Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Why don't add on developers care to make quality VC's?

Recommended Posts

Why is it add on developers can't/don't make a quality VC like Real Air does? Shockwave makes one that is almost as good as Real Air, but nobody else comes close, and we know it can be done. Real Air does not even charge more than the guys with the lesser VC's, so it can't be said its not practical or possible to make them that nice. Is it just lack of skill?

Share this post


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

"Is it just lack of skill?"I can just sense the flames coming--I think this is a pretty broad condemnation in terms of add on VC quality and I don't feel it speaks the truth. I've sat in Cessna's and flown 'em, I've sat in Pipers. Carenado does a fantastic job with their virtual cockpits. I can almost smell the Avgas.I've flown the Challenger microlight. And the Luscombe. Bill Lyons has created freeware aircraft that are dead ringers for both. I've never sat in the cockpit of a BAC-111 but I believe most members here will tell you David Maltby's work is as real as it gets.Those are just a few....Anyway, I've tried to be civil in my answer and I hope others will too, because there's a lot of ways your question can be taken, most that don't show a deep respect for the work people do on these projects.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VC's are really a matter of personal opinion IMHO.By way of a couple of examples, Carenado make some great VC's, visually they are stunning and functionally they are brilliant, but in the main they represent fairly basic aircraft and in my own uninformed opinion I would guess the gauge functionality behind them would be reasonably uncomplicated.FSD on the other hand do make brilliant panels. IMHO while they are not as visually stunnibg as the Carenado one's, their complexity and functionality for GA A/C are hard to beat and in the main work very well. It's all horses for courses.As I don't have or fly any heavy iron, I don't have an opinion on offerings such as thos from PMDG or LevelD, however their prowess in that genre is enormous as is evidenced by their amazing following by those who fly by the book.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"Is it just lack of skill?">>I can just sense the flames coming--I think this is a pretty>broad condemnation in terms of add on VC quality and I don't>feel it speaks the truth. You are probably right as I having only been in the add on scene for a few months, and if my comments are condemning than I appologize as that notion is probably based on limited information. For example I read one developer in particular humbly delare he is not the best at what he does, and that he is thankful people appreciate his work. I greatly respect a comment like that, and will buy from him again.Instead of saying why don't they make "quality VCs", I should have said "higher quality" VC's. This forum doesn't let you edit your words when you get a chance to come back online and see what it was you wrote earlier. I havn't seen a cerenado product so I don't know what kind of quality they have, as I am into military planes. I guess its not fair to say the work out there is not quality, as it is, but when one compnay sets a standard for quality I have a way of looking up that standard as the very definition of "quality". From what I have read the VC is one of the most common dissapointments in add on aircraft, and I have to wonder why? Even something with an amazing model like the Plane Design Spitfire gets complaints on the VC. If RealAir an Shockwave can reach a certain level of quality, why not Plane Design? Why not others? There has to be a reason and I'm just wondering what that is. I would have to guess either its not worth their time to put the extra effort into the VC, or they just lack the skills to do what other developers have done. Personally I respect the guy that lacks the skills more than the guy who could do it but choses not to. Seems to me if they have the skill any developer can make a VC like that of Real Air, though instead of that quality being the norm its the exception, but why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really struggle to think of any examples that justify your question. Perhaps I just haven't seen them, if there are.99% of the payware addon aircraft I own has an amazing VC. Aeroworx B200, Digital Aviation Dornier and Cheyenne, Sibwings Saab Safir, Level-D 767, PMDG 747, ALL the Carenado aircraft...the list goes on.Not to mention the INFINITE quality of VC's in David Maltby's BAC-111, and Trident...and these are freeware.If its only military aircraft you fly, then perhaps you own Alphasim aircraft, and similar. If this is the case, then yes, you probably are seeing a differing quality in VC's. They throw out an aircraft every couple of months it seems, and whilst I am sure they are fun and enjoyable to fly, the downside is that the VC's and so on, are not at the absolute cutting edge. Realair on the other hand, have only done a handful of aircraft...thus more time and energy is put into the modelling, and thus the end product is of a far higher quality.Regards,Al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your into military aircraft, grab that Cloud 9 Phantom while it's going cheap.I paid full price for it and considered it MORE than worth it. I hardly fly military but have always had a soft spot for the Phantom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you try the Cloud9 MB339 and Phantom ? They both have trial versions, and are on 50% sale right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I hadn't looked now. I really don't like buying add-ons (nothing personal :-) ) because I just don't have the time use them. They tend to get installed and flown a few very short flights and then forgotten about due to lack of time.................and then I see yet another comment about that bloody Phantom!!!I mean, it's a Phantom. I don't know how many different plastic F4 kits I made as a kid, but the temptation to get a FS Phantom is probably too much to ignore.................now if I could land it on a deck somewhere as well :-yellow1 Greatest 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

