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.

My real world pilot view: --- VC preferredVC's in aircraft with corner post's (Cessna's, etc.) can get somewhat distorted depending on zoom percentages, and those corner post's often get in the way.VC's with canopies such as the Real Air Spitfire & Marchetti SF260 are great. I can't imagine flying the Spitfire without a VC. The panel is easy to seeall gauges, and the head latency camera effect that's built into FSX adds much to the effect.Sorry 2D people/pilots, but overall, I do not agree with your points. I enjoy the whole effect of the head latency camera, and the added sense of movement that it provides. The 2D is very static with little sense of yaw or airframe movement. Basically, it's "dull".Happily, I'm not a stuck in the mud IFR pilot who gets a kick out of total IMC and gauge reading. Perhaps when I'm about 70 years of age, I'll get back into it.I fly my Van's RV including light aerobatics, have done major aerobatics in the Pitts, been up in a P-51 Mustang, many other experimentals, and bush airplanes. These are not IFR/IMC types of flight where the 2D might be the most realistic in regards to simulation.I get a sense that some are trying to prove that real pilots always prefer 2D. I know for a fact, that many also prefer VC. Should I be stuck with 2D only for simming, I'd simply quit and go fly my real plane in which the 2D panel doesn't fill 2/3rds of my available vision, and where I can detect peripheral vision that allows the sense of yaw and speed. Not to mention that constant movement of the airframe in relation to the outside view. Just more real.. :)L.Adamson

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.

I also aspire some day to do a home cockpit type setup, and don't see how that can be done with a VC-only setup, though I guess if the gauges are there you can build your own 2d panels from them. My main interest I think would be a 2-monitor Garmin G1000 style glass GA with touchscreen but it seems like I would need another monitor with the various switches etc for which there is not hardware available in my setup.scott s..

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.

I do believe it was in humor, in fact I am sure of it. Note the :) at the end of his statement. Looks like he was trying to put a smiley face at the end, but AVSIM forums doesn't use that code anymore.

My real world pilot view: --- VC preferredVC's in aircraft with corner post's (Cessna's, etc.) can get somewhat distorted depending on zoom percentages, and those corner post's often get in the way.VC's with canopies such as the Real Air Spitfire & Marchetti SF260 are great. I can't imagine flying the Spitfire without a VC. The panel is easy to seeall gauges, and the head latency camera effect that's built into FSX adds much to the effect.Sorry 2D people/pilots, but overall, I do not agree with your points. I enjoy the whole effect of the head latency camera, and the added sense of movement that it provides. The 2D is very static with little sense of yaw or airframe movement. Basically, it's "dull".Happily, I'm not a stuck in the mud IFR pilot who gets a kick out of total IMC and gauge reading. Perhaps when I'm about 70 years of age, I'll get back into it.I fly my Van's RV including light aerobatics, have done major aerobatics in the Pitts, been up in a P-51 Mustang, many other experimentals, and bush airplanes. These are not IFR/IMC types of flight where the 2D might be the most realistic in regards to simulation.I get a sense that some are trying to prove that real pilots always prefer 2D. I know for a fact, that many also prefer VC. Should I be stuck with 2D only for simming, I'd simply quit and go fly my real plane in which the 2D panel doesn't fill 2/3rds of my available vision, and where I can detect peripheral vision that allows the sense of yaw and speed. Not to mention that constant movement of the airframe in relation to the outside view. Just more real.. :)L.Adamson

I'm a RW Pilot and prefer 2D Panels so there ya go.. :( The funny part about these discussions is that personal preferences cause folks to choose up sides and the battles rage on.It's only your personal preference no matter which side you're on and unless you build them yourself it won't matter when the battles are done.The "all my way or nothing" attitude is what causes the 2D vs VC threads to popup from time to time.Fact is, we'll keep building them with both 2D and VC so you get the best of both worlds.Is your RV a 7 or 9? Flew right seat with a friend who has a 9 for a breakfast recently and could not believe the panoramic view.Only other plane I've flown with that view is the little RW Liberty XL2.

