I saw many people requesting pics of 2d panels. I always wondered why people want these anyway. The virtual cockpit is soooooo much better then 2d (well, in my humble opinion). People are always wondering if the plane is realistic. 2d isn't, right? So why an 2d panel?

I saw many people requesting pics of 2d panels. I always wondered why people want these anyway. The virtual cockpit is soooooo much better then 2d (well, in my humble opinion). People are always wondering if the plane is realistic. 2d isn't, right? So why an 2d panel?

Why? Because it takes the level of work off to fly the plane. For me I love the 2 d panels such as the fmc and overhead. I hate looking away from flight to hit a switch or turn on something. I love the virtual cockpit but pop up panels are a must for me.

I saw many people requesting pics of 2d panels. I always wondered why people want these anyway. The virtual cockpit is soooooo much better then 2d (well, in my humble opinion). People are always wondering if the plane is realistic. 2d isn't, right? So why an 2d panel?

Why fly with the 3D/virtual? Each to their own. Maybe the virtual looks or works better for some after a 'funny' smoke im KHAM! (just a joke!)

I saw many people requesting pics of 2d panels. I always wondered why people want these anyway. The virtual cockpit is soooooo much better then 2d (well, in my humble opinion). People are always wondering if the plane is realistic. 2d isn't, right? So why an 2d panel?

I am also one of those persons who still use the 2D panel. My reason is that in my opinion in the VC the person is not be placed on the correct position as in a real plane. I think the person sits too far away from the panel. But I have to say I do not know if this problem is already solved.Secondly, for example when you want to turn on the APU Bleed Switch you have to move your body a little bit to the right when you sit in a real plane on the captain´s seat to have the overhead panel approx. in the middle of your view. But in the VC you see the overhead panel and also the FMC for instance too much from the side view - the angle is too high. So you cannot take a close look from the top. I hope you understand what I mean. It´s not realistic for me. And this prevents me from using VC up to now. In addition, the qualities of the VCs are not the best - it reminds me on the graphics from 1998. I know that´s a question of frame rates. I have not the best hardware too.To summarize: I feel no enthusiasm and fun when I fly with a VC.But I will not exclude that maybe the NGX can change my attitudes :(

teamin 4 posts, we have all sides of the coin (there is more than 2 you know).we should all thank PMDG that they have the skills & presence to cater for all "tastes" ... unlike another developer I could mention !!of interest to me would be to hear some reports from the beta team on how they fly the NGX ... including accounting for weather (atis), atc, sid / star entry particularly on approach below FL200.

I am also one of those persons who still use the 2D panel. My reason is that in my opinion in the VC the person is not be placed on the correct position as in a real plane. I think the person sits too far away from the panel. But I have to say I do not know if this problem is already solved.Secondly, for example when you want to turn on the APU Bleed Switch you have to move your body a little bit to the right when you sit in a real plane on the captain´s seat to have the overhead panel approx. in the middle of your view. But in the VC you see the overhead panel and also the FMC for instance too much from the side view - the angle is too high. So you cannot take a close look from the top. I hope you understand what I mean. It´s not realistic for me. And this prevents me from using VC up to now. In addition, the qualities of the VCs are not the best - it reminds me on the graphics from 1998. I know that´s a question of frame rates. I have not the best hardware too.To summarize: I feel no enthusiasm and fun when I fly with a VC.But I will not exclude that maybe the NGX can change my attitudes :(

The only problem that I have with the VC is the navigating in it.In FS2Crew for the JS41 there is a kind of "view-switcher" which takes you to the desired view in the VC , kind like the panelswitcher (2D) in the 747-400.Or, maybe the use of 2d-popup-panels (FMC, Overhead etc) in a 3D environment is an option.Regards,Wijnand (EHBK)

Also, many people use multiple monitors. So for example, they may use one monitor for the VC and two or three monitors for the 2D panel.I only have one monitor though so I use VC for taxiing, take-off, and landing. I'm thinking about buy 2 more monitors.

teamin 4 posts, we have all sides of the coin (there is more than 2 you know).we should all thank PMDG that they have the skills & presence to cater for all "tastes" ... unlike another developer I could mention !!of interest to me would be to hear some reports from the beta team on how they fly the NGX ... including accounting for weather (atis), atc, sid / star entry particularly on approach below FL200.

