Sign in to follow this  
Dillon

For Maddog fans

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"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----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.If we consider just heavy metals, I've yet to see a VC that has the same FPS and gauge smoothness than the equivalent 2D panel.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my computer the LevelD 767 has absolutely smooth gauges.The PMDG 747-400, and 737 series has smooth update, Lago's MD80, which pretty much encompasses the majority of payware heavy's that are worth buying. SSTSIM has horrible refresh rates which make using the 2-D panel absolutley necesary. Like I said, developers are concentrating the majority of the aircraft programming efforts on VC's because it allows them to have the best of both worlds, especially when using the new gauge proramming methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I completely disagree with you.You are free to disagree with anything.>A VC is not eye candy, it is the best you can get towards simulating>realistic environments.Nope. The best way is to build a home cockpit. A VC is still nothing more than a representation of a 3d space on a 2 dimensional projection plane (your screen). It can fake the 3 dimensional aspects, but that's all.>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.It cannot simulate the workflow. It can only make things "looking" more real, but you are still operating switches and dials with the mouse and move the mouse cursor in a _2d_ space. Not much difference to a 2d panel. The only thing is that you constantly have to change your point of view and this is where a TrackIR helps immensely of course. In fact, most 2d panels offer a better workflow, because they can show more important controls and instruments at the same time. And if you are using a multimonitor setup which allows you to show subpanels without obstructing the view of the main panel, it's a lot better than 'any* VC ever will be. If you want to see all this in a VC, you'll have to zoom out so far that most instruments become hard to read even at the highest resolutions. If you zoom in to get clear and easy to read instruments, your field of view becomes completely unrealistic.>The >situational awareness (with TrackIR) when it comes to Visual>Approaches, instrument scans etc, is better with the VC.Yes, for small aircrafts where most of the instruments and switches are located on the main panel.Like I said, I'am not anti-VC, but I don't buy that "VCs give you the real experience" thing, because it simply isn't true. Anyone who can drive cars and tried some car racing simulation will know this. There isn't anything "real" when you have to zoom and pan around just in order to look somewhere. In real life, you just move your eyeball slightly and don't have to turn your head or you just "know and feel" where a certain switch is and can operate it without even looking at it. This is something, no VC can provide and this is probably the fact, why many true enthusiasts spend lots of money and time to build a home cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>On my computer the LevelD 767 has absolutely smooth gauges.Only the vector displays are smooth. The analog gauges are not and this is true for most, if not all, virtual cockpits with a very few exceptions where the gauges and needles are modeled in 3d and therefore run with the same update rate as the simulation itself.Any conventional gauge won't update faster than about 18fps and this isn't smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.Hi,I agree 100%! I am one of the thousands of simmers who couldn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where have you been? They've always ignored us to some degree or another..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using TrackIR on 2 19" monitors horizontally spanned, is better than any 2-D will ever be.If you've tried TrackIR on a nice set up, you wouldn't be saying this. And if you HAVE tried it and still prefer 2-D then somethings wrong with your brain. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely wrong. Obviously you haven't seen the videos done of the Level D in VC, the gauge updates are completely fluid, just as it is on mine, Standby instruments move completely fluid. Like I said, most people speaking against VC either can't run it, or have a bad setup. How can you refute that the closer you can get to a 3-D environment is not the way to go? especially since there are a great number of payware that offer Excellent VC's.Nothing is better than sitting in my LevelD 767 cockpit, looking slightly up and manipuating overhead panel, looking slightly down, and adjusting my radio. Move my head forward and see the gauges up close or the FMC. How the #### could 2-D be better than that? VC is the close you can get short of building a full size cockpit. Just because you refuse to move forward doesn't mean that VC is a bad thing. It just means you haven't grasped it yet, or refuse to. Regardless, you're 2-D panels are on there way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Using TrackIR on 2 19" monitors horizontally spanned, is>better than any 2-D will ever be.>If you've tried TrackIR on a nice set up, you wouldn't be>saying this. And if you HAVE tried it and still prefer 2-D>then somethings wrong with your brain. Period.I have. In fact, I frequently use TrackIR to fly planes or helicopters from the VC and I like it. I also use the VC during cruise in airliners frequently (actually, all the time). I do NOT use it on takeoff or approach and in all situations where it is necessary to deal with a lot of knobs and switches (i.e. operate the a/p, program the FMC etc.). This is where 2d panels with multiple monitors are still a lot more comfortable to use.And I can assure you that nothing is wrong with my brain. Also, my setup is nice enough to get steady and locked 25 fps with no stutters, blurries or other annoying problems, no matter what settings I use, how much traffic there is or how bad the weather may be.BTW: The only thing wrong with your brain is probably the fact, that you are unable to accept opinions different from your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this