It is my opinion that developers should stop this trend of no longer developing 2D Panels. I do not understand the switch between developers at one time not developing VCs to almost everyone developing both VCs and 2Ds, to not developing 2D panels. I use the 2D panel because I can achieve better FPS with gauges, it is easier to manage the aircraft, and it is easier to look around. I understand that there are many users who only use the VC, and I respect them. But if a developer were to no longer develop VCs, they would be very upset. I know that as a 2D user, I do not like the trend that is forming. I understand that FSX can take advantage of certain graphics that you cannot achieve in 2D panel mode, but there are still many members of the community who, like me, use almost exclusively the 2D panel. I do not appreciate the move towards FSX only addons, but that is for another post. I believe that if developers like Carenado need to delay their releases in order to provide a 2D panel, then they should do so, instead of blasting out a new model every month. It is my belief that modelers are only loosing customer satisfaction, if not customers themselves, with this new ideal of no more 2D panels.I implore the community to show that there are still those of us who use 2D panels, and that we do not appreciate this idea of no more 2D panels. If the VC users could join us, we could show the developers that we want the 2D panel to remain a large part of payware models.**steps down from soap box**Sam

It is my opinion that developers should stop this trend of no longer developing 2D Panels.

lack of 2D is in no way a trend at feelThere ... :( --

I use the 2D panel because I can achieve better FPS with gauges, it is easier to manage the aircraft, and it is easier to look around. I understand that there are many users who only use the VC, and I respect them.

I prefer the 2D, too, with either side views or (better) a VC to get the right view when using the cooliehat. I don't like that I don't see all switches or instruments in most of the 3D cockpits (or you see all of them, but almost nothing from outside). So I agree, pleas don't stop making good 2D cockpits.H.

2D panels? what's that? :(

Sam,I fully agree with you, and as a developer (mainly for FeelThere), I always developed 2D panels. Not only it improves FPS, but it is often the best way to have all the important instruments visible while flying.What I usually do when flying is 2D for airliners (IFR) and VC for light aircrafts (VFR). I never purchased an aircraft that has VC only.Eric

Editorial letters to AVSIM staff forum? :( This topic has been discussed many many times already. Each have their opinion and it's really a personal preference. Why not create a vote instead of a discussion that is bound to only repeat itself?Personally I find a 3D panel with nice motion effects and a couple of 2D popup screens for convenience the only realistic way of flying. You don't have a static breadboard in front of you when you fly an airplane.If the time spent on developing a 2D panel can be used somewhere else, all the better.

Editorial letters to AVSIM staff forum? :( This topic has been discussed many many times already. Each have their opinion and it's really a personal preference. Why not create a vote instead of a discussion that is bound to only repeat itself?Personally I find a 3D panel with nice motion effects and a couple of 2D popup screens for convenience the only realistic way of flying. You don't have a static breadboard in front of you when you fly an airplane.If the time spent on developing a 2D panel can be used somewhere else, all the better.

this isn't a 2D vs. VC thread, and if you read it properly, you would understand that. As for the comment about no 2D panels, why would you say that? I could say that the time "wasted" on developing VC's is pointless, but I don't. You wouldn't want a developer to stop making VC's anymore than I want a developer to stop making 2D's.Sam

A fairly good reason for retaining 2D is that it is the only way to display multiple views! As Redbird Simualtor says regarding their 6 monitor commercial simulator- " If you want to train complex manoeuvers such as turns---, circling approaches---, basic pattern work, one forward looking screen is not going to cut it."Nor does panning and zooming on a single monitor. Lose your real peripheral vision and you lose your real PPL.Here is a pic showing what even triple monitors can do- if you sim in 2D!Alex ReidBonanza Turning final for CYYJ R27 (powered by a 6 yr old AMD XP2200 !)

this isn't a 2D vs. VC thread, and if you read it properly, you would understand that. As for the comment about no 2D panels, why would you say that? I could say that the time "wasted" on developing VC's is pointless, but I don't. You wouldn't want a developer to stop making VC's anymore than I want a developer to stop making 2D's.

SamAs far as I know, if you want to fly the airplane in the simulator you have two options - 3D cockpit or 2D cockpit. And if the trend these days is moving toward the 3D-only cockpits, then this essentially is about 2D vs 3D.Developing two panels side by side takes time and resources. If the 2D-only users are a small minority (no statistics on that though) and the overheads for creating two panels are substantial, then the developers are making a wise choice by going for 3D only.For what goes into me saying that about 2D panels - easy for me to say as I prefer 3D :( I would of course appreciate shorter development cycles and possibly even better 3D cockpits if that can be achieved by leaving out 2D.Again, the optimal situation is to have both, but if we can't have both, then it's up to the developer to estimate which user base is larger and which one they decide to serve. Surely you can understand that?-kyle

SamAs far as I know, if you want to fly the airplane in the simulator you have two options - 3D cockpit or 2D cockpit. And if the trend these days is moving toward the 3D-only cockpits, then this essentially is about 2D vs 3D.Developing two panels side by side takes time and resources. If the 2D-only users are a small minority (no statistics on that though) and the overheads for creating two panels are substantial, then the developers are making a wise choice by going for 3D only.For what goes into me saying that about 2D panels - easy for me to say as I prefer 3D :( I would of course appreciate shorter development cycles and possibly even better 3D cockpits if that can be achieved by leaving out 2D.Again, the optimal situation is to have both, but if we can't have both, then it's up to the developer to estimate which user base is larger and which one they decide to serve. Surely you can understand that?-kyle

kyle- if my memory serves me, one of the Flight One principals said recently here in AVSIM forums, that Flight One would continue 2D panels indefinitely.Alex Reid

"If the time spent on developing a 2D panel can be used somewhere else, all the better."I beg to differ.Classic example is the Carenado Seneca. No 2D panel so plenty of time to perfect the FDE right?No.....really I love the model but look at the state of the FS9 FDE....obviously no work there.If a developer makes a 2D panel it is usually a good sign that they care about the important parts of flightsimulation. IMHO...not just eyecandy!

"If the time spent on developing a 2D panel can be used somewhere else, all the better."I beg to differ.Classic example is the Carenado Seneca. No 2D panel so plenty of time to perfect the FDE right?

EdNo need.The keyword is IF, as and clearly as ever that same word is visible in the quote you made out of my post. Nowhere did I claim there is a direct relationship betweem the absence of a 2D panel and the quality of other areas of the product. That was merely a wish, although I hope there was a direct relationship.That being said though, a fact is that not having to develop a 2D panel separately may not improve other areas of the product, but will in every case shorten the development times, which are growing longer and longer these days.Hope that's clear now.

I do not understand your arguement. Just answer me one question, a simple yes or no please: if a developer stopped making Virtual Cockpits, would you buy their product if you only use VC view?Sam

He has no argument. It's the same old childish "I fly with a VC therefore everyone should fly with a VC"

I do not understand your arguement. Just answer me one question, a simple yes or no please: if a developer stopped making Virtual Cockpits, would you buy their product if you only use VC view?

If there were any VC alternatives in the known FS universe, then NO I would not buy from that one who does NOT make a VC.

He has no argument. It's the same old childish "I fly with a VC therefore everyone should fly with a VC"

Childish.. right. :( Well you guys whine here all you want. Hope it helps.I'm outta this one.. ciao.