (probably>>vey soon...), while the VC version will come later. >I'm betting the VC come at an additional cost. If so, then I>think it's redliculous. I don't care what the reason, there's>no excuse why a plane can't be complete anymore.Nope. I remember reading a forum post in which one of the devs stated that the VC model will come as a free upgrade, but will be delayed a bit.Anyway, the Maddog is a fine aircraft - with all the patches installed, the current version works very well and I'am really looking forward to the new version.And who says a plane w/o a VC is not complete? That's just not true. There are quite a few people who couldn't care less about a framekilling VC. I'am not anti-VC, in fcat, I even purchased a trackIR to get more out of virtual cockpits (and I love it), but I still prefer the 2d panel for flying complex planes. VCs are still "not there", except for smaller GA aircrafts or helicopters which I wouldn't touch w/o a good VC.

The Level D has an excellent VC. Admitted, some people lack the CPU power for VC's, but it is definitly the new direction towards realism.

Hey Forum police-egbert, I typically check the developers web site for information, mainly this page http://www.flythemaddog.com/features.php. It states nothing about a VC being included. Having read the claim from the posts above that a VC will be released in the near future, it's natural to suspect that it would be a purchasing upgrade. However, not being completly sure, and not having the time to scour the forums, I added the word "I bet" and "if so", satisified?

>I'm betting the VC come at an additional cost. If so, then I>think it's redliculous. I don't care what the reason, there's>no excuse why a plane can't be complete anymore."Complete" certainly does not equate to "has VC." There are lots of models out there with VCs I would definitely line up in the "woefully incomplete" category. I could care less if it has a VC...saves me the trouble of having to edit the model with a binary editor to get rid of it, anyway.I think it'd be quite fair to make the VC crowd pay extra. But...that said, the current MadDog has a VC...just not if you merge it with the JetCity models. And it still won't have a VC if you do the merge.CheerioBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>"Complete" certainly does not equate to "has VC." There are>lots of models out there with VCs I would definitely line up>in the "woefully incomplete" category. I could care less if>it has a VC...saves me the trouble of having to edit the model>with a binary editor to get rid of it, anyway.>I think it'd be quite fair to make the VC crowd pay extra. >But...that said, the current MadDog has a VC...just not if you>merge it with the JetCity models. And it still won't have a>VC if you do the merge.Exactly. It's just that the JetCity models are much, much better than the default maddog model.Anyway, VC or not, the MD-8x is a top notch add-on and the new version can only get better.Just a quote from someone who should know, because he a) made the best freeware DC-9 package:( is a real world pilot (and ex- MD-8x captain)----I am now testing a version of the next MD panel (FS9 and FSX). It is a MAJOR update. One of the best panels I have seen. Every shortcoming from the 1.51 version is gone----

>The Level D has an excellent VC. Admitted, some people lack>the CPU power for VC's, but it is definitly the new direction>towards realism.I know, the lds has a good VC, probably one of the best. I'am also not lacking the power to run it, in fact, I basically never drop below my locked 25fps in any VC, no matther what's going on outside.But a VC has nothing to do with realism. Its basically eye candy and improves the "feeling" a bit, that's all. In terms of "usability", a well-designed 2d panel is still the better way to fly a complex airliner. Of course, things are a lot different for smaller planes or helicopters.I'am glad that most developers realize this and still provide 2d panels (there are a few exceptions from that rule, but for these products, it is mostly ok to skip the 2d panel, because it isn't really needed).

Somewhat surprisingly, the Lago Maddog has turned out to be one of my favorite aircrafts (as measured by hours looged via Flightkeeper).Had the developers (Stefano, Davide, etc.) staid with Lago, the Maddog would have already sunk to the bottom of the addon floor. Luckily, they made the brilliant decision to jump the dying Lago ship, set up shop on their own and offer REAL support for their product. The current version 1.51.3 works perfectly. The only thing missing is a detailed flight tutorial (the Italian one, translated into English, is adequate, but has room for improvement). The other issue that the promised merge of the Lago MD virtual cockpit with the JCA planes never materialized. ricardo

I completely disagree with you. A VC is not eye candy, it is the best you can get towards simulating realistic environments. A well designed VC, is much better than a 2-D one, simply because the locations of the controls are in their correct spot as opposed to having a pop up window of different panels and the relationship and size of the instruments are more exact. The flow of operating an airliner cockpit as though it were the real one can only be done in a VC. The situational awareness (with TrackIR) when it comes to Visual Approaches, instrument scans etc, is better with the VC.With the development of extremely smooth gauges, there is nothing a 2-D panel has over a VC and I challenge you to point one out.HOWEVER, if one has a small 17inch monitor, no TrackIR, and a CPU that offers less than fluid movement in VC, perhaps a 2-D panel is more convenient, but it is fading out. Some Payware developers are taking it out all together.

Computer's are so fast nowadays and gauge programming and systems simulation are improving so much that frame hogging non functional VC's are slowly becoming nonexistent, and regardless to whether you prefer the old way of simulation, 2-D panels are on their way out the door. RealAir, SHockwave, PMDG, LevelD are companies among many others that are moving in that direction. And if you think that a group of hobbyist who refuse to move along with it will influence the developers to keep on with the 2-D's, you better get used to the idea of downloading Freeware.