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

Larry,Can I ask you something? Why in almost every post do you have to try to validate somehow that you are a real pilot and you have built an airplane (1) I believe that was an RV? are you building more than 1 these days? Hence the "I build airplanes"I am a real commercial pilot ( now that we are validating ) and you and I totally disagree. So which one of us is more right and what does our ratings, aircraft ownership or aircraft type flown have anything to do with it? (I have flown an F-16, does that make me more knowledgeable?) what does any of that have to do with what someone else perceives as what is real to them? each experience is unique, different and perceived as real to each user and last time I checked, we are flying a computer. No one is exclusively right and ratings or aircraft ownership and type has nothing to do with it. Or is this just a pissing contest?(You said) 2D panels remind me of landing various taildraggers, as much of the runway is hiddenNot if you know what you are doing....Jim

Larry,Can I ask you something? Why in almost every post do you have to try to validate somehow that you are a real pilot and you have built an airplane (1) I believe that was an 1 RV? are you building more than 1 these days? Hence the "I build airplanes"I am a real commercial pilot ( now that we are validating ) and you and I totally disagree. So which one of us is more right and what does our ratings, aircraft ownership or aircraft type flown has anything to do with it? (I have flown an F-16, does that make me more knowledgeable?) what does any of that have to do with what someone else perceives as what is real to them? each experience is unique, different and perceived as real to each user and last time I checked, we are flying a computer. No one is exclusively right and ratings or aircraft ownership and type has nothing to do with it. Or is this just a pissing contest?2D panels remind me of landing various taildraggers, as much of the runway is hidden.Not if you know what you are doing....Jim

For starters, you've used your own piloting credentials to validate your own thoughts on 2D versus 3D. In my mind I see " I'm a commercial pilot and VC's are like toys". And.............are you rated in the F-16?I have worked on many experimental/kitbuilts for over 20 years...Remember ---- I'm the one that told you that your alt/bat switch in the Flight 1 Cessna 172 needed to be redone because the battery side must be interlocked with the alternator. You promptly had it re-animated.Other than that................this has turned into a pi ... ... ing contest.................don't you think? Over and out...L.Adamson

Wow. I think we need a video of a guy getting hit in the groin with a football right about now!

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

...and in what way is that setup a realistic viewpoint? Functional yes, realistic no.

Wow. I think we need a video of a guy getting hit in the groin with a football right about now!

:( Btw I recently reinstalled the Level-D 767 on my new rig. Its incredible now that I get 30+ fps with it anywhere in the world. It's cool when you can rediscover old planes. The wallet likes it better than buying new planes too. :(

This thread is good fun!I really like to read all the different opinions

...and in what way is that setup a realistic viewpoint? Functional yes, realistic no.

--------------- I would hope in real airplane design that function beats form! What's needed is a 2D, 1st officer's panel that mates properly with the captain's panel across dual monitors. Alex ReidInset real 747 photo courtesy Manuel Marin/jetphotos.net

--------------- I would hope in real airplane design that function beats form! What's needed is a 2D, 1st officer's panel that mates properly with the captain's panel across dual monitors. Alex ReidInset real 747 photo courtesy Manuel Marin/jetphotos.net

Except the pilot doesn't sit in the jump seat! His viewpoint (And the FO) in out the windshield. When he needs to to view or activate a gauge or switch, he needs to glance over to it, whether it be the main panel, overhead or center pedestal! The only way to replicate that in a sim is with the VC, or a hardware simulated cockpit (Built to specifications). Plus with a 2D panel, you miss out on the momentum animation. Granted default isn't the greatest, but the upcoming EZDOK module looks real good in this area.

