Sign in to follow this  
Guest glide_or_die

Who Flys here exclusively on VC?

Recommended Posts

hi all,With the advent of fs2004 becoming a VC environment, who prefers VC to the 2D counterpart?PMDG have a fantastic 3D cockpit, but unfortunately that plane brings my flightsim to its knees, the frame rates are pretty poor with all that details and advanced processing.Just for fun, i hoppped back into the default 737 VC and pushbacked and taxied to the rwy 25R at KLAX at night, and boy it was wonderful, very smooth and the night lights from the ac were fantastic.I think MS did a pretty good job on the VC even if its pretty basic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The PMDG 737 models the entire cabin along with the virtual cockpit, so I'm guessing that is why it's such a FPS destroyer. The default 737 is just the cockpit, and relatively simple, so good FPS there. Kinda sucks to have such a beautiful interior (PMDG) but have it barely usable for many people due to the FPS drop :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to fly from the VC all the time, occasionally I will go to the 2D if I can't get wnat I need from the VC. I was like this with Fs2002, but now with clickable VCs there really isn't a need for the 2D much any more. Also depends on the craft, I fly GA and rotory mostly and with the FSD aircraft, the 421, the EC-130, the AS365, Jordan's new Huey, the default 206 & Lear and all the Eaglesoft Bizjets I have some great VCs at my fingertips (mouse pointer! LOL) I like a virtual compartment/ interior, with active camera I can simulate all aspects of flying and with the new kneeboard browser, I have no need to leave the aircraft or sim! LOLI know about design and know that a VC is one of the hardest parts to design, but frankly if an aicraft does not have a VC, I can't use it, it's sad as there are some great aircraft I have d/l, but no VC takes the realism away for me.(as well as a poorly done one at that)As rarely as I fly heavies, the PMDG bird looks awesome. I want to get it just for the virtual interior, but can't seem to justify it just for that! LOLRegards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clayton,i'm also 100% in VC-mode. Only a GA-flyer, so no experience in big metal. In heli's it must be the only way to go as well. Still have to take the new Robinson for a spin ;-)For me the 2D cockpit just went asleep in FS2k2 and now FS9 is here they have passed away for good. Amen.I find i don't need the 2-d panels at all anymore, i have a 2-monitor setup and was using 2k2 with some extra gauges on the second monitor. That included radio's, GPS and other instruments that are now clickable from within the VC.The only drawback is that the new GPS is such a frame eater and there are no tweaks for that. When someone finds a way to make FSUIPC interact with HTML then the kneeboard browser will be a great alternative maybe. But that's a long way from here i guess.Quality-wise the default VC's (i use the cessna's, mooney, baron, and dc-3) are OK, but interior views are ugly. Try moving around and you'll see why the FPS-hit is neglectable: Outside the default viewpoint there is just emptiness. Most freeware A/C don't shine at the VC department also, that's why they don't stay on my disk for long. Exceptions apart that is, the beautifull Bill Lyons creations up front.I have few commercial a/c, the commander and seneca from FSD. The commander is still an FSDS design and therefor not usable in FS9, the seneca is great. Cheers,Cas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just begs the question: Do you fly a real aircraft from the back seat? LOL :-) Sorry, just had to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, FSD's Commander has been upgraded both to GMAX and to FS2004. Check out their website for details. There is a small charge for the upgrade.Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This just begs the question: Do you fly a real aircraft fromthe back seat? LOL :-) Sorry, just had to do it." When I am a passenger! ;-)I wish more developers would include a good pilot figure so I can sight see, especially if they look like the co pilot in the 421!Regards, Michaelhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play almost exclusively with the VC, feels like theres a aircraft around u, not just some static bitmap panel. I really enjoy PSS VC's, they are really nice like in the Dash 8. Cant wait for their new Airbus to come out.:) Also like FSD, Carenado, Flight1 and RealAir for their beautiful virtual cockpits.I was thinking of getting that PMDG 737, but its VC almost looks too good to be true (FPS-wise) and its expensive. Im really hanging out for quality (but decently optimized) virtual cockpits for modern heavy's. Theres been a real a lack of them i reakon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Quality-wise the default VC's (i