I can't for the life of me understand why someone would WANT a 2d panel? Even in fs2004 I only used the VC. There is no realism with the 2d panels as you can't see the cockpit. Developers don't get my money if their VC isn't clickable and real world functional. I guess there are reasons why people want and need a 2d panel but I have yet to ever run into them.

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.

So you want an enormously intricate aircraft like any modern airliner (757) to be brought out like something you can fly in an arcade?There are aircraft on the market that are visual beauties and easy to learn. Take the Aerosoft Bush Hawk of Beaver for instance. But the more complex an aircraft becomes IRL, the more complex it should become in a SIM. I would certainly NOT buy any add-on airliner that has great graphics but can be flown, navigated and landed from the get-go without any difficulties whatsoever. Not in a Sim anyway.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone would WANT a 2d panel? Even in fs2004 I only used the VC. There is no realism with the 2d panels as you can't see the cockpit. Developers don't get my money if their VC isn't clickable and real world functional. I guess there are reasons why people want and need a 2d panel but I have yet to ever run into them.

I'm not sure what planes you fly, but a lot of 2D cockpits most certainly have the ability to 'pan' other views. Off the top of my head the CS 757 and EagleSoft CJ1 come to mind, both have beautifull 'cockpit views and the CJ even shows you the rear cabin if you need to wander back and get a drink!Using 2 monitors with the subpanels on the second monitor makes life a lot easier for those of us who don't like to have to pan/zoom to see the guages from the VC. I use both 2D and VC, depending on the plane and the phase of flight I'm in and having the option rather than being stuck in one view floats my boat.If developers decide to go the VC only route, it's fine with me, I have enough planes in the hanger now to keep me busy for years to come. And as I recall, one of the best developers, Eaglesoft, has stated previously they will continue to provide both, so they will continue to see my business.For the record, with a few thousand hours RL flying since 1970, neither VC or 2D are very 'realistic' compared to the real thing, but thats not the issue in this thread. I didn't start this thread to argue about which is better, simply to state my personal preferences in the hopes dev's would take notice, so far it looks like none have, or at least none replied, oh well.

So you want an enormously intricate aircraft like any modern airliner (757) to be brought out like something you can fly in an arcade?

Arcade games can be controlled with an Xbox controller and they are not customizable. I have invested $1,000's on hardware, scenery, utilities over the last ten years - I don't know of any arcade game that requires that level of financial dedication.As I said, the problem is that you have to spend too much time learning one aircraft. I like to fly a variety of aircraft. If all you ever want to fly is a 737 or a 767, then these products are perfect for you and the time spent leaning their systems is a good investment. I like to fly long haul flights but I do leave the computer when in cruise. I can't devote 13 hours for a flight from KJFK-LLBG starring at the open Atlantic monitoring systems.People have different preferences. I, like most people, don't have that kind of time and I, like many people, must make sacrifices to be able to continue to sim. Maybe you wouldn't buy these aircraft, but people will. The highly complex aircraft that are enjoyed by the some of us have a much more narrow appeal - even at the enthusiast level. Evenmore, your opinion places almost every freeware aircraft in to the arcade game category because they are generally less complex. I know the argument - "Yeh, but those aircraft are free." The issue is that many payware aircraft offer visual details that are not available as freeware. In order to get the spectacular visuals, you have to take the complex systems which completely alienates a large segment of the community. All it would really require is a developer to include an optional "light" panel with a simplified ap, a few different gauges and a different air file. The hard work comes with making the aircraft systems complex and it is part of the reason that they take so long to develop..

The expectations in this thread... are interesting.However, I doubt most of you would be willing to actually pay the price for a product that went through such a horribly complex development cycle.

Since we've been mentioned allow me to restate our position...Eaglesoft will continue offerings packages which contain both 2D Panel and 3D Panels.VC only fan? The simple solution is to edit the aircraft.cfg to eliminate the call for the 2D Panel.Disclaimer: In some cases that may not work well if the package relies on the 2D Panel to properly initialize the Avionics Package. :(

If devs want my money simply have a fully functional VC.... and things are lookin' good

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

You've clearly lost sight of reality if you think this is ever going to happen. 2D panels are so FS98. It just isn't the way the hobby is developing. Why would it? Immersion is about being 'inside' the thing and some of the beautiful VCs we get these days do that - put you inside. A flat cardboard panel is never going to do that and it represents a backward step for the development of aircraft addons.I think you're in for a disappointment, because I reckon 2 years from now, no aircraft will come with 2D panels.You have to accept that your views (and demand to developers) are not with the majority I'm afraid.Davido.Northern Sweden

I think you're in for a disappointment, because I reckon 2 years from now, no aircraft will come with 2D panels....Davido.Northern Sweden

