Right off the top, I know there are other perspectives and opinions and I welcome them, but here's mine.....If you want my money, your planes need to work in multiplayer/shared cockpit, and they MUST have 2D cockpit (as well as a VC) and subpanels.I use multiple monitors and no 2D is a complete showstopper for me. I do not use TrackIR, I don't like it as it forces me to either wear a hat or headset while flying and I don't find it all that realistic. With FSX's built in 'mouse' option I don't see a need for it and would rather spend my money on software for FSX.I know this has been discussed before, but I see references in other threads that " VC only is the wave of the future" and I want to again remind folks that not all of us think that way, especially those who build home cockpits.PMDG just lost my purchase on their latest release because of the lack of 2D, I am hoping their promised next release has one. I spend a LOT of money trying to support the dev's because I know from having worked with some, times are tough and have been with FSX and it's associated problems since it's release. It also seems that except for a few, most dev's have either forgotton or ignored the shared cockpit component of FSX. To me, spending all the time and money to develope a plane that in real life REQUIRES two pilots, then neglecting that very function, doesn't make much sense. It gives a whole new dimension to flying in the virtual world and using a voice comms program like TeamSpeak makes it darn near 'as real as it really gets' !I hope dev's are listening, cause I really like to spend money, I can't take it with me so you might as well have some of it! :(

Jay,I get your point. But this will make the aircraft more expensive. A solution is that a developer would build two models. One base model with VC only, as the PMDG J41, and an expansion pack with 2D panels. The base model and the expansion pack would be sold as separate products. In this way the cockpit builders would pay the additional costs for the 2D panels, while the base simmers, like me, would only have to pay for the base model. Would that be OK for you?

Jay,I get your point. But this will make the aircraft more expensive. A solution is that a developer would build two models. One base model with VC only, as the PMDG J41, and an expansion pack with 2D panels. The base model and the expansion pack would be sold as separate products. In this way the cockpit builders would pay the additional costs for the 2D panels, while the base simmers, like me, would only have to pay for the base model. Would that be OK for you?

Sure, but the better option would be 2D standard and VC optional, then YOU pay the extra hehehehehe :(

Sure, but the better option would be 2D standard and VC optional, then YOU pay the extra hehehehehe :(

:(:( The overall cost would increase with two separate products, so paying for one mode including the 2D panels would be OK with me :(

Right off the top, I know there are other perspectives and opinions and I welcome them, but here's mine.....If you want my money, your planes need to work in multiplayer/shared cockpit, and they MUST have 2D cockpit (as well as a VC) and subpanels.I use multiple monitors and no 2D is a complete showstopper for me. I do not use TrackIR, I don't like it as it forces me to either wear a hat or headset while flying and I don't find it all that realistic. With FSX's built in 'mouse' option I don't see a need for it and would rather spend my money on software for FSX.I know this has been discussed before, but I see references in other threads that " VC only is the wave of the future" and I want to again remind folks that not all of us think that way, especially those who build home cockpits.PMDG just lost my purchase on their latest release because of the lack of 2D, I am hoping their promised next release has one. I spend a LOT of money trying to support the dev's because I know from having worked with some, times are tough and have been with FSX and it's associated problems since it's release. It also seems that except for a few, most dev's have either forgotton or ignored the shared cockpit component of FSX. To me, spending all the time and money to develope a plane that in real life REQUIRES two pilots, then neglecting that very function, doesn't make much sense. It gives a whole new dimension to flying in the virtual world and using a voice comms program like TeamSpeak makes it darn near 'as real as it really gets' !I hope dev's are listening, cause I really like to spend money, I can't take it with me so you might as well have some of it! :(

Home build cockpit users represent an infinitesimally small percentage of the user base. So it's fundamentally flawed to expect a platform designed for them unless it is intended expressly for them. I don't see why a user like yourself cannot simply set a fixed camera view configuration that suits your needs. 2d is a poor representation of a 3d environment so what you are asking for is actually LESS realistic. And unless you only fly UAV's having the pilot next to you hundreds or thousands of miles away is not realistic either.And speaking of that, I have never, ever flown a real plane - not in 850 hours in gliders and powered aircraft - without a hat, headset and most commonly BOTH. `Realistic` is what you make it, but real pilots wear headsets and hats as a matter of course, with only their exception being worthy of comment in the clubhouse.It's not developers who need to wake up, it's the users of sophisticated hardware that is fundamentally unsuited to the application - or mroe correctly the software it runs on. And I dont really think that is an aircraft developers issue, realistically...