use the cessna's, mooney,>baron, and dc-3) are OK, but interior views are ugly. Try>moving around and you'll see why the FPS-hit is neglectable:>Outside the default viewpoint there is just emptiness. Most>freeware A/C don't shine at the VC department also, that's why>they don't stay on my disk for long.True. Thats what i was most disappointed with fs2004, the VC's. They are practically identical to the VC's in fs2002! MS added clickable buttons and some not too shabby 3d interiors for the older models, but as for the modern planes they did basically nothing. People really wanna fly those modern fs2004 planes like the Cessna's, Baron58 and Boeings but MS just didint do enough with them. So now third party developers are gona have a field day improving the situation. There should be a really strong demand for new and kewl looking fs2004 aircraft.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In FS2000 I flew VC about 75% of the time. And yes there were a hand full of planes that also had Dynamic VC'c that far back.In 2002 my VC time grew to 99%. Between working gauges in most anything with a VC and Key commands I only ever had to use a 2D panel for NAV 2, COM 2 and the GPS.To me 2004's ability to click on gauges is great, but I'd still rather have a key command. I'm not sure that even the most modern avionics in a real aircraft allow for the use of a mouse or trackball. Admitedly I Fly GA and the ocasional DC3 or vintage airliner. So there is much less going on in the way of gauges wich is more friendly on Framerates. I've even replaced "Glass Gauges" with older dial types to gain Frames on the very out of date computer I use to sim with.I also have a centering Axis asigned to pan the view from left to right. Looking around in the VC has become so much more realsitic, you can snap your head around 180 degrees as fast as you could in the real world. The 3D environment, moving yokes, sticks, levers, etc makes the environment so much more "as real as it gets". Even A low quality VC provides a perspective and angle of view that only the best 2D panels come close to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, aren't you the guys doing EGKK? If so, when can we expect it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do...couldn't fly any other way.i use activecamera pro,so if the aircraft hasn't got VC,i don't use it. best wishes steveUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we are doing EGKK..Oli has put us 2-3 more days before beta..they want to put some finishing touches in. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see this thread. Couldn't agree more, VC adds immensely to the immersion. Granted, sometimes I gotta squint a little bit to read some gauges, but the sense of 3 dimensions and freedom of movement to me is indispensable.As far as the default heavy iron not being up to snuff VC-wise with GA defaults or heavy iron commercial offerings is concerned, do not forget the scope of the sim and the customer base. How many of FSCOF buyers would really appreciate a faithful rendition of 747 systems? I'd rather MS provided a canvas for everybody else to paint on, so that everybody can pick and choose to add on whatever rocks their boat most.My addiction to VC notwithstanding, it seems to me VC expectations are going to put the work of many freeware designers to test, since as somebody already noted, even moderately complex ones are usually a daunting task and can be extremely time-consuming, not to mention the art of optimisation. This, coupled with more and more advanced exterior rendition technologies, increases the total design time so significantly, that I think fewer and fewer freeware designers are and will be ready for such commitments and as a result, a vast majority of excellent quality all-around (exterior and interior, pardon my VC emphasis here) designs is and will be payware. This is the price to pay for increased fidelity and immersion, which I myself am willing to pay. It also makes me even more appreciative of all the freeware work.I think we better get used to the idea that the 50-60 bucks for MSFS is only a base price for basic functionality and the cost of the total flightsim experience for amny of us will have to be counted in hundreds of dollars, the precise amount depending on your idea of immersion and fidelity, interests, and how thick your wallet is. And is it necessarily such a bad thing?m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too fly almost 100% from the VC if one is available. In fact I find myself not flying some of the GREAT freeware planes due to their lack of a VC because having that 2d panel without the ability to pan around really ruins the immersion factor for me. Flying the SF.260 back on FS2002 really got me hooked on the virtual cockpit, not I can't ever go back...Nate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VC to me