Just curious, no flaming required here because if you do, I'm kinda like Chuck Norris and I'm also pretty big deal so watch out. I'm a VC fanatic myself, the immersion factor in a VC for me is amazing, it's like looking around a real plane when they are done right, and you have realtime realistic eye/head movement as opposed to a 2d panel where you only get views at 45 degree intervals. Again, I'm not knocking 2D panel lovers, but I must say I feel that 2D panels do not simulate a 3D cockpit environment as well as a VC. Also, I've heard some say that VCs are "cartoonish." I couldn't disagree more, infact I've included two screenshots one of a 2D panel, the other of a VC, I'm just not feeling the "cartoonish" remark. Anyway, my question stands, I'm just curious to hear why some folks think 2D panels are the greatest thing since the jet engine.Thanks,Jeffhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167711.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167712.jpg

flamebait.ricardo

>flamebait.>>ricardoSoon, we'll need seperate 2 & 3D panel forums! :-lol But once airliner VC's are all up to the specs of those screenshots, then yes, there will be no need for 2D! :7 L.Adamson

Ricardo, what's wrong with you, read the first few lines of my post where I talk about flaming. I am truly and genuinely curious.Jeff

Well, Jeff, aside from our Airbus's 2D panel (not yet complete) that you showed above (the full width view), after 32 years of flying the real things, I do not know what the heck is wrong with 2D panels.I mean, you DO realize that you not only showed some VC shots but the 2D panel graphic also, right?As to "immersion" the 2D works well for me also.Different strokes for different folks.I find they both have their positive and negative points.Yes, there are those who say: "The VC is more realistic", but that's just an opinion, not a definitive statement! ;-)Regards, Lou Bettihttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/AXP/AXPforumbanner.jpg

>>I mean, you DO realize that you not only showed some VC shots but the 2D panel graphic also, right?<>Different strokes for different folks.<

IF I didn't have Active Camera/Head latency, I prefer 2D Panel. Without head latency,..3D is static. and if its static. Photoreal is more real than any 3D.And yeah... Widescreen monitor in addition to head latency also pushed me towards 3D.:)Manny

>Photoreal is more real than any 3D.>I don't believe I have ANY, totally photo-real panels that I like. I prefer a blend of computer graphics & photo, or computerized graphics only. The photo-reals don't seem to blend with the outside visuals realistically. They often have rough edges and a frayed look, as they transition to the exterior view. And since the outside view isn't usually photo-real, that seems to bug me too. And guess what. I just don't like "worn" and "tired" looking panels, Prefer factory new look, but that's my personal preference.L.Adamson

since I cannot move my torso do be "centered" with the Overhead, see something, and get my torso back to the position, there is no utility the VC to me.also, the 2D view gives me more situational awareness than any 3D VC. I can focus with flying, without fps drop.the best 2d cockpit, is from dreamfleet, and Lou know this.also, a great number of simmers use a different view zoom then one.so, even if VC be so cool to see, it is not so cool to operate, since you cannot move your body and the view at same time (and please, don't come with the track IR chat. My monitor did not move with my body movement).

I prefer to fly with a VC most of the time. I may use a 2D panel when flying an approach to minimums. As you may well know, when flying one in real life, one pilot will concentrate entirely on the instruments while the other looks for the runway environment. Using a 2D panel in this case makes it easier for me to scan all my instruments. All other times I use 3D.On a side note, I prefer Rambo over Chuck....the heck with all that hand to hand stuff when you can just shoot it:-bang John M

I like the photoreal 2D panels as well, but for me I just don't like having the set views, I like the freedom to move about the flight deck, I really really need to get a track IR, I just wish I had some friends that were into FS so I could try before I buy.Jeff

To be blunt, I think 2D's "suck", but then I don't sim fly airliners much, where a 2D is still more practical. It's going to take some fully functional GA glass panels (which are on the way), to get me thinking 2D again. In the meantime, I much prefer a VC with pop ups for items such as GPS's, radio stacks, and auto-pilots. Unless---- it's IFR only. And as before, it's my own personal preference.L.Adamson

:-spam1 :-rollLee

I find most FS2004 VC poorly done in comparison to the ability to acutally use the 2D panel.I don't fly heavy iron, mostly flying GA type aircraft.However, I find approach and landing much better in the VC than in the 2D panel most of the time.The 2D panel is much easier to use than a VC, especially for an aircraft in which I don't have 500 hours. I can easily understand why new folks often cannot fly from the VC.Now in FSX the reverse is my experience. I find the VC much better than FS2004 and much easier to use. The head latency really helps though it makes using switches and controls extremely difficult at times.Of course my simple opinion is that there is no immersion from Flight Simulator. There is a suspension of belief, but no real immersion while I still have prepherial vision of my desk and cannot feel motion.The very concept of me at the controls of any aircraft other than a simple trainer is so totally unrealistic....

Seems to me the only point of this thread is to pimp Airliner XP, not that there is anything wrong with that.