VC vs 2D cockpits, opinions?

[LAdamson 240]

As long as I am leading our products (the ones I am in charge of) they will have both 2D and VC.Now that you asked and remember... you did ask.... I think VC's are a joke and extremely unrealisitic. The only way a real airplane looks like that is if I strap a fishbowl over my head when I fly.But it doesn't matter what I think. People want VC's and that perceived reality is important to them. So... they will get both. Why shouldn't they?

I totally disagree on that one! I own an airplane (which I fly often) that is much like the Marchetti SF260 with it's side by side seating and full bubble sliding canopy. The RealAir SF260 with it's VC is the closest by far.................in replicating sensations that I get from the real one. IMO, a 2D panel stuck in your face, is about as "un-real" as it gets.... Because your eyes are suppose to be looking across the top of the panel and picking up peripheral vision at the same time. Doesn't happen with 2D's!Basically, except for larger commercial airliner type panels where systems are more important than flight; I could care less about 2D panels and never use them.L.AdamsonP.S. --- the only time my real plane looks like a 2D panel is when I take a camera shot in flight or on the ground. The snap shot NEVER looks like what I see in real flight; but it looks just like 2D panels in a flight sim. So you're correct; perceived reality is important!

[jrhoads 6]

And I totally disagree with you.I not only own an airplane which is quite flyable by the way, and I fly numerous high performance twins on a regular basis. Flew the Navajo back from Sun and Fun yesterday to be specific.Look, I said it did not matter what I thought and I think our Mustang proves that despite what I think, I cater to the customer. Don't get your panties in a bunch! :( And yeah, I know you love the Marchetti I think you have made that point quite often. I have an opinion just like you do and as far as I am concerned, it is valid. (as is yours) But like I said, it does not matter what I think, strap on your fishbowl and drive on my man! :( Keep in mind perceived reality is just that, perceived. It does not mean it is reality. However, everyone i know in the training industry could care less and even more so, do not even want VC's. VC's are an entertainment based product and are typically considered in the negative context in real world training. Sorry if you disagree, but it is fact.BestJim

[kttd 12]

Like many others, I prefer 3D flying low and slow and 2D flying big and heavy. I never use 3D only planes. I've even gone to the trouble of creating a 2D camera view for the stock FA-18.

[LAdamson 240]

However, everyone i know in the training industry could care less and even more so, do not even want VC's. VC's are an entertainment based product and are typically considered in the negative context in real world training. Sorry if you disagree, but it is fact

Training in regards to navigation and systems, and the perception of flying an aircraft are two different things. And yes, I fly VC's for entertainment as well using a sim to travel to unfamiliar airports and surrounding topography. You're into training; that's part of making your living, and that's fine. But don't use it as an excuse, as though it's the only form of reality. You're right, VC's might suck for training on a Garmin 1000. That's what pop-ups are for. L.AdamsonBTW---- If my only real life flying was IMC under IFR; I'd quit, and just use a computer. It's much cheaper....

[ryanbatc 12,803]

Since I'm already stuck with a 2D viewpoint (my LCD monitor), I try to simulate real flying as much as possible. Therefore, a Virtual Cockpit represents a better reality than a 2D panel will ever do, and it reminds me of flying for real, especially with the FSX camera effects, moving in turns, bouncing a little in turbulence....love it!Yes pop-ups have their place in the matter...and are helpful!And I almost forgot to answer the question - Yes! I'd buy an acft that includes only a VC

[n4gix 4,947]

As Jim has stated, what the developer prefers isn't really relevant to the decision. What customers want is... Now that said, the reason for a lack of 2d should be obvious. The gauges in the VC are 3d using embedded XML script in the model. To have a 2d panel would have required coding a complete set of "traditional gauges," which would have taken longer and perhaps even increased the selling price... :(

[cmooring 0]

Jim I am sooo glad you cater to the customer!I have your Mustang and it has the best VC I have seen so far. I will never fly a real world Mustang (although I did go cross country as a passenger up front in a lear once). FSX is purely entertainment for me. So even though you will put a 2D panel in your next product, keep the VC's coming. (I know you will :( )Chuck

[PelicanHazard 0]