is only eye candy. slow refresh, dificult access. only when I'm fully established in cruise I might check it.....2D for ILS noting more smooth.Jos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am glad to see this thread. It's great to see there are many that feel the same way I do. VC's add so much to the enjoyment of flying. I can't be bothered with any aircraft that doesn't have a good VC.I have been throwing out a few hints to the painters in the screenshots forum hoping that we can get some of them painting our default aircraft. I wouldn't count on it though, I think aircraft painters don't really do much flying so maybe they can't relate. Too bad FS2004 couldn't have given them a better detailed model and texture base to work with.It's painfull to see such fantastic aircraft models like OpenSky's and Meljet's, 747's and 777's. IFDG's 767's and the FFX DC10, released without a good VC. One of those things that make you go Hmmm..?? SteveCYYZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well PMDG is a very good craft, but i wish that i could control all the instruments in 3D mode from the overhead to the FMC. I too am only a VC pilot (if the airplane allows me)Also i wish some developers give us the consumers of only making a "cockpit" less the airplane, or a very basic model / detail of the airplane, so it gives some of us some reprieve on fps.For example the default 737 is pretty basic, however the frame rates are good, if developers only concentrated on one part i.e the cockpit or gave us the option that would be good,i don't know about you guys, i fly the plane from inside, not the outside.It will be interesting to see what PSS comes out with, with their A330/340, but i feel those planes will still be graphic intensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Keep trying to like the V/C but it just doesn't do anything for me yet. I spend 90% of my FS time in the 2D cockpit. I might jump to the V/C mode to scan the view but I almost always end up back at the 2D panel. The best V/C I have is in the SF260 and even in that one I prefer the 2D panel. I still like the Fly approach for the cockpit view. Close to a V/C because of the added view angles but still essentially 2D panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's painfull to see such fantastic aircraft models like>OpenSky's and Meljet's, 747's and 777's. IFDG's 767's and the>FFX DC10, released without a good VC. >One of those things that make you go Hmmm..?? >>Steve>CYYZ So the beautiful external models on all these aircraft mean what...nothing? Because these aircraft have no VC? You can't be bothered to fly it? Now there's something that makes me go Hmmm...It pains me that you find such a thing painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VC? Of course! But only with trackIR and 3D glasses.Only justify using the 2D panel for 767PIC in FS8. Otherwise, pretty much all VC in FS8+9.later,Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>So the beautiful external models on all these aircraft mean >what...nothing?That's my point, they are beautuful. Just not as enjoyable for those that like flying in VC's and thanks to this post I see I am not alone.To each his own I guess. I understand this sim has many different aspects to it and holds an interest to people for various reasons. Painters, modelers, scenery designers, gauge programmers, and many more. My interest is flying, as realisticly as possible. VC's make a big difference to me. When I see these fantastic new models with complete interiors, hundreds of seats modeled and no VC. I can't understand it. Doesn't mean I think I'm right and they're wrong.SteveCYYZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>no VC. I can't understand it.Well the problems that come with making a VC are legion. Modelling the cockpit, programming the gauges (and how many freeware groups are lucky enough to have a throughly proficient gauge programmer?), deciding how fast they refresh, setting up the lighting, the textures, and all this with decent performance? A virtual cockpit is at least as difficult as the most detailed external model, and it can easily be far more difficult with all the special problems it presents. I hope you can someday understand why some designers simply choose not to bother with it, unless they were asking some monetary compensation. It's such a monumental task, especially for airliners, turboprop and turbojet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ONLY WHEN I EMPLOY ACTIVE CAMERA! This is the best program for flying with a VC. Why? Because you can see movement and almost feel the runway and/or Turbulence when in the air. Wouldn't fly without it. Now if only we could have a software code for our ForceFeedback joysticks to let us FEEL the bumps of air currents...we'd be in business! Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this