------------.One thing I am hoping for is eventual PCATD certification for FSXI (FSXII? FSXIII?, eventually it will happen!) so more pilots will flight sim and purchase specialized hardware (I suppose that the cost would be deductible as a business expense?) so that I will be able to afford that hardware as well (and give my CH-Stuff a needed rest).So again, what others do affects prices and thus what you do.Cheers,- jahman.

The flight sim developers and the FAA seem to be moving in contrary directions-FS & add-on airplane developers continue to move away from fixed/2D panels and views, in favour of Virtual format. (I believe that in some instances, 2D panels have been eliminated.)Yet the FAA will apparently not certify a FTD that uses Virtual. They require all panel elements to be displayed in fixed locations; that is, no panning nor zooming.What is needed for eventual FS certification is better 2D panels!!AR

FS & add-on airplane developers continue to move away from fixed/2D panels and views, in favour of Virtual format. (I believe that in some instances, 2D panels have been eliminated.)Yet the FAA will apparently not certify a FTD that uses Virtual. They require all panel elements to be displayed in fixed locations; that is, no panning nor zooming.What is needed for eventual FS certification is better 2D panels!!

Absolutely! I never use virtual. Sadly, Carenado does not provide 2D panels in most of its current planes.

I prefer 2D for actual flying but with th AP on I enjoy VC for that "in-sim" feeling. So I gotta have both!Regarding the FAA 2D requirement, you can fix the eyepoint position in VC, so why wouldn't that be acceptable? It all goes on the honor system anyway...Cheers,-jahman.

I prefer 2D for actual flying but with th AP on I enjoy VC for that "in-sim" feeling. So I gotta have both!Regarding the FAA 2D requirement, you can fix the eyepoint position in VC, so why wouldn't that be acceptable? It all goes on the honor system anyway...Cheers,-jahman.

For a real "in-sim" feeling, try a wrap around multi monitor- triple or quad views simulation! The same visual needs for a Level D sim are just as pertinent for us wannabes!Dunno about a VC fixed eyepoint? Only the FAA knows! Honour system, yes. But the simulator itself must be approved.AR

I'm not sure you can get that real in-sim feeling without a VC, large monitor and TrackIR without a full-scale replica of the actual cockpit. For instance, you might have wrap-around monitors, but you still don't have an overhead panel, center pedestal, etc., etc. that you doo see in the VC + TrackIR setup (it's quite convincing!)But the question remains: If the FSS requires 2D anels and the aircraft I fly has them, and ginven that PCATD relieves on the honour system, then FSX + 2D panels ought to be enough, and if not, what else is required, especially of the sim engine?Cheers,- jahman.

I'm not sure you can get that real in-sim feeling without a VC, large monitor and TrackIR without a full-scale replica of the actual cockpit. For instance, you might have wrap-around monitors, but you still don't have an overhead panel, center pedestal, etc., etc. that you doo see in the VC + TrackIR setup (it's quite convincing!)But the question remains: If the FSS requires 2D anels and the aircraft I fly has them, and ginven that PCATD relieves on the honour system, then FSX + 2D panels ought to be enough, and if not, what else is required, especially of the sim engine?Cheers,- jahman.

jahman- want Overhead and Center Console? Just add another video card and a couple of extra monitors! The pic shows all sub panels displayed for the Ready for Pushback 742. Just click on the edge of any of these and it pops to the front, ready for use- and every switch is always in the exact same location!Or add an extra monitor for any sub panel you feel should be displayed fully, all the time.-----It's my understanding that the FAA must inspect & approve the actual physical setupas well as the software. I believe every component- gauge or switch must always be in the same location- hence panning or zooming not permitted.AR

I'm not sure you can get that real in-sim feeling without a VC, large monitor and TrackIR without a full-scale replica of the actual cockpit. For instance, you might have wrap-around monitors, but you still don't have an overhead panel, center pedestal, etc., etc. that you doo see in the VC + TrackIR setup (it's quite convincing!)But the question remains: If the FSS requires 2D anels and the aircraft I fly has them, and ginven that PCATD relieves on the honour system, then FSX + 2D panels ought to be enough, and if not, what else is required, especially of the sim engine?Cheers,- jahman.

jahman- want Overhead and Center Console? Just add another video card and a couple of extra monitors! The pic shows all sub panels displayed for the Ready for Pushback 742. Just click on the edge of any of these and it pops to the front, ready for use- and every switch is always in the exact same location!Or add an extra monitor for any sub panel you feel should be displayed fully, all the time.-----It's my understanding that the FAA must inspect & approve the actual physical setupas well as the software. I believe every component- gauge or switch must always be in the same location- hence panning or zooming not permitted.ARSorry-no idea why the double post! AVSIM seems to do strange things sometimes. AR

I was wondering how much longer it would be before Alex posted his famous "triple screens", lol.

I was wondering how much longer it would be before Alex posted his famous "triple screens", lol.

An IMAX triple screen movie sure beats a 60 year old, single screen 8mm home movie projector!AR

I bet in a few months after FLIGHT has been released, a lot of old time fans of FSX or FS9 (really, FS9 is showing its age now) will try FLIGHT. If they dont like it, fine. They can go back to FS9 and enjoy that instead, but if it turns out great... why still stay with FS9? I know people are demanding their add-ons from FS9/ FSX to work with flight, but I strongly believe that will be a bad decision if the FLIGHT team decide on that. We will never move forward. If FLIGHT looks better than FS9/ FSX with add-ons, why even want them to be on FLIGHT in the first place? We can only hope it turns out better than we hope... and we can move forward, into the next generation of Flight Simulation. (BTW, I do know that the word Simulation has disappeared on the new MS FLIGHT, but in there FAQ page, they stated that it will retain the full fidelity simulation longtime fans have come to expect)Jamie ♥

If FLIGHT looks better than FS9/ FSX with add-ons, why even want them to be on FLIGHT in the first place?

I'm willing to bet that default MS Flight UK will look nowhere near as good as the Horizon GenX2/UK2000 VFR Airfields/Treescapes UK combo that I am currently using in FSX.

I'm willing to bet that default MS Flight UK will look nowhere near as good as the Horizon GenX2/UK2000 VFR Airfields/Treescapes UK combo that I am currently using in FSX.

This is a given and it gave me a thought. We are expecting Flight to be better than what we have now, which is not FSX. Most of us have many add-ons in meshes, textures, scenery and aircraft. However, we should be looking at vanilla FSX and then see how Flight is different.In 2006, I started flying around the world and I took a lot of screenshots on the way. I was just looking at some of the old images and many of them looked really bad. I had a different computer then and I did not even have autogen on it seems. I went back to FS9 then, with everything on max, until I got a new system and could get FSX to run at higher fidelity. I got a lot of add-ons for FSX now, so Flight has big shoes to fill if it wants to replace my custom FSX.

...We are expecting Flight to be better than what we have now, which is not FSX. Most of us have many add-ons in meshes, textures, scenery and aircraft. However, we should be looking at vanilla FSX and then see how Flight is different....

You are right if you limit "better" to scenery, except base scenery will likely be somewhat better (denser meshes, somewhat improved autogoen and a number of known problems with airports vs. autogen vs. AI traffic hopefully fixed).But Flight will also be "better" (I hope!) in terms of it's internal architecture (better use of multi-CPUs, Multi-GPUs, more CTD-resistant, better identify the crashing module, fixed and improved scenery compilers) and this will in turn allow developpers to publish even more detailed and realistic scenery.Flight will also be "better" in terms of the social aspects of the sim which are at the bare minimum and quite fragile with FSX.Cheers,- jahman.