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

I am very sorry, but I can't imagine anyone liking this view... It looks awfull! Is this supposed to show how real 2D is on 3 monitors...? This is so... so... 2D! That panel in the left is squashed and cutt off, the panels on the right are in Windows-windows and nothing is in proportion. And you can hardly look outside... Man, I am glad VC's were invented.Don't mean to bash your setup: if you like it, that's great, or course!!! To each his own! But this will never ever convert a VC-addict to 2D-ism. :(

--------------- I would hope in real airplane design that function beats form! What's needed is a 2D, 1st officer's panel that mates properly with the captain's panel across dual monitors. Alex ReidInset real 747 photo courtesy Manuel Marin/jetphotos.net

That inset looks exactly like a VC... :(EDIT:Which one looks more real...?:( :(

Other than that................this has turned into a pi ... ... ing contest.................don't you think? Over and out...L.Adamson

Actually I don't. I don't typically say much about my ratings, but I took the liberty to say something about them to validate just because someone else is claiming something is more realbecasue they fly or own an airplane. That has nothing to do with anything. With flight simulation, people perceive what they believe is more realistic to them despite what you or I think. But my point is valid. This topic has been contested by both sides for years and there are no winners. What is real to you is what matters.I do know this however, VC's have at minimum increased the workload of developers by a massive margin. and it is still not a perfect solution. (neither is 2D) you still need a mouse, you still have to zoom in or out, it is much harder on the system if it is glass and people still want 2D popups. Also, if a 2D panel is properly done, it can be a very user friendly perspective. For instance, you mentioned the 172, and that is a pretty old product now so much has changed with respect to advanced development techniques, but when you change from 2D to VC the transition is almost identical. Anyway, just busting your chops Larry, feel free to bust mine!Jim

Also, if a 2D panel is properly done, it can be a very user friendly perspective. For instance, you mentioned the 172, and that is a pretty old product now so much has changed with respect to advanced development techniques, but when you change from 2D to VC the transition is almost identical.

Yeah that's fairly true, there are some 2D's where this works, mainly light GA.... plus when it comes to glass stuff, the 2D's are usually better on the FPS

Yeah that's fairly true, there are some 2D's where this works, mainly light GA.... plus when it comes to glass stuff, the 2D's are usually better on the FPS

Good point. Come to think of it, I don't use small VC cockpits with "glass" (such as the default Cessna/Garmin 1000). The information on the glass panel is just too small to make real sense of. In this case, I will concede, that it's either 2D popups or 2D period..................that do a better job at the moment. L.Adamson

Good point. Come to think of it, I don't use small VC cockpits with "glass" (such as the default Cessna/Garmin 1000). The information on the glass panel is just too small to make real sense of. In this case, I will concede, that it's either 2D popups or 2D period..................that do a better job at the moment. L.Adamson

Or use TrackIR and bend forward if you can't see it well enough. :( Or maybe get a bigger screen...? :( I can't remember having trouble with that G1000 in the VC.

For starters, you've used your own piloting credentials to validate your own thoughts on 2D versus 3D. In my mind I see " I'm a commercial pilot and VC's are like toys". And.............are you rated in the F-16?I have worked on many experimental/kitbuilts for over 20 years...Remember ---- I'm the one that told you that your alt/bat switch in the Flight 1 Cessna 172 needed to be redone because the battery side must be interlocked with the alternator. You promptly had it re-animated.Other than that................this has turned into a pi ... ... ing contest.................don't you think? Over and out...L.Adamson

Larry... your point is valid and Jim's point is valid. The point I see missing in this discussion is that we have people that prefer VC's themselves trying to convince those that prefer 2d panels that they should change their mind and vice versa. IT'S THE INDIVIDUALS OWN PERSONAL CHOICE WHICH THEY PREFER! I don't think Jim cares which you prefer and fortunately he makes sure Flight1 includes both so users have the choice. This goes back many years BTW, remember Flight1's Cessna 172 for FS2004? You could hardly tell the difference between the 2d panel and VC when you switched to the VC, that's how good of a job they were doing even back then. Yet the arguments will continue till at least 2012. This is like trying to change someone's religion... you're not gonna do it but the arguments will continue until blood is spilled with some. Agree to disagree with the other's opinion and get on.

Jeroen, that forced perspective panel pic is AWESOME. I really needed that laugh this morning. :) Thank you. Can just see the captain saying "Dude, put your track-ir on already, I can't see runway."