Yes, I agree the VC is very important. What I have found is that I tire easily of the plane. For instance, I have bought almost all of carenado planes, but so many of them look like sisters when in the cockpit, so I find myself tiring easily. So what I do is also look for something that has something different and challenging somewhat. Maybe it is one of those planes that you must follow the startup checklists or you wont get it started. Maybe it has a navigation system that is a little different, or a plane that might be one that requires a little more attention when landing. Maybe try a bush plane and choose those airstrips that are a little challenging. I have been working with the new Ideal Flight 10, as it adds something a little different to the experience. Mix it up a little bit and try something that might feel a little uncomfortable. Just some thoughts.Bob

VC Only flyer here. If an aircraft only has 2d panels, I don't even bother downloading it, regardless of how well received it is, and if it's a purchasable add-on aircraft, it's a no-buy for me. That said, I can be more forgiving with a lower quality vc (as long as there is a vc), if the rest of the aircraft looks and flies well. But a vc is a must for me. :)Just my 2 cents.-George

These are my requirements (although I let it slip for my Level D 767 with no weather radar).Must have a FUNCTIONING VC.Must have weather radar AND TCAS.Must have identical realistic MCDU/FMC.Sounds and FDE must be accurate.The PSS 777 and 757 meet these criteria and only work properly in FS9. I have installed it to FSX but there are issues like most of VC is unclickable (not functional) and engines cannot be started.I think the PMDG does not have a weather radar, right?Because I have experience on the flight deck I demand ultimate realism. I know how birds fly and feel, and what goes on. I would like to see a 777-300 and A330-300 for FSX created very accurately. The CLS Airbus does not meet the above criteria BUT has accurate sounds (and lots of 'wingflyers' who love to freeze their balls off on the wings watching their birds demand HQ models-the CLS has this too).I also have got the PMDG 737 (I tried looking into Ariane but wasn't sure), and I have been told their 747 is way ahead. Although at the time the 737 by PMDG was pretty good.Now the 777 (Does Airbus have this?) has CPDLC I would like to see that simulated too.Daniel

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.

Same for me.

Ever since moving to a triplehead setup, a good VC is critical for me, panels are too unreliable as they are not typically sized for a super-widescreen display.You can do some cfg edits but even then, they are not guaranteed to work.

Got to agree - only really like those with a fantastic VC, and not too high a penalty in frame rates at the same time. I am really starting to cut back in what I fly and just stick with the best 3 or 4 aircraft in the hangar.... :( G

My most important criteria is actual SDK compliance... that means it should work in DX10 mode. AVSIM reviews are great for noting this.

AVSIM reviews are great for noting this.

No they aren't...That's why I have to keep telling them to add it to their reviews? :(

A 2D panel is great for scenery development. I use it, then hide the main panel and voila a full screen to analyze my scenery. If on the other hand I am actually flying, the virtual cockpit is the only way to go.Regards, Mike Mann

Using TH2GO means it has to have a VC.I love the detail on the PMDG JS41 and am prepared to turn down the scenery detail when using it to keep the FPS up.

FPS friendly addon...Since I run an older machine it is vital to have a polygon-efficient model/vc.After that a super nice VC (which normally means lower fps LOL - with some exceptions like Lotus L39)And then excellent flight dynamics.

I don't want to be accused of being the guy who removed the punch bowl just as the party got going nicely, but-Sometime a while back I heard/read? that the FAA will not approve a Flight Training Device (FTD) unless all gauges/dials /switches/instruments etc are always in a fixed location. That is, Panning (& possibly Zooming?) via Virtual presentation would appear to be out as far as professional simulation.Since Lockheed Martin has now entered the "Simulator" market with their version of FS aimed at the professionals, one wonders whether Prepare3D even offers Virtual mode. Anyone have the answer?And if MS anticipates selling Flight to LM in the future, what future is there for Virtual artistry? An answer for both hobby & professional use might be multiple monitors displaying an entire 2D panel in 3 segments- covering the whole real airplane instrument panel from extreme left to far right. For those sticking with one monitor, simply popup whichever left/right 1/3 you wish. I fail to understand why popups are used only for a specifc instrument. Modern Overhead panels show the whole thing with a multitude of switches and indicators and panning is not needed! (Actually, Virtual arose because the monitors of the day were so small- remember when 13" was standard, 14/15' monitors were "luxury" components? For my first FS 'puter I paid a fair bit more for a very latest, so called 17" CRT which actually measured 16"!! Had today's larger monitors been available, Virtual would now be simply an historic concept whose time never arrived!)AR