To give you an idea of where I fly from, I didn't even realize Aerosoft's Twin Otter didn't have a 2D cockpit until my finger slipped and I hit Shift+A instead of Shift+S. The suddenly unhelpful full-screen pop-up was very startling :( I used to fly 2D in FS9, because my old computer was a lousy piece of junk that could never render the VC and keep the sim from turning into a gallery of still pictures. Now, though, I have a computer than can run from the VC reasonably well, add-ons permitting, so I stay there and only call up 2D popups whenever I need them, i.e. PMDG's CDUs; lacking TrackIR, it's easier for me to work the FMC from the 2D subpanels rather than the VC. If I could convert fully to VC, though, I would do so and never look back.Yes, the VC is unrealistic in the sense that it's a 3D model in a 3D sim being displayed on a 2D panel, but the 2D cockpits to me aren't as flexible, for lack of a better word, as the VC. In the 2D panel, I cannot pan around at will to select my own viewpoints (one of the things I do is set the viewpoint so all the important bits like flight instruments, autopilot controls, etc, are visible while I'm in cruise so I can leave for a minute and be able to see if anything important has failed or needs my attention without flipping through 2D popups). The VC also displays lighting effects whenever I turn the plane around and the sun is now in a different relative position; the 2D pit can't do that. FSX's head-bobbing effect is also much appreciated, as to me it adds to the immersion; landing the plane roughly now has a visual effect, whereas with the 2D I can hit hard and the cockpit stays as motionless as a deer in headlights. It doesn't matter to me so much that the headbobbing also means some important instrument switches are occasionally occluded (happens every time I bank the E-jet, I realize the TCAS isn't on B) ).Is this and any other reason I can think of to prefer the VC eye candy and not really important to actually flying the airplane? Yes, but I'm in it just for the fun of whisking myself away to childhood memories when I thought plane pilots could freely soar with few rules more than what it takes to drive a car (boy, was I mistaken :( ); if I wanted to simulate pilot ops so badly, I would have spent more for a proper flight sim rig, and would probably be in the 2D camp. But I just fly, on a laptop, with a fighter-like Saitek joystick (in a pretend Cessna, no less!), having fun looking at the world ACES so kindly built us while I pan around a cockpit where I can imagine myself as a person inside an actual Cessna taking the family for a weekend ski trip. The 2D panel just can't match that.To me, compared to the VC, the 2D panel is just so....flat.P.S. I didn't mean for this to turn into a wall of text; just kind of happened :(

[Chock 17,769]

Up at thirty thousand feet a 2D panel is fine and I will use them in that situation, but then again, if there is a decent 3D one that allows me to do everything well, then I'd favour that over a 2D one. Either in a big airliner or a tiny light aircraft I always use the VC to taxi, land and take off, simply because it emulates depth perception and situational awareness better.Having said all that, I would not wish to see those who make their own home cockpits shortchanged, and so I'd be reluctant to suggest the 2D cockpit disappear since it is important to those simmers, even though it wouldn't bother me personally too much if the 2D panel went away.Al

[ferrari308guy 1]

I use the VC whenever I can becuase it's the most realistic. I don't have a problem with developers getting rid of 2D panels AS LONG AS THE VC IS DETAILED. I use the 2D panels becuase sometimes the VC gauges are not as good quality or the clickspots are hard to get (like the PMDG 747 overhead...it's very detailed, but there's so many buttons, they're hard to click individually without a 2D panel.) etc. I would prefer that developers kept making 2D panels becuase there's no harm in keeping it there...I would much rather the developer made a 2D panel than cut the corner just to release it earlier. Ferrari

[january 19]

And I totally disagree with you.I not only own an airplane which is quite flyable by the way, and I fly numerous high performance twins on a regular basis. Flew the Navajo back from Sun and Fun yesterday to be specific.Look, I said it did not matter what I thought and I think our Mustang proves that despite what I think, I cater to the customer. Don't get your panties in a bunch! :( And yeah, I know you love the Marchetti I think you have made that point quite often. I have an opinion just like you do and as far as I am concerned, it is valid. (as is yours) But like I said, it does not matter what I think, strap on your fishbowl and drive on my man! :( Keep in mind perceived reality is just that, perceived. It does not mean it is reality. However, everyone i know in the training industry could care less and even more so, do not even want VC's. VC's are an entertainment based product and are typically considered in the negative context in real world training. Sorry if you disagree, but it is fact.BestJim

------------------------------Jim- I'm absolutely delighted with your reply re the future of 2D panels. Couldn't agree more re VC being an entertainment product. May I make a request for the future?Lay out the CoPilot/First Officer 2D panel so there is no duplication with Captain's panel and hence both would mate perfectly on dual monitors displaying also dual views for a 90

[LAdamson 240]

------------------------------Jim- I'm absolutely delighted with your reply re the future of 2D panels. Couldn't agree more re VC being an entertainment product.

