VC vs 2D cockpits, opinions?

[David Roch 1,982]

Hi Guys,As far as I can make out the real issue here isn't 2D vs VC but how people like to interact with the panel. From what I can gather from this thread, those who prefer 2D panels prefer them for the following reasons:* Straight-on viewing angle.* Ability to have windows pop up with a keystroke.* Ability to move windows across to additional monitors.* Ablity to have everything layed out for easy acccess without panning or cycling views.Does that sound about right?All the best,Sean MoloneyRealAir Simulations

That's very well summarized Sean.

[Sean Moloney 102]

Hi Jim,

I simply don't like to use VC's because they feel "toy like" to me.

That's fair enough, but I'm keen to know what it is that makes them toy like? Eg viewing angle, needing to pan/zoom? Graphics quality perhaps?Sean.

[Guest PPSFA]

Hi Guys,As far as I can make out the real issue here isn't 2D vs VC but how people like to interact with the panel. From what I can gather from this thread, those who prefer 2D panels prefer them for the following reasons:* Straight-on viewing angle.* Ability to have windows pop up with a keystroke.* Ability to move windows across to additional monitors.* Ablity to have everything layed out for easy acccess without panning or cycling views.Does that sound about right?All the best,Sean MoloneyRealAir Simulations

Exactly, plus no need to zoom in or out.

[ryanbatc 12,838]

I think its interesting that VC's could be called toy-like....I looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of toy and found a few relevant definitions:1) a sportive or amusing act2) something for a child to play with3) something diminutive (diminutive meaning "indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiary known")So here are two screenshots of the Level D 767 VC and then 2D panel. The viewpoint in the VC is a normal one that I'd use if I was flying (.50 zoom and seat down two notches) The 2D panel is the default viewI don't find any of the gauges to appear more toy-like in the 2D or VC panels. The dashboard appears to give a depth of field in the VC, making you think you're sitting behind controls. With the 2D panel everything is well, 2D, and I don't sense any depth of field when viewing the gauges. The bitmap used for the 2D panel conveys a sense of toyishness (not a word I know) to me because it looks like it was drawn and slapped in front of your face - not to mention that's all you see, a small degree of viewing radius as you're flying along. I don't use Track IR but a lot of people do. TIR would also add depth of field when turning your head like in real life when you need to view a different part of the panel or scan the sky, IF viewing from the VCI just can't find any toy-like qualities in the VC...

[DShutt 14]

Thanks for posting shots of the Level-D 767 panels! :( Here's where the 2D shines. (Though, like all of us, the 2D panel is starting to show its age!)Note that the VC panel view you have chosen to display does not show the full AFDS, EICAS, EFIS, flaps indicator, gear handle, etc., without adjusting your viewpoint. Great discussion, though. I really think this all comes down to personal preference. I would also say that the lion's share of 2D users tend to be on the more "mature" side of the age scale. We had 8 of us meet in Toronto several years ago for Charityflight to fly the 767 around the world, and the USER-PREFERENCES among the eight of us were astounding!Vive le difference.

[jrhoads 6]

I think its interesting that VC's could be called toy-like....I just can't find any toy-like qualities in the VC...

And I find it just as interesting that you could think they look realistic. I told you it was simply my opinion and I can assure you that all the arguments that are possible ain't changing my mind.Webster or not. Geez Ryan, you got a little time on your hands? :( Don't take it like a slap in the face, it isn't meant to be.I fly many different aircraft and I have yet to see one that reminds me of the VC experience and having my head bob around like a drunk chicken. (yes I know that can be turned off)Let me see if I can make it clearer even though I have said it many times. It does not matter what I think. What matters to me is what the majority of customers think. Clear?One more time.... simply my opinion and it is nothing more. It does not affect what I develop. I think our products reflect that. Maybe it is surprising to you to hear that statement coming from someone that insists on quality VC development. Either way, offering the customer the choice of what to fly is what really matters to me. Jim

[ryanbatc 12,838]

Haha you're welcome! It's one of the few planes I use that has both 2D and VC, that's why I chose it. I fly it a lot too but mainly the VC, yes I will use the 2D on occasion. About the view, that's why users can have the HAT switch or Track IR for the lucky ones :) It simulates turning my head, that's the main reason I prefer VC.Yep, I read all the posts in the thread, I'm just trying to refute the toy-like qualities of the VC

[Guest]

Exactly, plus no need to zoom in or out.