Not hardly. I am paid to put out what the customer wants.Before getting all girly.... show me so far where I have ever did not put out a product that was not quality, is not what our customer base wanted and did not have both VC and 2D?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? Jim

Jim - I really am sorry that you took my posting offensively, which is NOT what I intended.My positions are simple - a freeware developer creates what he/she wants and likes - "public" be damned. If I want to put out an FS-X model with no VC or no 2D panel, I will, and no amount of user comments will convince me otherwise.A payware developer, on the other hand, is constrained by the business model, and likes/dislikes of the intended market. Therefore, if I, personally, don't want a VC in my model, but the target market demands it, as a payware developer I can recognize that the product will sell more with the VC than without. If I am in a group, and the business model says that the products sold will have a VC, then, my choice is simple - create the model with the VC, an invconvenience, but a requirement of the "contract". It is this second philosophy that I alluded to in my comment "You don't get paid to think" .....I can see, however, how my comments could have been mistaken. I can only plead the effects of too many years in the flightsim modelling world, and the convoluted sense of humor resulting from dealing with lavatory dump valves and rogue polygons, vertices found indecently one on top of the other, etc. I will admit to having reverted to my "Inspector Poly" alter ego, who shall now be banished (for a while at least) to his favourite padded cell.

Jim - I really am sorry that you took my posting offensively, which is NOT what I intended.My positions are simple - a freeware developer creates what he/she wants and likes - "public" be damned. If I want to put out an FS-X model with no VC or no 2D panel, I will, and no amount of user comments will convince me otherwise.A payware developer, on the other hand, is constrained by the business model, and likes/dislikes of the intended market. Therefore, if I, personally, don't want a VC in my model, but the target market demands it, as a payware developer I can recognize that the product will sell more with the VC than without. If I am in a group, and the business model says that the products sold will have a VC, then, my choice is simple - create the model with the VC, an invconvenience, but a requirement of the "contract". It is this second philosophy that I alluded to in my comment "You don't get paid to think" .....I can see, however, how my comments could have been mistaken. I can only plead the effects of too many years in the flightsim modelling world, and the convoluted sense of humor resulting from dealing with lavatory dump valves and rogue polygons, vertices found indecently one on top of the other, etc. I will admit to having reverted to my "Inspector Poly" alter ego, who shall now be banished (for a while at least) to his favourite padded cell.

My apologies for not reading into what you meant. It is difficult given the atmosphere around here lately. And yes, it has changed. So sorry about the misinterpretation.Developers have opinions as well as consumers but it seems that no matter what a developer says or feels, it is taken as bait around here and quickly deteriorates into a non productive thread.I think my time is better served doing what I do and not participating in exchanges around here. Jim

My apologies for not reading into what you meant. It is difficult given the atmosphere around here lately. And yes, it has changed. So sorry about the misinterpretation.Developers have opinions as well as consumers but it seems that no matter what a developer says or feels, it is taken as bait around here and quickly deteriorates into a non productive thread.I think my time is better served doing what I do and not participating in exchanges around here. Jim

Jim - I will always encourage you do to what you do best - a quality model to YOUR exacting standards. These "2D or no 2D" polls/threads will always come up with the same answers, and the same general consenus. Some people like it, others don't. Developers, payware and freeware - will do whatever they can to please the most people possible, with the knowledge that everybody is not going to be satisfied everytime.The secret fact is that the overwhelming majority of the online flightsimmers are deeply grateful and in awe of the developers that pump out content (and I'm including aircraft, scenery, utilities, etc) to our enjoyment of the hobby. The other thing I will encourage you to do is to participate in the developers/designer forums, and share your knowledge and guide other promising developers along the hobby. At least in the designer forums, you're preaching to the converted, but at least the arguments are whether to use ePoly or eMesh, boolean vs shape merge, etc., ad nauseam.

Is your RV a 7 or 9? Flew right seat with a friend who has a 9 for a breakfast recently and could not believe the panoramic view.Only other plane I've flown with that view is the little RW Liberty XL2.