I don't want to be accused of being the guy who removed the punch bowl just as the party got going nicely, but-Sometime a while back I heard/read? that the FAA will not approve a Flight Training Device (FTD) unless all gauges/dials /switches/instruments etc are always in a fixed location. That is, Panning (& possibly Zooming?) via Virtual presentation would appear to be out as far as professional simulation.Since Lockheed Martin has now entered the "Simulator" market with their version of FS aimed at the professionals, one wonders whether Prepare3D even offers Virtual mode. Anyone have the answer?And if MS anticipates selling Flight to LM in the future, what future is there for Virtual artistry? An answer for both hobby & professional use might be multiple monitors displaying an entire 2D panel in 3 segments- covering the whole real airplane instrument panel from extreme left to far right. For those sticking with one monitor, simply popup whichever left/right 1/3 you wish. I fail to understand why popups are used only for a specifc instrument. Modern Overhead panels show the whole thing with a multitude of switches and indicators and panning is not needed! (Actually, Virtual arose because the monitors of the day were so small- remember when 13" was standard, 14/15' monitors were "luxury" components? For my first FS 'puter I paid a fair bit more for a very latest, so called 17" CRT which actually measured 16"!! Had today's larger monitors been available, Virtual would now be simply an historic concept whose time never arrived!)AR

Just have a 2nd monitor with the instruments and gauges, all in the same place all the time. :-)You can still have your VC.Daniel

Just have a 2nd monitor with the instruments and gauges, all in the same place all the time. :-)You can still have your VC.Daniel

Daniel- Thanks for replying, but a single monitor just isn't big enough to (Readably/Useably) display ALL the instruments and switches of a cockpit IN A FIXED LOCATION. But your suggestion of a second monitor is good if the panel could be spread across both monitors - even better across 3 mons to make everything very readable. The attached pic shows my 3 monitors with all the 2D popups open for a traditional 2D Cockpit- quite a mishmash- but they are all readable and in a fixed location.No panning or zooming needed!!!Now visualize what that same panel would look like with no "popups" - but with 1/3 of the whole, real life c'pit displayed on each mon. Or alternatively, complete left/right 1/3 segments available as main monitor overlays to eliminate panning, if you have only one monitor.This setup is actually 45" wide using only 17" monitors- imagine the effect with larger screens and no popups!(Engines appear twisted inward because screenshots show monitors in a flat plane. The mons are actually set in a wrap-around arc to ensure each is square to the pilot's eyes.)AR

Daniel- Thanks for replying, but a single monitor just isn't big enough to (Readably/Useably) display ALL the instruments and switches of a cockpit IN A FIXED LOCATION. But your suggestion of a second monitor is good if the panel could be spread across both monitors - even better across 3 mons to make everything very readable. The attached pic shows my 3 monitors with all the 2D popups open for a traditional 2D Cockpit- quite a mishmash- but they are all readable and in a fixed location.No panning or zooming needed!!!Now visualize what that same panel would look like with no "popups" - but with 1/3 of the whole, real life c'pit displayed on each mon. Or alternatively, complete left/right 1/3 segments available as main monitor overlays to eliminate panning, if you have only one monitor.This setup is actually 45" wide using only 17" monitors- imagine the effect with larger screens and no popups!(Engines appear twisted inward because screenshots show monitors in a flat plane. The mons are actually set in a wrap-around arc to ensure each is square to the pilot's eyes.)AR

Sorry, am using 32" monitor, big enough to make a 777 cockpit seem REAL.When you said instruments and gauges I thought it didn't mean radios.Daniel