Can't you engineer some kind of swap deal? A Phantom for a 727 seems like a good deal to me! I do think you'd like it though. It's the quickest way to heaven on my PC, in more ways than one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Some make excellent VC's: all airplanes from "RealAirSimulations", Saab 91 from "Sibwings" and not mentioned already the Yak 40 from "Suprunov Design".Regards,Hugo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If its only military aircraft you fly, then perhaps you own>Alphasim aircraft, and similar. If this is the case, then>yes, you probably are seeing a differing quality in VC's. >They throw out an aircraft every couple of months it seems,>and whilst I am sure they are fun and enjoyable to fly, the>downside is that the VC's and so on, are not at the absolute>cutting edge. Well I guess this sums up what I'm getting at, as far as different quality VC's. From what you guys have said it seems most devs out there have a nice VC, and I don't own anything from most of those companies listed so I guess I wouldn't know that. Since Alphasim turns out so many aircraft I can see where there would be a downside to that in the VC quality. The airlinerxp shots above are amazing. I'll just have to look around a bit more and see whats out there, as it seems clear I don't know a whole lot about the guys with the nice VCs. Thanks for the info, and I appologize if my comments where insutling to the add on market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You want to see some quality VC shots?>>Overhead>http://www.airlinerxp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=163>http://www.airlinerxp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9>>Pedestal>http://www.airlinerxp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1533#1533>>The bar is being raised. :)Jeff thanks for posting the 'url's' for the Airliner XP. It looks fantastic. I know it's still being developed but it's already got me VERY interested.Seems you might be ending your 'low and slow' period soon eh Jeff? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I buy some alphasim aircraft. I would put them in the category of "not high quality VC". But, if you have an interest in certain aircraft, they are a good source of products. They are reasonably priced IMHO. I assume the work in creating a really good VC would force a much higher price, which probably isn't realistic given the somewhat limited market for some of these more obscure aircraft. For example I bought their PBM-3/5 mainly because my Dad had flown on them during WWII, but this AC certainly isn't a mainstream one for simmers. scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah! He's got fed up with driving his old, clunky Dornier around Troutdale. . . . . .:-waveHi Jeff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the planes from IRIS go in the same bucket as the Alphasim planes do. Unfortunatly there are not any military jets available with VC as good as LOMAC, which is what I would call a "quality" VC. The cloud9 phantom is as close as you can get to a LOMAC quality VC, from what I have seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Why is it add on developers can't/don't make a quality VC>like Real Air does? Shockwave makes one that is almost as>good as Real Air, but nobody else comes close, and we know it>can be done. Real Air does not even charge more than the guys>with the lesser VC's, so it can't be said its not practical or>possible to make them that nice. Is it just lack of skill?You have to consider the size and complexity of the plane. I releatively small plane, with few controls and instruments, can have a lot of work put into this small area without degrading system performance. When you get into bigger, more complex planes thats not so easy to do. I think there are a lot of good VCs out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give you a few answers. I have developed a few aircraft (Bonanza V35B, Cessna 340, Velocity XL-5). i concentrate on the overall shape, prop, gear, flaps, 2D panel and flight dynamics. Only the Velocity has a VC panel and I did not really expect anyone to use that. There were no clear and helpful instructions on doing a VC when I did those aircraft. What instructions there were turned out to be mainly wrong. I don't remember all the details but it involves making a regular panel and turning it backwards. it's hard enough just making a regular panel. While a 2D panel comes out very clear and easy to read, the VC cockpit is a bit less clear for some