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

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

Actually, PMDG have included three models with their product - 2D cockpit only, 2D cockpit + VC, and 2D cockpit + VC + virtual cabin. If the virtual cabin takes up too many resources on your machine, you can select the VC only version instead.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

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.

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.

>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.

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

>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

>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.

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

Hi. I fly the posky crj-200 only in the vc in fs8 via the keyboard. It is fairly accurately done but easy on the cpu. For short-haul pilots.

Interesting though, to see the sheer demand for VCs among the sim community. It seemed to be very different back in the early days of FS2002 when standard panels were much the tradition that people were reluctant to break with.From a real pilot' perspective, the VC is a godsend. No pilot exclusively turns his/her head in 45 degree increments. The freedom to immerse yourself is something all design groups should try to include in their aircraft.I cite AFG's YS-11 as the best VC freeware available, sadly not yet for FS2004. It is the benchmark and shows what dedication to a project can achieve.Stay Gliding, Folks!