When I want to take a closer look at something in the VC, I simply bend forward (hail TrackIR!)... just like a real pilot would do. I've never seen a real pilot call up a popup of the FMC or whatever... :( It wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage of VC-lovers own the TrackIR...! It certainly changed simming for me! I already loved VC's years and years ago, before TrackIR existed, but with nowadays graphics and TrackIR I am VC all the way. But without TrackIR I'd probably would still use various popups: not because I like to but because I simply had to. But I am glad this is all over with TrackIR and GOOD VC's that let you do everything that's possible. I hardly ever change views when I fly: I never switch to popups nor to other VC views with closeups of things: I simply look around and bend forward or look up or turn around. It can't get more immersive than that. Sometimes it's hard to get a certain switch switched or to enter specific data in some gauge on the far right of the panel, etc. etc. but it feels real to me!That 'looking around' part is also important, because with a 2D panel you are stuck with a straightforward view: I can't imagine flying with such a view anymore, but that would also be true for the VC (that I wouldn't use it without TrackIR which enables me to look everywhere). If I would have had three monitors, that probably would be different... but still, being able to simply look up to the overhead of the MD-11 or to look left and up to the switches panel of the RealAir Decathlon... Being used to this I think that even with 3 monitors I'd still use TrackIR. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that imho TrackIR has been very helpfull in making VC's so popular.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

So here are two screenshots of the Level D 767 VC and then 2D panel. The viewpoint in the VC is a normal one that I'd use if I was flying (.50 zoom and seat down two notches) The 2D panel is the default viewI don't find any of the gauges to appear more toy-like in the 2D or VC panels. The dashboard appears to give a depth of field in the VC, making you think you're sitting behind controls. With the 2D panel everything is well, 2D, and I don't sense any depth of field when viewing the gauges. The bitmap used for the 2D panel conveys a sense of toyishness (not a word I know) to me because it looks like it was drawn and slapped in front of your face - not to mention that's all you see, a small degree of viewing radius as you're flying along. I don't use Track IR but a lot of people do. TIR would also add depth of field when turning your head like in real life when you need to view a different part of the panel or scan the sky, IF viewing from the VC

What these screenshots illustrate quite well, is that most 2d panels are carefully optimized to get allrelevant gauges onto the screen, taking some liberties with exact layout and spacing. This is quite important... if you examine 2d panels, they are not an exact photographic representation,of one specific eyepoint, but rather a "collage".In the VC, like in the real plane, you have to move your eyepoint to see each of the gauges, since theyare, like in reality, spaced apart.Example might be switches that are located between the seats. In a 2d panel, the author may very well addthem to the bottom right of the panel, so you can see your autopilot- or trim settings at a glance.Lighting in the VC can also be an issue, when flying into the sun for example, the 2d panel always looks the same.So, arguably, the 2d panel is a more consistent representation of what the pilot needs in front of him/herto fly the plane. No fuss, no muss.I am more than happy with authors who release high quality 2d panels as part of the package,but frankly, I rarely look at them any more :( Personal preference, on my part. Back in the FS2002 days, I was an avid 2d panel enthusiast,and loved to adjust gauges and bitmaps as part of the hobby. What changed?FSX ! It brought with it high resolution VCs with smooth gauges! And the rest, as they say, is history. Sean, in response to your question... I do not believe that any one or even several camera shotsof a VC can ever look quite like the typical 2d panel.

[tf51d 284]

Thanks for posting shots of the Level-D 767 panels! :( Here's where the 2D shines. (Though, like all of us, the 2D panel is starting to show its age!)Note that the VC panel view you have chosen to display does not show the full AFDS, EICAS, EFIS, flaps indicator, gear handle, etc., without adjusting your viewpoint. Great discussion, though. I really think this all comes down to personal preference. I would also say that the lion's share of 2D users tend to be on the more "mature" side of the age scale. We had 8 of us meet in Toronto several years ago for Charityflight to fly the 767 around the world, and the USER-PREFERENCES among the eight of us were astounding!Vive le difference.

I could understand the argument 2D panels, makes it easier because all the important instrument gauges are readily available in view. Being easier to use doesn't equate to a realistic view. A pilot viewpoint straight ahead is mostly the windshield and the upper portion of the panel. To view the lower gauges he would need to scan his viewpoint down, true he may see some of it through his peripheral vision, but it wouldn't be like you do with 2D panels. The VC gives you that perspective. The only problem that needs to be worked out is the smoothness on how to shift viewpoints. TrackIR looks great, but is not adaptable in my current environment. The new EZDOK does look promising! You also sacrifice externel view area to cram all those instruments in. For me I find a VC with a 70% zoom in widescreen to give me what appears to me to be the most realistic viewpoint. I should note I use a projector with a 9ft diagonal screen, so that could be what's influencing my opinion.2D Panel -Note the amount of external view sacrificedVC - Normal viewpointVC - View similar to 2D panel, just by looking down a bit.

