VC vs 2D cockpits, opinions?

[JRMurray 214]

The question is, how many others prefer the 2D to VC, and would you buy a plane with VC only?

With my previous computer running FS9, I would have said 2D only.But ...Since buying a lightning fast quad-core/nVidia 9800GT/8 Gb RAM/Vista 64 computer with a 22" monitor in January, I've been using FSX exclusively. I have now quite unexpectedly changed my opinion: I now prefer VCs, and I have already gladly bought planes with VC only (B377 Stratocruiser, for example).

[Chock 17,769]

The Ariane 737 I'm testing out at the moment has a 3D cockpit with no 2D panels other than the CDU. It's surprisingly usable, especially with Track-IR. And somehow I don't think this incident would have been quite the same with a 2D panel:Al

[JET 1 0]

My vote - VC only with subpanels (zoom gauges, FMC).I don't mind the 2D panel, but never use it these days, lights or heavies. If the time and effort spent into designing it is significant and could be better spent designing other aspects of the addon, I don't mind seeing it gone.The 3D view's "beingthere" factor with turbulence / motion effects and everything is just too much to give up. Simming with a virtually "static" view and a n unrealistic cuttingboard crammed with instruments in places where they would not be in reality is just a turnoff, sorry. Particularily I have never enjoyed 2D panels where they try to include EVERYTHING in the main panel. That just makes me think about default aircraft.As for the percieved difficulty of using the VC, zooming problems etc well, that is really something that is percieved. Efficient use of an addon like Active Camera can make a world of difference. I can have 8 preset views available via my hat switch and don't suffer much from those effects.-kyle

[Guest]

I wonder why still so many people seem to use 2D for airliners... I have the PMDG MD-11 and everything can be done from within the VC and it looks just as good (imho better) than the 2D panels... I don't quite understand why 2D should be better for big airliners. Those screenshots with panels left and right, seen from a complete wrong perspective, look awfully unrealistic imho.

[Tim Arnot 5]

I have a 3 monitor setup with TH2Gog. For me, a VC is ESSENTIAL, since the 2D stretched across 3 monitors is completely unusable. Certainly I won't buy anything without a VC.Now, if developers start building 3840x1042 wiiiidescreen 2D panels, I'd probably start using them...

[kttd 12]

It's partly common sense for me at this stage of my life. At my current age and failing eyesight I can manage instruments much easier in a 2D environment.

[KERNEL32 500]

Used to be a fan of 2D but now-days 3D all the way for me.1. There is simply NO replacement for the IMMERSION level that 3D is able to simulate.2. Try to simulate driving a car in 2D. Won't even get close! I suppose flight sims are about 10 years behind driving sims..3. Wait until this new camera program comes out (http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=238642), we'll see more moving over to 3D that used to be 2D fans only like me. Someone earlier in this topic said 3D is "arcade" like. Opinions are as such, but mine is complete opposite.4. I got sick of pressing SHIFT+x to open a window and press a button. That IMO takes away a whole bunch in immersion experience. What do we have when it comes to simulating an experience in front of a monitor? SIGHT and SOUND. That's it (today). No smell, no touch. ALTHOUGH TOUCH SCREEN 3-D is the wave of the future!Asking for only 2D interior is like asking for an all 2D exterior model - how odd would THAT be these days? Perhaps back in 1982 a 2D model was ok for frame rate, etc. but now?Try to get THIS with 2D - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfUv-iJCdA&fmt=6Peace

[zfehr 1]

I will weigh in as both a real world pilot and avid simmer. For entertainment I love using the VC on a large widescreen monitor (25.5") and TrackIR, it is certainly very entertaining and immersive. I have also used simulators for real world training and this is an area that the VC becomes an annoyance... even trying it using a TrackIR and large monitor. The purpose of the use is where the difference will really show. If you're just zipping around, jumping place to place and plane to plane, chasing planes, flying under bridges in other words entertainment the VC is great fun and a visual treat. When immersed in IFR training and pilotage tasks you want a large, high resolution, smooth representation of the main flight gauges that doesn't move around and correctly represents the environment you would be sitting in. No mouse, no keyboard, no simulated movement of the panel itself. Now the hardware to make this possible is expensive but the visual portion represented on the screen and actions to perform a holding pattern and various types of approaches can be accomplished with a simple yoke or joystick. This training is a completely different environment and is also not nearly as fun as entertainment simming. You will always have arguments for the merits found in both but a main difference to not forget is the primary use the person using the simulator is after.