reason.I do a lot of flying in FS, logging 750 hours a year in a wide variety of aircraft. I used to be a pilot and an engineer so I give some thought to how we fly the plane. The VC cockpit just does not make it as a realistic device when actually flying. With a 2D panel, it seems to me just like being in the aircraft as far as the primary gauges are concerned. You see the gauges distributed acorss the panel, look for the ones you need at various times in the flight while keeping track of what's going on outside the window and with other gauges. You don't concentrate on any one gauge but continually scan several of them, depending on what's happening. With a 2D panel, you just move your eyes as you naturally would with a real panel. With a VC if you zoom for good clarity, you must use your hat switch to pan and tilt to find the gauge you want or to look outside. That is so slow it does not work.I'd also advise you, if you don't like how we do something when we give it to you for free, get busy and learn to do it yourself. Then you can get it just right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The VC cockpit just does not make it as a realistic device>when actually flying. With a 2D panel, it seems to me just>like being in the aircraft as far as the primary gauges are>concerned. This is true as far as the gauges are concerned; and that's all well and good for instrument scanning in IMC/IFR flight.But imagine this. You're driving you car down the highway in "2D" mode, with a panel taking up a good half your sight line. To get any peripheral vision, you must hit some keyboard strokes or perhaps move a hatch switch attached to the steering wheel for any side views. This is NOT the way it is!In reality, it's the view down the highway that's in focus. The gauges in the dash are not even in the normal sight line and are out of focus, until you intentionally look down at them. And, unless you drive with head and eyes stuck straight ahead, you're going to pickup peripheral vision from the sides too! It's the same with VFR flight in airplanes, although some panels will tend to be in your face more than others, but never the "whole thing"; unless you're very short, don't have additional seat cushions or an adjustable seat height. :D So now we end up with compromises. A pan-able VC, or various 2D landing/takeoff views, where much of those 2D gauges are now missing from sight anyway. And the 2D view is still missing perhipheral vision, which with a good flight model, really adds to the senses of yaw and speed. Just flip a 2D panel to transparent, as is possible in X-Plane & FSX to see what I mean.Personally, I much prefer a good VC for GA size aircraft, while in VFR flight. And throw in a bit of "head latency", but very mild for the added feel of actually being in a moving machine.In the VC mode, I use Shift Z as a makeshift HUD, where I don't have to look for the undersized panel gauges. Shift Z airspeed is the most important in the VFR landing phase. I also have joystick/throttle switches for instant side and center views. I don't want to have to worry about panning rates under certain conditions.In my view, 2D only becomes realistic, when multiple monitors are in use. One screen is still very much compromised.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2D panel view gives you the information you need to fly the plane. This is NOT driving a car down a road. You don't need to see so much of the outside world to fly the plane where you want to go. You don't need hardly any of the outside world except when a mile out on final. The 2D panel provides as much view as most aircraft.The most important thing you should be aware of is the airspeed. That keeps you alive. Altitude and heading are nice to know. I always put a moving map on the 2D panel (built-in). In real aircraft 30 years ago my position was not known with high precision a lot of the time. Looking out the window does not help that. All the trees and hills look the same. These days I fly all types of planes in FS all over the world using the 2D panel. I don't get lost and I see enough of the world to appreciate being in different places. Only on the smallest and lightest aircraft can you get by just looking out the window a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that while both Tom and Larry espouse the virtues of 2d versus 3d and how great 2d is in managing the aircraft - nobody in this thread has mentioned the use of TrackIR.When I sit in a rw cockpit my head and eyes travel everywhere. I CANNOT do that with a 2D