Sign in to follow this  
AWACS

What's so great about 2D panels?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


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

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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. >L.AdamsonThe key, Larry is not to make it look like a photo, but to make it look real. The outside scenery these days is more than keeping up. It's no longer FS98, ya' know?You'd be surprised the % of my panels that do not come from a photo. Also, those same textures get used in the VC!I recall one of our beta testers, who thinks 2D panels should be abolished, not understanding why we still do 2D panels. I had to explain to him that we still need to do them to create the textures for the VC! Textures are very much "2D".Seriously, look at our Beech A36's 2D panels, then open up some of the VC textures. Where do you think those textures came from?You'd really be shocked if you knew how much of that Airbus 2D panel is not a photo. I'd say about 50%.These days I can look at several photos, process what I see in my mind, and recreate what I want in Photoshop using my Wacom pen and tablet. I will add some elements of photos here and there, that's for sure, but otherwise it is all an "illusion". Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's some of your "combo" photo/computerized panels, that I had in mind. :7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this 2D panel people keep talking about? I have heard of this.Just kidding.Seriously, though, to me it depends on how you use the simulator. For example, I am a real world student pilot. When in the sim I almost always strictly use the VC. However, sometimes i like to just sit there above a VOR in real world weather conditions and just practice my timing and control holding on the VOR. Since there's no need at all to look outside, I treat the Cessna like it's a budget version of ELITE software -- bring up the IFR panel and stare at it and my watch for 20 - 30 minutes at a time until I feel confident in my knowledge of the procedure.But when it comes to cross country, VA, VFR or anything else, you'll never see me in anything but the VC. I won't buy an add-on or review an add-on aircraft on my web site unless it has a VC. The only 2D panel I ever use is the default Cessna IFR version for what I mentioned above.I agree I like this kind of post. It's kinda neat to read what people get out of the sim and how they use it. VC vs 2D seems to be among the hottest debates out there over which is better. I don't think either is -- it's all a matter of imagination, virtual reality and training as a tool :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the original post, I assumed you must use TrackIR. If you did, I could see your point, but as you don't..........well I personally am at a loss as to how the VC is more realistic.For me it has nothing to do with the quality of the cockpit either.Last night I was using Lou's Archer III and as he's pointed out in this thread, the 2d graphics are what the VC texture is made from. Despite this, and although the VC obviously looks nice and all that, it's just totally unrealistic.I mean, your flying your Archer (or whatever) on base and turn your head to see the runway before turning to finals........do you really turn your head slowly to look out the window, or do you look out the window?Another example, your reading this and you realize that somebody is standing in the doorway of the room your in..........do you slowly turn your head to see who it is, or do you look at the doorway to see who it is?To me at least, using default FS controls i.e. without Track IR makes the VC about as unreal as it gets!OK, we can fiddle around and make the hat button give fixed side views......I could go on. What's with all these VC's using a low zoom so that you can see the panel? Or setting eyepoint far back so that you can see the gauges? Personally, I think 2d photoreal (not photographs) panels are more real, as long as you have more than one forward view to represent looking forward/looking at the primary gauges/looking at the whole panel. Some call these VFR/IFR/Landing views.Anyway, that's my opinion ;-)Lastly, those pics above are not at all representative of what users see in either the VC or 2dGreatest Airliners - DC-8Greatest Airliners - 727 Whisperjethttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What is this 2D panel people keep talking about? I have>heard of this.>>Just kidding.>>Seriously, though, to me it depends on how you use the>simulator. For example, I am a real world student pilot. >When in the sim I almost always strictly use the VC. However,>sometimes i like to just sit there above a VOR in real world>weather conditions and just practice my timing and control>holding on the VOR. Since there's no need at all to look>outside, I treat the Cessna like it's a budget version of>ELITE software -- bring up the IFR panel and stare at it and>my watch for 20 - 30 minutes at a time until I feel confident>in my knowledge of the procedure.>>But when it comes to cross country, VA, VFR or anything else,>you'll never see me in anything but the VC. I won't buy an>add-on or review an add-on aircraft on my web site unless it>has a VC. The only 2D panel I ever use is the default Cessna>IFR version for what I mentioned above.