What's so great about 2D panels?

[Guest DreamFleet]

>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

[LAdamson 240]

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

[Guest Knikolaes]

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 :-)

[Paul Golding 92]

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

[Guest Yak Yak]

>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

[mnmon 0]

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

[kerosene31 349]

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.

[LAdamson 240]

> 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

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[timers15 11]

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.

[windycloud 30]

Two things turned me from a 2D fan to a 3D user - a PC that can handle VC, and TrackIR.I'm never against 2D. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. But I just can't use it anymore. Because when I go back to 2D, I keep turning my head and expect the view to pan with my movement. And also, Feng has a very good point. 2D panels inevitably got me into the bad habbit of fixing my eyes on the instruments. Actually one of my instructor's very first comments went something like this:"Oh brother, one of those again." (laugh)"One of what?""Looks like I'll have to undo what the computer did to you. Do me a favor, look out of your windsheild before you hit some other planes"During the next flight he covered the panel with a piece of cloth for a while. After that I was basically "cured".Jason

[G7USL 117]

Jason, I couldn't have put it better myself.;-)

[windycloud 30]

>Jason, I couldn't have put it better myself.;-)Thanks, buddy! :-wave

[CanadaOne 36]

2D panels are an anachronism. Pointless other than to offer better FPS to machines that cannot handle a VC with fluidity. They are also offered as "it's the best we can do" by companies who cannot make good VCs but want to sell simplanes anyway.Having a 2D panel in the view selection is like having a horse tied to your car in case your engine dies. The cockpit is our principal environment and the raison d'etre of our hobby. To have a less than stunning cockpit, especially at today's add-on prices and with the available technology, is ridiculous. There's no excuse not to get a great VC when you buy a payware plane.

[windycloud 30]

>Having a 2D panel in the view selection is like having a horse>tied to your car in case your engine dies. >animal cruelty! :)