[robert young 2,897]

Reading this thread it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions, myths and legends associated with 3d and 2d cockpits and panels which are well overdue to be challenged. The most important myth about 3d, or virtual cockpits, is that they are seen as being incapable of delivering a "fixed" view. This is simply not true. Yet many of the posts here make the entirely wrong assumption that somehow they cannot be fixed.So right from the start, whole basis of many of pro and anti arguments are in themselves based on false information. Let's look at what a 3d panel actually is: It is an image, rendered in three dimensions, containing gauges that can be themselves presented in true 3d, or as more or less flat surfaces superimposed upon the 3d structure. But crucially, whatever method is used, they can be used as a FIXED, unmoving, static view EXACTLY in the same way as traditional 2d panels are. But they also have the useful capability of being panned or zoomed in and that option is there and avialable to any user by a simple edit of one file. This makes them every bit as useable as 2d panels, and if set up in the right way, look EXACTLY THE SAME, but often with much higher image quality. But in addition they also have numerous advantages which 2d panels simply cannot deliver.Most standard or default 2d panels are very restricted in one key area: they reduce the view in front of the pilot to a slab like 2 dimensional object entirely divorced from the visceral atmosphere which one should surely expect if the word "simulation" has any meaning. They are of course useful where you need a fixed view of one area of a panel which is hard to gain access to with a zoomed out, pannable 3d view. BUT......you can present 3d panels in exactly the same way!Furthermore, in most cases, but not all, 2d panel gauge updates tend to be restricted to a very poor 18 frames per second. There are some exceptions to this based on custom designs, but the majority of them are unwaveringly tied to this pedestrian update, and very often the actual update frame rate is even poorer than this. Furthermore, 2d panels tend to not only look flat and lifeless, but there are restrictions upon how efficient they can be because of the way they are constructed.Let's return to 3d panels and gauges: A well designed 3d cockpit will not be restricted to one or two pannable and zoomable views. If that was the case then as a customer myself I would not be able to tolerate this nowadays. But in fact most good modern panels have several views which can and do appear FIXED and focussed in on the task in hand. Let me repeat, you can set up several views within a 3d aircraft which has static views exactly the same way 2d panels present themselves. But, if well designed, these views also are capable of presenting gauges which can often update with a much higher frame rate, hence they can be silky smooth in operation.Not only that, but if a user is not quite satisfied with the 3d views presented, he or she, with hardly any effort, can construct new views which can be fixed, or moveable, or zoomable, can be sized, placed exactly where you like, and you can even assign a hot key for immediate access to these extra views. This is perfectly possible by simply editing the aircraft cfg file and adding as many different views as you like, or by editing existing views.It is an entirely false myth that 3d panels cannot be done in this way. What is most frustrating for developers who are making efforts to present their panels in a refreshing, useable and flexible manner, is that statements are made time and time again on forums which are based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice. And each time this subject comes up the same old assumptions seem to enter the subconscious of everyone viewing that thread, and they go away convinced that what they have read is true.The key to all panel design is of course practical use. If you need an IFR instrument view, with a little bit of moving scenery showing above it, then you can make this view with any decent 3d cockpit. If you need a fixed view that focusses on a GPS, or trim control, or certain groups of gauges, you can also do that within the 3d cockpit. You simply design your own view, or better still rely on the developer to have ready made views, or even edit the developer's views to adapt to your own preferences.If you are flying a highly complex aircraft needing multiple views of different parts of the panel, then sometimes a combination of 2d and 3d might be desirable, but if a 3d panel can achieve the same thing, then what is the point? That is not to say I am "against" 2d panels. But I get fed up with the widely spread and frankly untrue assumptions made about 3d panels. I think maybe part of the reason for this is that the early days of 3d cockpit design did not always deliver what was needed. But that was several years ago. We have moved on!I really think it is time that the above myths were dispelled. I am not suggesting that all aircraft should be made with only 3d panels. What I am asserting is that automatically writing off 3d panels without checking out what they can do first, is just denying yourself what could be a hugely flexible system which in effect delivers everything you wanted from your traditional panels but at the same time allows you features which add enormously to the visceral feeling of flying.Best Wishes,Rob Young