>>I agree I like this kind of post. It's kinda neat to read>what people get out of the sim and how they use it. VC vs 2D>seems to be among the hottest debates out there over which is>better. I don't think either is -- it's all a matter of>imagination, virtual reality and training as a tool :-)i agree with this completely. I also use FS9 for real-world practice. The VC + IR4 is a great combination. I only fly VFR in RL (training for IFR), and the "Visual" part is so important. The VC allows me to "train" my vision and be aware of all the events around me. It gets rid of the bad habit of staring at the instruments at all times....especially when flying around busy un-manned airfields. I actually don't really care if the panels looks real or not, as long as the instruments behave correctly, and the over-all layout of the cockpit is correct. For example, the RealAir stuff all look pretty cartoony to me, but they function extremely well in the VC....and THAT makes it feel real. Of course for IFR training, i sometimes use the 2D panel. But the RealAir aircrafts are soooo smooth...that doing precision IFR flights in the VC is completely possible.my 2 cents..-feng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I fly mainly airliners, the 2D cockpit is the easiest for me to keep up with the work flow. Quite frankly, with most VC's for airliners I have to zoom in and out to be able to see what I need on the panels. That being said, when I fly small GA, it's VC all the way. Less complications in the panels, lower workload, and increased visibility make the VC the option of choice. When at Disney this past year with the kids I flew the Sega airliner sim at Disney Downtown. I'm now totally convinced that 2D with side monitors is superior to VC on one monitor. What I gained back was the peripheral vision lacking in the 2D, but with panel detail I needed. I'm now saving for my next computer which will also include the Matrox tripleH2 Go. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes 2d panels so great? How about:-much better FPS with complex avionics (this is the big one)-better refresh rates on gauges (VCs are catching up quickly, but there are still a ways to go)-gauges that can actually be read without constantly zooming in and out-faster/easier view switching - I can look left and right much quicker in a 2d cockpit. I know the VC pan rate can be changed, but it can only go so fast before it gets out of control. Basically, with a 2d cockpit, you are constantly clicking pop-up windows. In the VC you are constantly zooming in and out. Neither is "right". The biggest thing for me and VCs is framerate. Turn off the VC in an aircraft and the FPS jump by a large amount. The more complex the avionics, the bigger the jump. For smaller GA planes, the difference is small, but on the more complex stuff it is really huge. When someone can give me a complex panel with (RXP) GPS, WX radar, smooth gauges in a VC with zero performance hit and the same smoothness compared to 2d, I'll gladly switch. Until then, 2d panels for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Despite this, and although the VC obviously looks>nice and all that, it's just totally unrealistic.>>I mean, your flying your Archer (or whatever) on base and turn>your head to see the runway before turning to finals........do>you really turn your head slowly to look out the window, or do>you look out the window?>Well........When it comes to a smaller GA cockpit, and taking airliners out of the equation, I totally DISAGREE! :7 I've sat in my plane's cockpit many times to decide just how much peripheral vision I should be seeing; and it's a lot more than a normal static 2D front view. With added peripheral vision, you can catch movement or objects from the side, and then quickly focus on them. With static 2D, you'll never even see this movement or object, without specifically switching to a corner or side view.I have VC's setup, so that I can pan to the point of view I prefer, and then instantly spring back to center if required. I can also instantly go to any side or corner view as needed. I felt that VC's were a more "realistic" way to go, clear back with FS98, when I'd paste a working panel on a somewhat 3D cockpit. I have not changed my mind.I much prefer the added peripheral vision from a VC, since it adds to the perceived senses, such as yaw. IMO, a VC is my best "compromise" since I don't have a full array of side monitors, and never will.I want to see continual improvement in computerized virtual cockpit's. I don't want back stepping, by deciding they're not really necessary or realistic, considering I disagree with that thought to start with. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>What makes 2d panels so great? How about:>>-much better FPS with complex avionics (this is the big>one)>-better refresh rates on gauges (VCs are catching up>quickly, but there are still a ways to go)>-gauges that can actually be read without constantly zooming>in and out>-faster/easier view switching - I can look left and right much>quicker in a 2d cockpit. I know the VC pan rate can be>changed, but it can only go so fast before it gets out of>control. >Since the VC's I usually use, have the fastest and smoothest refresh rate possible, that issue is of no concern. They're just as smooth as X-Planes! I also use buttons for instant springback to a center position, from any VC view, in addition to having buttons for instant side views in the VC too.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if someone was seen operating a real airliner like a VC they'd be pulled and have a discussion with law enforcement. You know, 8 hours from bottle to throttle. So much for the "realism" factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this