It flies by the book. Just finished a 6 hr test going through the unreliable speed tables and the numbers are on the spot. Same for the fuel flow in multiple configs where the fuel burn is within +/- 1% to what you read in the FPPM. This is something extremely hard to achieve so thumbs up to the developers. As for the handling, all the fun starts when you disengage the AP. It flies like a charm. Smooth and relaxed with all the unique characteristics of the NG (yes it's slippery...). The NGX is unlike anything else in the FS market. It feels right because it actually flies right! A true milestone for the hobby.

One other reason for 2D many flyer's use one monitor for pilot PFD AND ND, and one monitor for engine instrument display and one for FMC, many use touchscreen . For outside view one to three projectors using THTG and with this config a VC will not work as the panels have to be moved around and resize. If LCD monitors are enclosed in a home cockpit this gives as close to a real sim as you can get in the home. I use four LCD monitors, pilot and FO displays use a video splitter and touchscreen for FMC. Three projectors for outside view.percy clapp

It flies by the book. Just finished a 6 hr test going through the unreliable speed tables and the numbers are on the spot. Same for the fuel flow in multiple configs where the fuel burn is within +/- 1% to what you read in the FPPM. This is something extremely hard to achieve so thumbs up to the developers. As for the handling, all the fun starts when you disengage the AP. It flies like a charm. Smooth and relaxed with all the unique characteristics of the NG (yes it's slippery...). The NGX is unlike anything else in the FS market. It feels right because it actually flies right! A true milestone for the hobby.

panthanks for your notes ............. just like any PMDG plane, just better !!what I was hoping to hear from the beta team was along the lines of the topic - for example, when & where you fly VC, do you setup at the gate in 2D, do you use TrackIR, multiple monitors (how), touchscreens, CDU hardware for input, joystick buttons for switching etc.I can only assume PMDG gives you guidelines on how to beta the plane using their thoughts on how on avearge it will be used by us now & with emerging technology (cheapish touchscreens).any notes will i'm sure be appreciated by many.

One other reason for 2D many flyer's use one monitor for pilot PFD AND ND, and one monitor for engine instrument display and one for FMC, many use touchscreen . For outside view one to three projectors using THTG and with this config a VC will not work as the panels have to be moved around and resize. If LCD monitors are enclosed in a home cockpit this gives as close to a real sim as you can get in the home. I use four LCD monitors, pilot and FO displays use a video splitter and touchscreen for FMC. Three projectors for outside view.percy clapp

percycan i ask what size & brand of touchscreen you use ?

I agree with the OP. Flying from the 2D panel is so FS9! :( Even with FS9, the only reason I flew from the 2D is because in FS9 the VC's were really screwy (slow refresh rate on the instruments and naff quality textures).Virtual Cockpits is something Microsoft did manage to get right in FSX. They're so good I don't see any need to use the 2D at all. It's so much more immersive to be in a 3D environment.Regards,Tom Wright

Real men fly 2d™. The problem with VC is that its such a hassle to find the clickspots after having panned the view around a bit. Instead of wasting valuable time finding the clickspot I prefer to use a 2d panel. Its the practical solution

How about this? Some people would rather fly with only a 2D panel. Some people would rather fly with a VC panel. Each enjoys their way of using FS. Same reasoning as to why some folks would prefer, for example, a Buick, and some people would prefer a Toyota. What's the problem? Jack Fentress

some folks would prefer a Buick, and some people would prefer a Toyota. What's the problem? Jack Fentress

On a Toyota, the problem would probably be the brakes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8497471.stmAl