As you know, truly 3D gauges can

However FSX

FSX's current camera system is very versatile and can reproduce 2D-like VIEWS but they are not equivalent to 2D panels and popups that can be readily undocked and repositioned to a second or third monitor with minimal impact on performance. I'm not talking about home cockpits here but rather displaying flying instruments in undocked panels that can make the flight more enjoyable and permit use of a variety of viewpoints, including scenery enjoyment in spot view. It's all about the fun of the game and the aspects one enjoys, not about some sort of competition or which is more or less realistic. My personal solution to aircraft I would like and the absence of 2D panels is to make my own. This is very feasible, does take some time, but can be very gratifying. There are lots of freeware gauges around with which an approximation for almost any panel can be had.Rick

Hmmm interesting opinion. Unfortunately I don't think a lot of devs will continue to get your hard-earned cash. More and more devs are going VC only. I am a VC flyer, without Track IR, though I have a HAT switch on my stick. I abandoned 2D panels after FS2002. I wear a headset all the time on FS, especially on VATSIM. I also wear one on the job (ATC) and wore one when I was flying back in 2003-2004. Seems realistic enough? Yeah the ballcap thing with the sensors is a little lame but the headset with clip is a little more realistic.However, I use 2D popups for my GNS430W by RXP often. Also I use popups for FMC's for some of the big iron I fly. Other than that, I use VC interior views (the A key) or in the case of RealAir's incredible Duke I simply click and right click out of the view if I need to see something up close.I wouldn't mind if devs charged more $$$ for planes complete with 2D AND VC views, but I would hope they do their research and see what the market requires before VC-only flyers start paying up the whazzooo for features they don't need.

I'm quite happy that PMDG don't waste time with antiquated 2d panels. If it helps them produces high quality VC's quicker, then it's a bonus.

Haven't flown a 2D cockpit since FSX came out! Don't want to. VC is the ONLY way to go for me, and I, too, spend a lot of money on these wonderful addons.Stan

I agree. The 2D era is over and developers know this. (My opinion of TrackIR doesn't come into this. I think it is known anyway).* Mainstream single monitor users are the largest target market and when you think in terms of market share, devs are smart and aim for the largest target. * Machines can handle VC now, whereas 2 or 3 years ago they couldn't very well.* VC only offers the greatest return per dollar invested, especially in this day of high costs and increasing theft.

I agree. The 2D era is over and developers know this. (My opinion of TrackIR doesn't come into this. I think it is known anyway).* Mainstream single monitor users are the largest target market and when you think in terms of market share, devs are smart and aim for the largest target. * Machines can handle VC now, whereas 2 or 3 years ago they couldn't very well.* VC only offers the greatest return per dollar invested, especially in this day of high costs and increasing theft.

I feel like the 2D V 3D argument is like the FS9 V FSX argument. Even though I am an FS9 lover at some point I will need to accept that technology has evolved past it and move over to FSX exclusively. The 2D panel is going the way of my beloved FS9. At some point the same way we need to stop crying over the lack of FS9 add-ons folks are going to have to stop crying over the lack of 2D panels and move on... It is all part of technological evolution ;)Just my .02 but I find the two arguments very analogous...-Paul

Since we are making requests here and the subject of vc vs 2d came up, I'll add my request.It seems like all of the high quality (visually quality I mean) add ons come with a 100 page manuals. That is great if that is what you are looking for but these add ons are not for me. There were a number of nice aircraft for FS2004 that when paired with a nice 2d panel provided a great experience in FS9. Even the most complex add on 2d panels had a small learning curve (Paul Golding freeware and Skydecks payware come to mind here). The problem with FSX and 2d panels is that you can't have cockpit interior views. Because if this, I fly in the VC view in FSX all the time. The inability to look to the right and feel as if you are still in a cockpit diminishes the immersiveness for me. Of course, if you are a home cockpit person, the side views are not an issue. This leaves me with two options:Buy the complex aircraft and learn them (not an option- I don't have the time)Deal with the default vc's and the 2d panels with no side viewsWhy can't developers make aircraft that are visually stunning that have a mild learning curve? I think aircraft like this would have the broadest appeal. CLS did a decent job but developers like them are far and few between. Aerosim and Overland also did a nice job but they didn't put enough effort in to their VC textures and gauges. I have high hopes for the Quality Wings 757 nonetheless.

I used to like the look of VC but flew mostly 2D because I couldn't see the instruments well enough in VC mode. Then I bought a 28" monitor. I can read the instruments so much better now I really don't need 2D anymore but still find 2D pop-ups useful for FMC's which are hard to use on the console. Would love to fly on a 36" or bigger monitor.