Ours will. :(

Ours will. :(

Rock on Ron ! :(

I, for one, appreciate the value of a low-complexity airliner. I once blew an entire sunny summer day programming a FMC. What the heck was I thinking? My family made fun of me for days, sitting there at my computer programming a pretend computer in the airplane, swearing like I was trying to program a real computer. That being said, there is a population of sim captains that really groove on that stuff, and there are some excellent products out there right now that scratch that itch. Just Flight and CLS put out decent "F-lite" products for those that that want reduced aircraft complexity while still providing many of the appropriate switches, displays, and avionics systems. As for the VC versus 2D debate, so far most of the usual arguments have been mentioned in this thread. What has not been mentioned, though, is my favourite of all set-ups: Click-To-Enlarge gauges in the cockpit. I love those things! If I could ever find out who invented them, they would get an AVSIM Gold Star from me in a heartbeat. You get the utility of a VC, the customization of a 2D cockpit, and actual readable instruments. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

I became a VC convert when I invested in the triple head to go and three 20" monitors. It really is something else now to fire up the Flight 1 Mustang, the PMDG eggbeater or the Captain Sim C-130 (useless flight director notwithstanding) and see just how immersive these cockpits are. This is an over-used phrase, but the really are works of art.

I can't for the life of me understand why someone would WANT a 2d panel? Even in fs2004 I only used the VC. There is no realism with the 2d panels as you can't see the cockpit. Developers don't get my money if their VC isn't clickable and real world functional. I guess there are reasons why people want and need a 2d panel but I have yet to ever run into them.

To all you guys who have replied with comments such as the above, you are totally misunderstanding what the OP was trying to convey. Most of us who want 2D panels, DON'T use them as our main panel. Yes it would be so FS98 to fly this way, but as I stated most of us dont. I for instance have an enclosed home cockpit with a main 42" screen displaying the upper portion of the VC. My view is adjusted forward, so I only see the window, not the lower VC. I have a 24" monitor set below the 42" monitor which displays all the main 2D A/C gauges. I have a 17" monitor to the right of the 24" displaying all the 2D engine gauges. I have a 14" monitor from a networked computer to the left of the 24" monitor displaying FSWidgets Google moving Map. Would you call my setup so FS98 or FS9, and antiquated? Unfortunately I have to make most of my own 2D panels using gauges from an assortment of A/C that I have collected from over the years, as most newer A/C all have 3D gauges built into the model.At least if the developer does not include 2D panels, it would be nice if they could at least include a 2D gauge package. The Home Cockpit Building community is larger than most of you realize.Bill

Unfortunately I have to make most of my own 2D panels using gauges from an assortment of A/C that I have collected from over the years, as most newer A/C all have 3D gauges built into the model.At least if the developer does not include 2D panels, it would be nice if they could at least include a 2D gauge package. The Home Cockpit Building community is larger than most of you realize.

That is impractical. If the developer models 3d gauges, there is no way to "convert" them to a 2d gauge package. Models with 3d guages have the XML scripts compiled into the model, and the schema used is completely different from that used by the 2d gauge schema. Addditionally, the bitmap resources needed by a 2d gauge equivalent would have to be recreated, as again the format used is incompatible.All this would increase the labor involved by the developer, who'd be forced to pass those increased costs along to all consumers, of whom only a small percentage would actually benefit.

I think the VC vs. 2D discussion went through all instances in the past already, there's no convincing argument to solely use either one. It's more a question of personal preferences: While I'll always prefer 2D because of practical reasons, there'll always be some people showing me how good they perform all tasks in a VC by doing acrobatic things for which I'd need to practise several years to reach that level of ability to move my arms/hands/fingers etc. It's like a circus artist vs. an average guy like me, I swaer I'll never be able to do the things those artists are able to do!So, I cannot support the "2D is dead" statement because it's untrue. An argument to not produce 2D anymore could be cost cutting reasons at the development side for instance.Planes without 2D panel are a no-go for me when it comes to complex airliners. I'm even at the point where I start thinking about getting me a Sim Avionics 777 gauges set just to have an "overlookable" 2D panel available.The way you personally sim is always a compromise between "being there" and what is doable and practical on a computer. VCs are only an approximation to the real world, but neither the only one nor the only right one.I hope developers continue to produce 2D panels. I expect a lot from professionally designed airliners, and I know that quality has its price, so I'm willing to spend the appropriate amount of money for such a product. And I'm not speaking of a "cheap" EUR 35,- airplane! A complex plane that I mean can easily cost several times that amount. But as said, I expect a lot, and that costs a lot, period. If I want a Ferrari, I have to pay for a Ferrari and not for a Fiat Punto.I know that the major part of FS simmers are different from what I like in simming, and I respect this. Cheap planes for little money for people who want simpler planes, but more expensive ones for those who demand them - and 2D is inevitable here! It's just two different market targets, not so a question of what's better: VCs or 2D. There's no winner, but having both would make a product a clear champion for both customer groups.Andreas