[LAdamson 240]

I will weigh in as both a real world pilot and avid simmer. For entertainment I love using the VC on a large widescreen monitor (25.5") and TrackIR, it is certainly very entertaining and immersive. I have also used simulators for real world training and this is an area that the VC becomes an annoyance... even trying it using a TrackIR and large monitor. The purpose of the use is where the difference will really show. If you're just zipping around, jumping place to place and plane to plane, chasing planes, flying under bridges in other words entertainment the VC is great fun and a visual treat. When immersed in IFR training and pilotage tasks you want a large, high resolution, smooth representation of the main flight gauges that doesn't move around and correctly represents the environment you would be sitting in. No mouse, no keyboard, no simulated movement of the panel itself. Now the hardware to make this possible is expensive but the visual portion represented on the screen and actions to perform a holding pattern and various types of approaches can be accomplished with a simple yoke or joystick. This training is a completely different environment and is also not nearly as fun as entertainment simming. You will always have arguments for the merits found in both but a main difference to not forget is the primary use the person using the simulator is after.

And as a real world pilot, I don't know if I'll ever get immersed in IFR training again. I was heavy into that, back in '93/94. These days I'd rather spend my time flying to panoramic settings such as the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley, the Tetons, Sedona Ariz, and many other places that are just within a few hours. Alaska and the Bahamas sound good too! It's "now" obvious that I do my real flying for "entertainment"............rather than the anxiety of instrument scan, darkness, monotone haze, and a bit of euphoria when the runway comes into view at the last few seconds. :( L.Adamson --- will fly for fun!

[zfehr 1]

And as a real world pilot, I don't know if I'll ever get immersed in IFR training again. I was heavy into that, back in '93/94. These days I'd rather spend my time flying to panoramic settings such as the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley, the Tetons, Sedona Ariz, and many other places that are just within a few hours. Alaska and the Bahamas sound good too! It's "now" obvious that I do my real flying for "entertainment"............rather than the anxiety of instrument scan, darkness, monotone haze, and a bit of euphoria when the runway comes into view at the last few seconds. :( L.Adamson --- will fly for fun!

Exactly Larry,IFR training is not exactly what I would call "fun" it is however tedious work and once mastered a skill set that needs to be refreshed. I do most of my real flying for entertainment as well and also my simming is entertainment after a long, good day of work.

[jrhoads 6]

And as a real world pilot, I don't know if I'll ever get immersed in IFR training again. I was heavy into that, back in '93/94. These days I'd rather spend my time flying to panoramic settings such as the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley, the Tetons, Sedona Ariz, and many other places that are just within a few hours. Alaska and the Bahamas sound good too! It's "now" obvious that I do my real flying for "entertainment"............rather than the anxiety of instrument scan, darkness, monotone haze, and a bit of euphoria when the runway comes into view at the last few seconds. :( L.Adamson --- will fly for fun!

And as a real world commercial pilot I still prefer 2D over VC. This subject can be contested until the cows come home and it usually is. There are strong opinions on both sides and enough of them that neither one is exclusively right or the lesser party.The bottom line for your choice of preference is what works for you. And speaking of choice, as stated earlier, I will strive to always provide a choice for both audiences despite my preferences.And I won't compromise either of those choices. Giving customers both options is in my opinion the best of both worlds. Let the customer decide what they prefer.Something else to think about... If sims that are based on real world training and familiarization typically do not even desire VC's (I don't know of any) and contrary to popular opinion, they are not all IFR, So, which is more real? 2D or VC? Think about that. Real training, for certification and currency for real airplanes and credentials. I keep hearing statements like "since I am into the real experience or for real immersion".... Immersion is an overused word. I go back to what I said earlier, perceived reality. It's what you make it or what you believe it to be, not what it really may be.Jim

[Ramasurinen 0]

Exactly Larry,IFR training is not exactly what I would call "fun" it is however tedious work and once mastered a skill set that needs to be refreshed. I do most of my real flying for entertainment as well and also my simming is entertainment after a long, good day of work.

