Why fly with 2d panel?

[ajpongress 467]

But how do you change them? How do you press keys on the FMC and such?

My keyboard.

[wijnand 11]

Hey John!As RSR stated on his latest post, we're not the "wide" beta team that will try various PC configurations, modules etc. We're 737 pilots, engineers, MX people and so on. We work on different aspects of the aircraft. Lately, for example, I've been testing a lot the flight dynamics/performance/flying behavior of the NGX working very close with the developer in charge of this. Other people are testing electrics, pneumatics etc to a level of detail that only an aircraft engineer could understand. I'm talking about hard core system simulation with information directly from the maintenance manual. You will even find known "glitches" of the real aircraft occurring in the sim...Now if you ask what's my way of flying the aircraft, I use a dual monitor configuration. I have the CDU dragged on the second and the virtual cockpit on the first. The only controls I have is the Saitek yoke and rudder pedals. No TrackIR here. I use a hat switch for panning around. As for the WX I use ASE. I have various buttons assigned, like gear up/down, flaps, AP disconnect, AT arm/disarm, TOGA, trim etc. I rarely go to the 2D. I do all preflight in the VC.

Hello Pan,I start to wonder if there will be any simmer who will discover all the aspects of this simulation. Reading your post I had to think back of Mr Bruce Artwick and FS for the Commodore 64 back in the eighties. 64K of memory. 10 minutes loading time.The disks has a enormous capacaty of 180K!!!! The diskdrive was bigger that a 737 VCR!About sD/3D: Yesterday I bought Ezdok Camera, I can recommend it. It makes navigating the 3D a lot easier and has some nice features (I still have to explore).Good luck with the testing,Wijnand (EHBK)

[cenkcnk 24]

fps..i hate 2d cockpits at all. but i use it for gaining fps at huge airports.

[kamaz74 81]

Its funny to watch the 2D vs. VC debate. Similar to the Audi 4WD vs. BMW RWD debate I see a lot on the German car forums. There is no way on gods green earth that I will ever use a VC. No offense to others, as I realize its extremely important to them, but I cannot use it. I have tried, and its absolutely impossible for me. However I am a more hardcore simmer. I am very much a "heads down" type of person. I don't care about the scenery, I care about hitting FUELR at 7,000 into LAX. (I don't have charts in front of me... doing that from memory :( ) And calculating when I need to start my descent into LAX while doing 560kt at FL380. Thus, spending the time to pan around a 3D flight deck is completely pointless to me and only contributes to my frustration.I don't know, I hate to even comment as these debates get ugly quickly. This debate needs to be put to rest permanently. How many times do we need to talk about it. :Talking Ear Off:Just a side note, the 2D panel and VC are both 2D because you are viewing both on a 2D plane. :( So the VC lovers out there are speaking nonsense when they tote the "more realistic" argument.

[Paul_Smith 92]

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

In addition to pan, you have zoom. This is the equivilent of focusing your attention so as well as being very practical, it is acually very realistic. Can I just remind anybody who feels the urge to 'strongly defend' 2d vs. VC, that everybody here who uses virtual cockpits used to use 2d, and probably still does when no decent VC option is available. In other words, we do everything you do, and still chose VC.

[Paul_Smith 92]

Something I wrote on another 2d vs. VC debate. Seems relevant again:

A single flat panel display was necessary once because that was all our computers could manage. As our computers got more powerful, the flat panels got prettier and we got more of them. The high point of flat panel development are probably the 2D display panels found in PMDGs MD11, which are truely a work of art. However, at the end of the day, they are still just flat panels and are not even as good as the VC in that same model. Useful if you have crappy or ancient hardware, but still only a first approximation of what a pilot interacts with. VC's while not yet perfect, are at least a 2nd approximation, and if using TrackIR or similar interface, then they reach a third level approximation. Only a physical simulator is going to be better.

[yycvor 5]

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!)

Wheres that? LOL I think u must have ment EHAM :)As a simmer since FS95, I must say 2d aside from FMC and radio popups, are so fs98.

[Kosta 122]

For me, both 2D and VC are a must. I navigate in 2D, it's way less workload to do everything via panel switchers and with a mouse, then permanently change my hand to joystick (paning around), then taking a mouse to click, then move again, click....instead shift+1,2,3... and then just click. Two hands instead of one.VC is a must for takeoffs/landings/cruise though, it's WAY better feeling of "being there". In between I switch to 2D to just select stuff as it needs to be... and there are many things to click while on VATSIM.

[thefsxflyer 1]

For me, both 2D and VC are a must. I navigate in 2D, it's way less workload to do everything via panel switchers and with a mouse, then permanently change my hand to joystick (paning around), then taking a mouse to click, then move again, click....instead shift+1,2,3... and then just click. Two hands instead of one.VC is a must for takeoffs/landings/cruise though, it's WAY better feeling of "being there". In between I switch to 2D to just select stuff as it needs to be... and there are many things to click while on VATSIM.

This is exactly what I do. During low work load times I am in the VC and in the 2d panels during high workloads.