I thought about this, after the initial debates.. :( The commercial pilot that I share a hangar with; fly's passenger jets for a living, and an oversized Pitt's bi-plane with a 9 cylinder Russian radial of approx. 400 HP for pure entertainment. Is one less of a flying machine than the other? :( L.Adamson

[Guest 413X3]

why on earth would anyone want an unrealistic looking panel with everything right infront of you? isnt half the point of it being a true sim, you want to have to look down and to your right in the exact location where the gear lever is? i always disliked the idea of a 2d cockpit. vc flying is exactly how it should be, you are simming being a pilot. looking through their eyes

[StevenW 0]

I haven't used 2D for a looong time. I only like 2D panels for things such as CDUs but seeing I don't fly heavies anymore I guess it means I don't use em at all anymore!

[Ramasurinen 0]

Funny how this question comes up every few months or so, and the answers always seem to be the same, two very polarized groups and a few in the middle that like both. With a well designed VC and a Track-ir I cannot really see the point in the continued creation of elaborate 2D panels, at least not for aircraft other than tubeliners. I can see the 2D panel's continued relevance to flying heavy iron, but I have no interest whatsoever in those aircraft myself. On the flipside I doubt anyone could say that a helo was easier to fly with a 2D panel.That said, I will very occasionally use a 2D gps popup or radio stack perhaps, but that's it, and that's only in cases where the 3D placements are difficult to use, usually due to the design and layout of the real aircraft represented, rather than poor choices by the developer. I agree with Bill though that building chunky and slow 2D gauges when you already have a VC full of very elegant and efficient 3D xml driven parts is just annoying and very time consuming, and all that extra work should realistically be reflected in the price of the addon, an extra sum that many would prefer not to pay I think. 2D panels will never be as efficient or good looking as a well done VC either. They can't take advantage of bump or spec maps or any of the cool shader stuff provided by FSX. They always look seriously out of place to me, or worse cause major stutters and framerate drag, a byproduct of having to composite many layers of bitmaps in realtime, something that can only be done by the already overtaxed cpu, leaving the video card essentially idle for those cycles. I couldn't care less if a developer includes 2D panels or not, and I usually wish they wouldn't, it would save me the time of removing them all, but without a good VC I simply won't purchase an addon, simple as that.The real crux of the matter in my opinion is the lack of resolution available in today's monitors. When 35-40" Widescreen LCDs with resolutions rivaling IMAX become the standard then I think this debate will finally be over. 2D panels may be useful now, and for the next couple of years perhaps, but I can't see their relevance lasting much longer than that among the majority of flight simmers. Track-ir completely changed the way I fly in FS about 5 years ago and there's just no going back for me. I've converted around a dozen friends to that kind of flying now, some who were quite reluctant at first, and none of them have any use for 2D panels anymore either. Yup, I'm a track-ir snob. To me it's as essential as a good joystick to flight sim use, and close formation flight in multiplayer is all but hopeless without one. Someone said above that perception of realism is more important in the end than pure realism itself, and I have to agree with that. Since we all perceive imagery differently, then I doubt one method could ever be declared to be absolutely more realistic than the other, but for the sense of immersion, for myself, nothing beats a top notch VC.Maybe all of that makes me seem cruel to home cockpit builders. While I have no interest in building one myself, I do admire their efforts and enthusiasm. However, building a home cockpit is one serious undertaking, and if you're going to go to so much trouble to do so, then maybe it's time to remove the burden from developers of having to write every gauge *twice*, and start writing your own 2D gauges to meet your specific needs. As for multi-mon setups, I never saw much point in those either. In real life you don't fly a plane with big monitor bevels cutting off your vision every 2 feet, but to each their own I guess.Lastly, as for what the developer wants or prefers being irrelevant compared to what the customer wants... I don't buy it at all. An FS aircraft is a living work of art, and without a developer willing to invest such love or sacrifice such incredible amounts of time and energy to make it come to life, there would be nothing available worth flying and this hobby would grind to a halt. I say developers have every right to build their aircraft exactly how they see fit and potential customers have every right to buy it or not.-mike