AIRCRAFT

[Guest]

I download a lot of aircraft,but when I get one that leaves me out in "space" when I look to the right or left,I delete it right away!I like to fly from the cockpit, it's more real, Anyone else fell this way??

[Guest]

Brandyman,I agree with you completely but I suggest that instead of deleting such airplane files, you evaluate the quality of the airplane without considering the panel and then save those you like in zipped form somewhere on your system pending discovery of another panel for that aircraft. Frequently, panels without aircraft become available, and these sometimes even provide exactly the views you (and I) are looking for. Alternatively, IF you can independently find suitable 2-D views yourself, you can add them to any panel. Be aware, however, this is a difficult search since good 2-D views are very difficult to find. They should be in the right viewing directions and in focus. A lot of people take pictures of panels but few exercise the discipline to systematically pan around the cockpit from a pilot's perspective. It really takes access to the real airplane and a digital camera. It helps if you know someone or have such access yourself.Good hunting,Stan V.

[1mikel151 71]

For the record, many designers are not proficient in all emcompassing design, just because they can make a great aircraft doesn't mean they can make a good 2D panel or VC. With the files sizes nowadays, a majority of designers upload without a panel or sound file to save on the download size (thinking of you, the simmer!). If you fly the heavies, there are plenty of good 2D panels, just find one you like, and the next time you get an aircraft that leaves you in 'space" just pop it in and you'll have something to look at.Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

[Guest]

Michael,I agree with most of what you say but not all. You seem to equate the effort involved in generating a good 2D panel with that involved with generating a good VC. The effort and skill are not the same at all. The 2D panel, being but one view, is much simpler to produce than a VC, and it does not even have to involve graphic art skill. Many decent 2D panels start as photos and there are many decent photos of panels on the net and elsewhere. Regardless, however, Brandyman's concern was not with the panel per se, it is with the other views at 45 deg, 90 deg, etc. The vast majority of third party freeware aircraft do not contain these extra views at all - just the forward view - and I believe that this is mostly caused by lack of access to the required views, not a concern for download size. After all, putting out an aircraft with just a 2D panel ignores looking in the other directions and no one likes to handicap his or her users deliberately (I don't think!). A lot of users prefer a VC for looking around and I think that is just fine - for them. I happen not to be one of them, unless we are talking about some of the better VCs included with payware aircraft and I don't happen to have a lot of payware aircraft. Those remove most of my objections and level the playing field considerably. Most of the VCs on freeware aircraft, however, are still too crude for my taste and I attribute this to the difficulty of producing one. Curved surfaces are represented by too few line segments, surface shapes are distorted, textures are out of focus, etc, etc. As designers are gaining more experience making VCs, I think the quality is slowly improving but I'm not ready to say they have arrived yet.Your comment about the heavies is true to a large extent (many files do have the extra 2D views although one has to be discerning that these views match the aircraft they are provided for) but very limited in terms of any other aircraft category except for maybe the more common GA aircraft. Stan V.

[1mikel151 71]

Hey Stan, you are correct, I "jumped the gun" on brandyman's statement and didn't understand fully. I realise only to well the difference between designing a 2D panel as opposed to a VC, I have put together a few 2D panels and have tried my hand at aircraft design (not good results, I'll stick to scenery design! LOL) I think it still comes down to file size to a degree, a good BMP is usually a big file size and a few of those add up, but I understand what you meant now, I was thinking of his statement as when I d/l an aircraft and I don't even have the forward view.I totally agree with your statement about freeware VCs on an average having a ways to go still in quality, designers that are able to make a "payware" quality VC are few and far between and I would rather see a good 2D panel over a simple VC.Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpg

[barryward12345 0]

>I download a lot of aircraft,but when I get one that leaves >me out in "space" when I look to the right or left,I delete >it right away!I like to fly from the cockpit, it's more >real, Anyone else fell this way?? Well , gee shucks! You don't like it, hey? Have you ever considered making these views yourself?.Barry

[Bearracing 3]

Stan,Being one that has downloaded hundreds and hundreds of aircraft, you mentioned that other than some payware aircraft there have been very few freeware aircraft to include a quality VC panel/cockpit! I thought I would give you a short list of just some of the freeware aircraft I'm aware of, that have a pretty descent 3D virtual panel cockpit (panels I would rate from good to "standards of the hobby").Yannick Lavigne/Rob Young's Falcon50 (the vc panel here is used as the standard for all payware VCs for AVSIM's review ratings)Mikko Maliniemi's Pitts and Cessna 185-206Brian Gladden/Ian Grant's v3 Zenair 801Brian Gladden/Dan Hohman's Cessna 140Project Opensky's Airbus 320 v9Project Opensky's CRJ-200/900Francisco S

[LAdamson 240]

And the ROBIN DR400 REGENT from Yannick Lavigne-Fred Banting-Rob Young. The VC is well done in this single engine aircraft.L.Adamson

[Guest]

HiHi,>I download a lot of aircraft,but when I get one that leaves >me out in "space" when I look to the right or left,I delete >it right away!In this case you better not download freeware aircrafts.99% of the aircrafts have non or the default panels in the package.I feel the same way, that's why I have made cockpit views for all my downloaded aircrafts.You can get it on www.fsfreeware.com.Hope this help.Cees

[Guest]

Bear and Larry,I never said there weren't any good freeware VC implementations out there. I agree mostly with your combined list - although not all of them. Each of us has his or her own threshold of what we consider acceptable for our own flying and some you listed don't meet mine. On the other hand, I would add Al Kaiser's Boeing 307 Stratoliner to your list, and I am sure there are many others that we have both missed. Having said that, you guys listed approximately twenty airplanes albeit spanning most of the major airplane categories. On the other hand, how many different freeware models of airplanes are available on the net - I would think one could fairly say there are literally several hundred, not counting repaints. I think, yes, one can find a few good examples here and there but the search is not easy and you have to look at a lot of airplanes. Bear does that part officially. As I said before, as a hobby, we are making progress but in my opinion, we haven't yet arrived at the point where the majority of VC interiors can be considered good.Stan V.

[LAdamson 240]

>As I said before, as a >hobby, we are making progress but in my opinion, we haven't >yet arrived at the point where the majority of VC interiors >can be considered good. >>Stan V.I wouldn't disagee with that....Most of my favorite VC's are payware. Aircraft such as RealAirs SF260 have a graphically drawn VC that seems natural to fly rather than using the 2D panel. The Dreamfleet Archer & Cardinal are a mix of photo-real & computer graphics. With these two airplanes, I split even time between the 2D & VC cockpits. Or take a new plane such as the Flight1 Piper Meridian, which has a "fair" VC; but I much prefer the 2D panel because it's the glass avionics & GPS's which are of the most importance. For the all out feel & look of flight, I often go back to the default Cessna VC's just for the sake of high frame rates & a very fluidness of movement. L.Adamson