[Guest hmstiger]

Here's my take on this... Developers should offer BOTH 2D and VC. Level-D will continue to offer a VC and a 2D panel that is optimized for simulator purposes. In other words, the 2D main panel (like real world) is designed as the primary view (the need to open sub-panels is reduced). In my opinion, the 2D view is the perfect interface when flying heavy metal. Checklists can be completed quickly and efficiently. Gauges can be viewed without the need to "zoom" in or out. Everything you need to view is on full display. Need a sub-panel? A key combination gets you there!I have yet to be converted to fly with the VC. That may be just habit (I'm a mature simmer), but it may also be because the old 2D view is the superior view for flight simulator use.Unless I'm jumping into a full-flight simulator (http://www.cae.com/en/sim.products/cae.7000.series.asp) no amount of 3D rendering is going fool me into thinking I'm in the real bird. And the incessant need to zoom in and out to read a gauge or some text is just plain annoying. I don't have to "zoom" in and out in real life. My eyes can do that for me. You ever seen a real 767 pilot "zooming" to the EHSI/FMC/Overhead panel to take a closer look? The only time I "zoom" is in my Mazda! And then I do it twice!Now to my mind-bending take on the VC/3D...Why would I want to replicate a 3D experience when I'm already in 3D? Why do I want to create another 3D space inside what is a 2D computer screen? I know, it's complicated... but, hear me out: I'm already sitting in my office, looking at my monitor. No amount of virtual 3D is going to convince me that I'm not in my office sitting in front of my computer. Home cockpit builders know what I'm talking about. Building a home cockpit makes the 3D/VC redundant! I consider my home office my flight deck. So, why would I want to build a virtual flight deck in front of my REAL flight deck? :( And, before I get jumped on for my retro-view of the VC, I have tried TrackIR (lovely product, worked great). Still, I consider the interface simply too much work to go through just to adjust my altimeter! I can see how lovely the view is at cruise... but, during the cruise, I tend to do something real pilots only WISH they could do: I get up and do stuff around the house!Now, don't get me wrong. The VC has its place. When I'm flying VFR, the VC is preferred. Otherwise, IMHO, the VC is a waste of pixels.The long and short of it: each to their own. But, from my view, the 2D rocks!

I would agree with everything Daryl says, except the "mature" part. I sat with Daryl at the AVSIM banquet in Seattle...mature is not the first word that comes to mind... :)Actually, what did it for me with virtual cockpits was getting a Triple Head to Go, a fast enough computer to run VCs well, and a Track IR. I still use an additional monitor for radio stacks, FMCs etc. Colin

[LAdamson 240]

Great discussion, though. I really think this all comes down to personal preference. I would also say that the lion's share of 2D users tend to be on the more "mature" side of the age scale.

Gee..................I don't know about that...I'm 58, build real planes in real life, and much prefer VC's.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

2D Panel -Note the amount of external view sacrificed

The external view is greatly sacrificed, but 2D proponents will rarely admit to the fact. The real life eye point is mostly over the glare shield, just like driving a car. You move your eyes and focus on the panel when required. They also will not admit to the fact, that it takes much longer to mouse or keyboard specific controls than it does in real life. The flow of handling switches, knobs, radios, etc, just isn't possible, when comparing to real time, when it's all on a screen......... unless you have most items mapped to your controls.................which works great for VC's too. And of course the other option is just have a full time cockpit panel in which VC's or 2D panels aren't needed anyway.L.Adamson

[january 19]

The external view is greatly sacrificed, but 2D proponents will rarely admit to the fact.----------------L.Adamson

-----------------------------Really?? No Zooming or Panning here.Alex ReidKSFO-CYVR Quiet Two Departure. AMD XP2200- 2GeForce FX 5200 GPUs

[LAdamson 240]

And I find it just as interesting that you could think they look realistic. I told you it was simply my opinion and I can assure you that all the arguments that are possible ain't changing my mind.Webster or not. Geez Ryan, you got a little time on your hands? :( Don't take it like a slap in the face, it isn't meant to be.I fly many different aircraft and I have yet to see one that reminds me of the VC experience and having my head bob around like a drunk chicken. (yes I know that can be turned off)Let me see if I can make it clearer even though I have said it many times. It does not matter what I think. What matters to me is what the majority of customers think. Clear?One more time.... simply my opinion and it is nothing more. It does not affect what I develop. I think our products reflect that. Maybe it is surprising to you to hear that statement coming from someone that insists on quality VC development. Either way, offering the customer the choice of what to fly is what really matters to me. Jim

Jim,To be honest.......................I think that anytime a panel is projected on screen instead of real controls; then it's somewhat "mickey mouse" anyway.To say one version of a projected panel is any more toy like than the other is really stretching it.L.Adamson

-----------------------------Really?? No Zooming or Panning here.Alex ReidKSFO-CYVR Quiet Two Departure. AMD XP2200- 2GeForce FX 5200 GPUs

You just proved my point! If all those panels were transparent, as we can actually do in a sim; then you'd see what you really would. 2D panels remind me of landing various taildraggers, as much of the runway is hidden.L.Adamson