I fly 2d panels. I have no need for the VC.Interesting isn't it that 2d panels are what got most good developers where they are today. And you want to write off the future purchases of those that still want 2d panel capable aircraft? Ok, since I'm reading, at least in one developers opinion, that 2d panels are no longer important and are being phased out, what NEW aircraft add-on developer wants my money for 2d capable aircraft?So, let me see if I can sum this up correctly. "Entertainment customers" want VCs for "entertainment" and "real pilots" want 2d for "training"?

Go back and read what I said slowly... "It does not matter what I think"I am a commercial pilot and I have and do fly some fairly impressive aircraft. No VC I have ever seen including what we do looks realistic to me unless I strap a fishbowl on my head. :(

Yes I know about the commercial pilot part, but I'm a pilot who loves flying the mountains, deserts, and back country of the Mountain West. And I thinkthat 2D panels for the most part suck. The VC is much closer to representing the type of flight that I'll always prefer. The only advantage to a 2D as far as I'm concerened is more interaction with glass panels, large commercial type cockpits, or IFR work. Other than that, a 2D is too much in my face, and covers far more of the view than I'd have in the real aircraft. Without a bunch of monitors, it's a compromise any way we look at it. I find the sliding canopy VC cockpit of the RealAir SF260 as being as close as possible to sensations and look of flying within the canopy cockpit of my Van's RV6A. The 2D way isn't near as effective in providing the sensation of flight. In fact, all 2D's are good for is button pushing while total IMC covers the outside view........... :( L.Adamson

So, let me see if I can sum this up correctly. "Entertainment customers" want VCs for "entertainment" and "real pilots" want 2d for "training"?

Not me. I'm a real pilot, plane owner, hangar renter, & so on. So much for theory, as I usually prefer VC's.L.Adamson

Dont ever assume I cannot think. In fact here is my thought forevermore established by your comment. Nice comment from an avsim staff member. I am done posting here. Happy?

My reading of Felix's post was that it was a good natured bit of kidding around, and I don't think he was trying to insult you. The post even had a smiley in it. Of course, apologies if I misinterpreted...

I'm a pilot who loves flying the mountains, deserts, and back country of the Mountain West.The only advantage to a 2D as far as I'm concerened is more interaction with glass panels, large commercial type cockpits, or IFR work. L.Adamson

You just confirmend what was stated in regards to "entertainment" vs "training". You prefer the VC for back county sightseeing flights and the 2d for IFR work.

On second thought...post removed

You just confirmend what was stated in regards to "entertainment" vs "training". You prefer the VC for back county sightseeing flights and the 2d for IFR work.

Okay.................I do spend all that money for the airplane, hangar, insurance, fuel, licensing, upkeep, etc. for entertainment, as well as getting somewhere 3 to 4 times as fast as with a land vehicle. And it's fun entertainment! But never the less, in this case, it's a VC that's imitating "real" flight. Not a 2D.L.Adamson

I like 2D panels .... :-)I have nothing against VC's.... I just don't use them.

I didn't realize who jrhoads was until just now.His Mustang is my favorite add-on aircraft and I fly it"almost" entirely from the virtual cockpit. It's one of thenicest VCs I've ever seen.I'm not a pilot and FSX is purely entertainment for me.I'm just a customer who has spent a lot of money onFSX add-ons. (And I do mean a LOT of money)It seems there's more going on in this thread than a simple poll? I really don't care for the attitude of someof the commercial members here and I will be moreselective of where I spend my money in the future.

My reading of Felix's post was that it was a good natured bit of kidding around, and I don't think he was trying to insult you. The post even had a smiley in it. Of course, apologies if I misinterpreted...

Yep, that is how I took it as well, all in jest.

2D panels are a thing of the past. Virtual Cockpits have progressed to a point where the 2D panelis just redundant. (At least in the higher quality payware aircraft.)The viewpoint in the VC can be adjusted to give a more realisticview of both outside and inside the aircraft.

What a croc! 2D panels are a necessity for home cockpit builders, or at least the availability to use the gauges themselves with Flight Sim Panel Studio are. A homebuilt enclosed cockpit is leaps and bounds more realistic than any VC will ever be.I realize that we are a minority group, but some consideration for our needs would be nice, even if it has to cost us a bit more.Bill

I voted the 2nd option but I'm very surprised that so many still voted they'd want a 2D panel in the package. Apparently the 2D panels are still popular... hmm cool...

We've answered this in number of previous posts and discussion.Have to say that we see this issue from the same viewpoint as Jim Rhoads and many other developers.That is to say we wouldn't include them at all except the market requires that we do so.Any real world pilot can tell you the the view is very much like what Jim described as a "bowl over your head".There are some very nicely done VCs but almost all seem to have skewed angles that really distract sort of like the "fisheye" lens.VCs are great for the occasional "look around" or turn to base or final but past that I rarely use them because I don't like the "fisheye" lens appearance.We will always include both 2D and VC but the VCs are only included because the market requires it. Statements such as "2D Panels are a thing of the past" are inaccurate from our perspective since we have no plans to drop 2D Panels. :(

My reading of Felix's post was that it was a good natured bit of kidding around, and I don't think he was trying to insult you. The post even had a smiley in it. Of course, apologies if I misinterpreted...

Knowing Felix I'm sure it was his sometimes oddball humour and I doubt that he has any axe to grind...I've never heard him be anything but respectful to others so that's my take on that. :(

Knowing Felix I'm sure it was his sometimes oddball humour and I doubt that he has any axe to grind...I've never heard him be anything but respectful to others so that's my take on that. :(

I have to say Ron that I read this post also as humour but can also understand how someone could take it otherwise. It shows the limits once again of communicating by words-especially when english is not the native language for some. Hopefully Felix can set everyone straight on what he really meant.As for 2d vs. 3d-to me this is a symptom of the whole fs world. Everyone has different wishes and requirements for what they want out of a sim. The beauty of fs has always been that for the most part it can be customized and made into what the end user wants. There really is no right or wrong. Me-I am somewhere in the middle on the 2d/3d issue- tracker ir made the 3d cockpits appealing to me-before that I didn't care for them at all. I still don't like the fact that they can and sometimes look a little "hasbro" compared to 2d views that can be made from photographs. The whole 2d vs. 3d knobs is a can of worms-they can look great (especially with 3d glasses) but when an end user wants to customize a cockpit with more realistic instruments that are not 3d then there can be a problem. I personally like having both-but that is me...

FS business is only peanuts, the guys like him don't live from FS, they are working because they have a passion and want to share it.I am shocked and saddened to read this kind of crap from you[/b].

Anyone who knows Felix even casually knows that...HE WAS BEING IRONIC AND JOKING!Good grief, Charilie Brown... :( Interesting that currently the spilt is about 50/50. I like both 2d and VC and swap back and forth during the same flight as desired...