Actually I would say that IFR training in the sim can be extremely fun, it just depends on how you go about it. :) It's something I do all the time in shared cockpit multiplayer, teaching friends how to navigate and land on instruments alone, and a smooth and successful trip can be both highly challenging and very satisfying for both parties. It's great to be able to share the workload between multiple pilots, and gives the student a chance to increase their challenge in stages over multiple flights, at their own pace, much like real life training. In that case as well I far prefer a good VC to a 2D panel, simply for the smoothness of the gauges and precision of their updates. Toss in the fact that you can 'feel' the bumps and shakes while descending through a thick cumulus layer in the VC and it seems much more realistic to me than an abstract 2D panel. In reality a few years ago, in a 172, I found myself stuck in some marginal VFR that suddenly decided to turn into very nasty IFR. I had unexpected hail and turbulence pounding my plane so hard it actually became difficult to read the instruments through all the vibration. To this day I liken it to being stuffed in a coffee can full of marbles and kicked down an endless flight of concrete stairs. No 2D panel can replicate that experience for me, but a good VC can. Granted, that's one flying experience I would really rather have only in the simulator from now on. ;)-mike

[Guest PPSFA]

Lots of interesting opinions! Unfortunatly it looks like a few got off track of the original question and got side tracked debating the pros and cons of both VC and 2D. In general is seems those who use a single monitor prefer VC and those like me who use multimonitor prefer having both VC and 2D.Personally if I had to give up the second montior, I would probably stop flying FS altogether. Even when using the VC, having the 2D panels on the second monitor is far too convienent. I recently purchased the CS 727 which is VC only. The 727 is my all time fav plane but if it didn't have the 2D popups, I would have passed. It was also very expensive when I bought it (missed the sale) and for that price it SHOULD have offered both cockpits in my opinion. In my setup, I use Windows mode, with the taskbar set to the second monitor. The main monitor is a 24" LCD and the second is a 22" CRT. With the cockpit, either VC or 2D, depending on the plane and what part of the flight I'm in, on the main, and the 2D panels on the second monitor, I have no need or desire for TrackIR, as I don't want things hanging off my head when I'm flying. If I am in VC, I can either use the Hat switch or the built in FSX 'mouse mode' which emulates TIR and 'head movement' just fine, and a lot cheaper. Some planes are setup better using one than the other. In general I use 2D for takeoff and climb and VC for enroute and landing.I fly in real life as well, and outside of buying new glasses every few years, I have yet to 'zoom in' in a real cockpit to see a guage or a switch, which in some VC's is necessary. In fact normally there is very little 'head movement' either, as most of the time its the eyes that do the scanning, not turning my head. For some developers it seems the price is going up, while the options available is going down. I'm happy to see some major developers weighing in here stating they will continue to offer both on their planes, I hope those that don't take the hint, if they want to continue to help me lighten my wallet and contribute to the economy. :-)

Actually I would say that IFR training in the sim can be extremely fun, it just depends on how you go about it. :) It's something I do all the time in shared cockpit multiplayer, teaching friends how to navigate and land on instruments alone, and a smooth and successful trip can be both highly challenging and very satisfying for both parties. It's great to be able to share the workload between multiple pilots, and gives the student a chance to increase their challenge in stages over multiple flights, at their own pace, much like real life training. In that case as well I far prefer a good VC to a 2D panel, simply for the smoothness of the gauges and precision of their updates. Toss in the fact that you can 'feel' the bumps and shakes while descending through a thick cumulus layer in the VC and it seems much more realistic to me than an abstract 2D panel. In reality a few years ago, in a 172, I found myself stuck in some marginal VFR that suddenly decided to turn into very nasty IFR. I had unexpected hail and turbulence pounding my plane so hard it actually became difficult to read the instruments through all the vibration. To this day I liken it to being stuffed in a coffee can full of marbles and kicked down an endless flight of concrete stairs. No 2D panel can replicate that experience for me, but a good VC can. Granted, that's one flying experience I would really rather have only in the simulator from now on. ;)-mike

Haldir, this is a subject for a new thread, why more developers dont offer fully functional shared cockpit functionality! I also spend a lot of time in MP SC teaching others, and would love to see this addressed in more detail.

[january 19]

Now, if developers start building 3840x1042 wiiiidescreen 2D panels, I'd probably start using them...

----------------------Tim- they have existed for years- it's called multi monitors. I run @1024x768 on my six yr old sys. With triple monitors and the views synched to adjust for the exact width of the mon bezels, your brain sees ONE very wide picture. In my case I see a 3072x768 image that is 44" wide and spans about 170