I don't know about all of you, but before I BUY or DOWNLOAD a plane from any site or developer, I check out the VC! If the new aircraft has a realistic VC, then I will probably download it or buy it. When I see a VC that looks like it's from FS2004 or earlier (primitive blocky look), I won't even give it a 2nd look. If it doesn't have a VC, it takes me about 3 seconds to move on and forget it. I'm a VC flyer, and that cockpit realism is what turns me on.Just wondering if you feel the same. Stan

I beg to differ. Accuracy of aircraft/scenery details and compatibility with FSXI beg to differ. Accuracy of aircraft/scenery details and compatibility with FSX remains as a key factor in determining an add-on IMO. I also check to see if those downloads are interesting enough for me to enjoy within Flight Simulator. Dave.

A good VC is vital for me as well. The rest is obviously important but 2d cockpits are a thing of the past for me.

I beg to differ. Accuracy of aircraft/scenery details and compatibility with FSXI beg to differ. Accuracy of aircraft/scenery details and compatibility with FSX remains as a key factor in determining an add-on IMO. I also check to see if those downloads are interesting enough for me to enjoy within Flight Simulator. Dave.

Dave...I'm not referring to an "addon". Scenery and other details are a different category. I love great scenery..like ORBX, and I download all their stuff. I'm talking about AIRCRAFT ONLY. The VC determines for me the realism and sophistication of the purchase or download.Thanks.Stan

I'm 100% with you. In my book, good modeling starts with an excellent VC and works its way out to the exterior. After all, I'm not flying this thing from the wing, I'm in the left seat! Plus, VCs are difficult to produce well. If a dev has taken the time to get the insides right, the chances are good the rest of the plane is well-done, too.

Hi Stan, I do agree with you on having a good vc but I'm more forgiving when it comes to the overall look of the vc so I wont totally drop it if the quality is decent. but I will admit that I wont purchase in aircraft if it doesn't come with a virtual cockpit I just love them too much! Some people might disagree but at least to me it makes me feel that I'm really inside the aircraft and really enjoy flying with them. I will give everyone in example I have the wilco 737 it has been some time since that was released so its gotten old but to me the vc looks fine its of course not as detailed as the ones coming out now but enough for me.

I don't know about all of you, but before I BUY or DOWNLOAD a plane from any site or developer, I check out the VC! If the new aircraft has a realistic VC, then I will probably download it or buy it. When I see a VC that looks like it's from FS2004 or earlier (primitive blocky look), I won't even give it a 2nd look. If it doesn't have a VC, it takes me about 3 seconds to move on and forget it. I'm a VC flyer, and that cockpit realism is what turns me on.Just wondering if you feel the same. Stan

Got to admit I really don't care about the VC...DJ

I'm all about the VC these days as well. If I can't make use of my TrackIR, I have no use for the plane.

I don't know about all of you, but before I BUY or DOWNLOAD a plane from any site or developer, I check out the VC! If the new aircraft has a realistic VC, then I will probably download it or buy it. When I see a VC that looks like it's from FS2004 or earlier (primitive blocky look), I won't even give it a 2nd look. If it doesn't have a VC, it takes me about 3 seconds to move on and forget it. I'm a VC flyer, and that cockpit realism is what turns me on.Just wondering if you feel the same. Stan

I'm with you when it comes to FSX. I'm having this trouble with the Majestic Software's Dash 8. Amazing realism packaged with a flat VC. I would be ok if it was more like LevelD's 767 VC, but even that is looking dated with a lot of flat buttons on the overhead panel. I don't know how large some of the dev. teams are, but we are seeing more FSX payware aircraft with good realism and fantastic VCs. It's hard not to push our minimum requirements higher

Same here, when an aircraft stirs my interest the first thing I do is look for the VC screenies.If they are not up to scratch then I don't even bother looking at the rest of the screenshots.Bryan.

The VC isnt even a consideration for me, however, its important that it has a good, functional 2d panel.

I don't know about all of you, but before I BUY or DOWNLOAD a plane from any site or developer, I check out the VC! If the new aircraft has a realistic VC, then I will probably download it or buy it. When I see a VC that looks like it's from FS2004 or earlier (primitive blocky look), I won't even give it a 2nd look. If it doesn't have a VC, it takes me about 3 seconds to move on and forget it. I'm a VC flyer, and that cockpit realism is what turns me on.Just wondering if you feel the same. Stan

I'm with you Stan.While I don't buy many planes mainly because I fly tubes most of the time and there arn't that many to choose from that I am interested in, one of the first things I look at is the VC. If the VC is really poor looking by todays standards then I am out. I gave up 2D panels once I got FSX and have never looked back. Then in addition to the EZDok camera, I really have no need since I can assign joystick keys to instantly zoon in on the overhead panel, center console, etc. Plus I live the feeling of the VC, it feels more real that looking at a 2D panel like I did in FS9.Fortunately, it seems like a lot of devs are really doing nice work on VC's. If you look at the upcomming PMDG NGX it looks like it may have the best looking VC ever created for a flight sim, although their JS4100 isn't bad either. AS long as I can fly from the VC with minimal 2D panel popups I am happy.

Greetings,I suspect the VC issue might be related to experience for some. I know very experienced RW pilots who don't put a great deal of value on the VC. And I know those who do. For RW pilots, I suspect their preference is dictated by their RW experience. Those who spend/spent most of their time either IFR and/or above FL300 don't place a great deal of value on the VC. Those who spend/spent most of their time VFR and below FL180 prefer the VC. The VC is important to me because I like to look around and have the experience as real feeling as possible. I never use a 2D panel. Best Regards,Bill in Colorado

A great VC definitely adds to the immersion factor.  Before I was a believer in the VC, I used to hear people swearing by them. Consequently, I decided to give them a try.  I soon learned why people were so adamant about their VC's.   I am now a VC discpline  :(

I fly mainly VFR missions in FSX so a VC is a must for me. The only aircraft I have without a VC is the Tinmouse 737-200. I wish someone could make a nice VC for it! Other freeware aircraft have some good VC's - David Maltby's HS 748 BAC 1-11 and Trident have good examples of realistic and immersive virtual cockpits (they also have a click spot to compute V speeds...why has no one else done this? It's SO useful!).I think 2D panels are useful when flying "big tin" in IFR. Otherwise it's " no VC no download" for me 99 per cent of the time.Adam