screen, and it's almost as bad trying to create realistic vision with a hat switch. Try pulling vertical in a Pitts, looking out both sides to check accuracy of the line - with either method. It doesn't work. Only with the TrackIR does this get anywhere near perfection. I know a number of guys posting in this thread use TrackIR - Jeff does - (check out his video of Portland), and I think Devon Dave does. I might be wrong, and I believe Larry doesn't, (although I thought I saw a thread where you intimated you were maybe going to take the plunge, Larry) If you don't have it - then get it. It will revolutionize the sim for you, especially if your favourite aircraft has a "good" vc. I think that most of the recognised payware developers and a good number of freeware guys now produce incredibly accurate and realistic cockpits. :-):-):-)Here's Jeff's video:-http://chicago054.server4free.de/jeff/movi...undPortland.wmv :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The 2D panel view gives you the information you need to fly>the plane. This is NOT driving a car down a road. You don't>need to see so much of the outside world to fly the plane>where you want to go. You don't need hardly any of the outside>world except when a mile out on final. The 2D panel provides>as much view as most aircraft.>>The most important thing you should be aware of is the>airspeed. That keeps you alive. Altitude and heading are nice>to know. I always put a moving map on the 2D panel (built-in).>In real aircraft 30 years ago my position was not known with>high precision a lot of the time. Looking out the window does>not help that. All the trees and hills look the same. These>days I fly all types of planes in FS all over the world using>the 2D panel. I don't get lost and I see enough of the world>to appreciate being in different places. Only on the smallest>and lightest aircraft can you get by just looking out the>window a lot.But a lot of us fly VFR a lot of the time! All you say is true when you're flying an airliner but when you're learning to fly VFR you're constantly told to look out of the windows, not down at the instruments. That's what VFR is. You have to watch out for other aircraft and often navigate by landmarks as well as instruments. Yes, a 2D panel is the better option most of the time in IFR. In lighter aircraft, a good VC is much more realistic, and you're not limited to panning with the hat switch nowadays, you've got Track IR or Active Camera, both of which enable you to move around the cockpit and to pan round all the windows really quickly and easily. In any case, this thread has degenerated into yet another inconclusive 2D panel versus Virtual Cockpit debate whereas I think it was meant to be why can't/don't many developers produce good VCs. IMHO the VC has evolved recently into a specialised skill which many developers do not yet have or see the need to acquire. IMHO, the ones that can do it (it's not just the fluid gauges but the photorealistic textures) are Carenado (look at their Mentor if you're into military planes SolarEagle) Shockwave (Spitfire and Bf109), RealAir, Dreamfleet, Suprunov, Captain Sim, Digital Aviation (Cheyenne and Dornier 27), Sibwings and freeware from Dave Maltby, Rick Piper and O Fischer (to name but a few). Frog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The 2D panel view gives you the information you need to fly>the plane. This is NOT driving a car down a road. You don't>need to see so much of the outside world to fly the plane>where you want to go. You don't need hardly any of the outside>world except when a mile out on final. The 2D panel provides>as much view as most aircraft.>All depends on why you want to fly, I suppose. Personally I don't care for an "IMC" world. My real world flights are full of interesting scenery; considering places such as the Grand Canyon, and the Jackson Hole/Teton area are easily within day flights for the round trip including lunch and scenic touring. I prefer my simulated flights to look as close as possible. A bubble canopy helps too! > All the trees and hills look the same. Not where I live! :D Real & simulated -- prefer the VC for the "panaramic view". 2D is too closed in.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168242.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168243.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168244.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168245.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/168246.jpgL.Adamson

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