It's a RV6A (which pre-dated the 7) . 180HP Lycoming, Hartzell constant speed prop, 2 axis A/P. Sliding canopy. Some have tip ups.edit: This year the RV forced me to go to the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Yellowstone Park, Jackson Hole, Lake Powell and Sedona Arizona for that panaramic view... L.Adamson

It's a RV6A (which pre-dated the 7) . 180HP Lycoming, Hartzell constant speed prop, 2 axis A/P. Sliding canopy. Some have tip ups.edit: This year the RV forced me to go to the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Yellowstone Park, Jackson Hole, Lake Powell and Sedona Arizona for that panaramic view... L.Adamson

Ha Ha, His 9 has the 180 HP and it feels almost "fighter like" with that combination. Absolutely loved it but it sure is quick on all axis.Not touchy, just think and it's right where you want instantly. Can't wait 'til he calls for another breakfast trip..no wait, ANY trip.I can relate to the "forced me" part. :(

Ha Ha, His 9 has the 180 HP and it feels almost "fighter like" with that combination. Absolutely loved it but it sure is quick on all axis.Not touchy, just think and it's right where you want instantly. Can't wait 'til he calls for another breakfast trip..no wait, ANY trip.I can relate to the "forced me" part. :(

What really sucks, is that the RV is in a hangar at the airport................next door to my house. Going there now... :( L.Adamson

What really sucks, is that the RV is in a hangar at the airport................next door to my house. Going there now... :( L.Adamson

Be strong! Resist that evil temptress! Do not give in to her seductive ways! Be not weak of spirit!

Can we please get back on the topic of 2d vs. vc. It won't go away by changing the subject.

I love 2D panels, I despise VC's ... VC's? It should not be. We do it because this is what the customer wants.

i'm of the same opinion as jim.--

A homebuilt enclosed cockpit is leaps and bounds more realistic than any VC will ever be.

i would rather invest in a 'home cockpit' than use a VC ... if i had the time and money. :( --

Having a single poll at Avsim does and will not represent what some of us developers know that is specific to our own business model and what our customers want as a substantial percentage. I love 2D panels, I despise VC's ...surprising since we do build very nice VC's? It should not be. We do it because this is what the customer wants. It does not matter what I want or prefer. It is the larger percent of what customers want that matters. Having both a VC and 2D is a massive amount of extra work for a small populace that wants the 2D (me included) That effort has to be paid for somewhere and providing both environments for what entertainment users are willing to pay does not pan out well "if" the developer is providing both outstanding 2D and VC.I tried to tell you this in our own forum and said I would not argue about it. Yet here I am arguing about it! :( Nevertheless, avsim poll or any other poll, it does not prove what each developer knows of his customer base and what there own business model is and the return for investment of doing both.By the way... I really am done discussing this on my end anyway. Regards,Jim

Jim- I heartily endorse your remarks re 2D panels. As a simmer who uses multiple monitors with triple views and 2D panels, the deficiencies of Virtual- (panning & zooming) are quite evident. Virtual technology was created many years ago in an attempt to rationalize the limitations inherent in single monitor simulation. At that time, multiple monitors with multiple views spanning normal human field of vision, was a technology dream. Hence the stopgap Virtual display scheme for Flight Simulator.Ask this question- Why do commercial simulators use expensive multiple projection systems rather than simple pan and zoom on a single screen? The answer of course is that there is no substitute for a Field of View that approximates normal vision.Now that multiple monitor systems are becoming mainstream, simmers will find that Virtual pan & zoom technology is as archaic as the original 10" TV screen. (Actually, I can remember watching Friday night boxing, on a Motorola 7" TV! About 1947!)2D panels- especially 2 part mating cockpit panels with 1/2 on each monitor, are the future. Simmers who are sceptical, simply haven't tried multi monitor simming. Alex ReidExtreme King Air with both pilot/copilot 2D panels & 146

Here we go again. 'US -vs- 'THEM'. I got a 'poll'' of my own:(1). In 'real' planes, is there a 2D panel?=YES.(2). In 'real' planes, is there a VC panel?=NO(3). In FS, who uses the 2D panel?=Nobody's(4). In FS, who uses the VC panel?='The Elite': (Top Rigs, Ultimate everything, 99% Payware, Push to Shove Preferences, Nose UP!).(5). In FS, what happens if you even LOOK at a 2D panel?=No can no longer be considered to be in 'The Elite' click (and may even be banned).(6). In FS, who uses BOTH 2D and VC panels?=Nobody's(7). In FS, who uses Top Down view to increase 'field of view'?=I do. (And maybe other 'Nobody's'?).Chuck BNapamule