Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

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

Recommended Posts

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!



i7 4790K@4.8GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA RTX 3080Ti | Maximus Hero VII | 512GB 860 Pro | 512GB 850 Pro | 256GB 840 Pro | 2TB 860 QVO | 1TB 870 EVO | Seagate 3TB Cloud | EVGA 1000 GQ | Win10 Pro | EK Custom water cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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
Guest SageWisdom

>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
Guest Tom Goodrick

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
Guest Tom Goodrick

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



i7 4790K@4.8GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA RTX 3080Ti | Maximus Hero VII | 512GB 860 Pro | 512GB 850 Pro | 256GB 840 Pro | 2TB 860 QVO | 1TB 870 EVO | Seagate 3TB Cloud | EVGA 1000 GQ | Win10 Pro | EK Custom water cooling.

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.


Intel I7-4770 3.4Ghz
16 Gb RAM
nVidia GTX770 2Gb
Windows 8.1 64 bit
P3D 4.4/3.4 FSX SE

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

Really like those shots, especially the top four - the first preview screenshots from FSXI?? ;-)


Intel I7-4770 3.4Ghz
16 Gb RAM
nVidia GTX770 2Gb
Windows 8.1 64 bit
P3D 4.4/3.4 FSX SE

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...