Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

xXArch_AngelXx

Should MS Flight have 2D cockpits?

  

195 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you use the 2D cockpit frequently? And why?

    • No, because its not so nice to look at
    • No, because I don't need to use it
    • Yes, because the 2D cockpit is easier to use
    • Yes, because the 2D cockpit is more FPS friendly
    • Yes, because the 2D may have more click-able items
    • Other (please explain below)
    • What the fruit is a 2D cockpit??
    • Where's my bag of potato's gone?


Recommended Posts

I was just wondering If Flight might stop using the 2D cockpit feature? I know its extremely unlikely, but who knows! I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter! :) Jamie ♥

Share this post


Link to post

I voted for options 6 and 8. (yes, 8. Big%20Grin.gif)I, personally find the 2D panels very useful. Especially for something like the FSX Dodosim Bell 206, which has a real start up system. Having the 2D panels makes start up easier in some ways. It's a way of seeing the specific panel you want without everything else being there. I just like having them. I do like VCs very much and never fully fly from the 2D panel view, but it's just useful to have for some, including me. I'd like this feature to remain in Flight.And I would like my bag of potatoes back. Please....right now, if at all possible? :(

Share this post


Link to post
I was just wondering If Flight might stop using the 2D cockpit feature? I know its extremely unlikely, but who knows! I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter! :) Jamie ♥
They better not remove them. I use VC for flying but when I need like an overhead panel I ALWAYS go to the 2D version.... Also +1 for the poll. :(
I voted for options 6 and 8. (yes, 8. Big%20Grin.gif)I, personally find the 2D panels very useful. Especially for something like the FSX Dodosim Bell 206, which has a real start up system. Having the 2D panels makes start up easier in some ways. It's a way of seeing the specific panel you want without everything else being there. I just like having them. I do like VCs very much and never fully fly from the 2D panel view, but it's just useful to have for some, including me. I'd like this feature to remain in Flight.And I would like my bag of potatoes back. Please....right now, if at all possible? :(
Very much agree, on complex addons it's essential..

Share this post


Link to post

I use TrackIR and only use 2D for a function that is not available in VC. However, I do like the 2D pop-ups that are accessible in the VC via a click spot, such as those in the F1 Mustang.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't use 2D panels these days. The virtual cockpits in my payware planes are of exceptional quality, and I prefer to be able to look in any direction at will. It just feels more realistic to me.

Share this post


Link to post

2D panels are simply awful and should of been killed off years ago! Look like something from the dark ages, why would you want soemthing ugly and 2D in a beautiful 3D environment? If you want to see the overhead get TRACKiR or EZCA which works brilliantly.

Share this post


Link to post
2D panels are simply awful and should of been killed off years ago! Look like something from the dark ages, why would you want soemthing ugly and 2D in a beautiful 3D environment? If you want to see the overhead get TRACKiR or EZCA which works brilliantly.
I was alive in the dark ages . I wish we had these 2D cockpits .. heck, I wish we had computers, electricity, and planes then.

Share this post


Link to post

Nooo! Not my 2D cockpit!! My precioussss...

Share this post


Link to post

Not to worry as they are not going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post

If FLIGHT doesn't offer or have the capability for 2D panels, then it could not be used in a certifiable Flight Training Device, where virtual panning & zooming is not permitted. (Any gauges, instruments, switches displayed must always be in the same physical location in a FTD display.)Hopefully, MS sees Flight as a potential successor to Prepare3D. AR

Share this post


Link to post

First, they should keep 2D popup panels. Those are still very useful. But for full 2D panels? It depends. I personally dont even expect that I will fly the defaults, so it does not really matter to me. But in general the question of 2D panels I think depends on the quality of the VC. The VC in the FSX defaults arent that great and require 2D panels for critical phases of flight (in my opinion). The 3D VC just were not clear enough. High quality 3D cockpits make 2D panels unnecessary (think captain sim quality). So basically, it depends on what quality of VC is being made.

Share this post


Link to post
First, they should keep 2D popup panels. Those are still very useful. But for full 2D panels? It depends. I personally dont even expect that I will fly the defaults, so it does not really matter to me. But in general the question of 2D panels I think depends on the quality of the VC. The VC in the FSX defaults arent that great and require 2D panels for critical phases of flight (in my opinion). The 3D VC just were not clear enough. High quality 3D cockpits make 2D panels unnecessary (think captain sim quality). So basically, it depends on what quality of VC is being made.
At the risk of offending those who have seen this pic before- here is why 2D panels and multiple views are needed.No panning necessary- the 150º view is ALWAYS in front of the pilot and the panel components are ALWAYS in the exact same location.What is really needed is for panel designers to come up with better 2D panels that take advantage of the visual width potential of multiple, large monitors. Virtual is an old and passe' scheme to get around the display limitations of single small monitors of a dozen years ago AR

Share this post


Link to post
At the risk of offending those who have seen this pic before- here is why 2D panels and multiple views are needed.No panning necessary- the 150º view is ALWAYS in front of the pilot and the panel components are ALWAYS in the exact same location.What is really needed is for panel designers to come up with better 2D panels that take advantage of the visual width potential of multiple, large monitors. Virtual is an old and passe' scheme to get around the display limitations of single small monitors of a dozen years ago AR
Why would anyone be offended because they saw a picture twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Virtual is an old and passe' scheme to get around the display limitations of single small monitors of a dozen years ago
HelloHave you even sat down and used a good headtracking system on a modern PC system ?Like it or not the 2D panel is fast becoming a thing of the past and once you have become accustomed to the freedom of view that headtracking gives in a good VC you would realise why.A fixed 150 degree view without moving your head is not realistic at all, try driving your car without turning your head.Imagine the field of view that you have available with TrackIr and a good 37-42 inch 1080p screen and you dont need to move your head more than a centimetre or two to easily exceed that 150 degree fixed 2D view and no bezels in the way either.Each to there own though, no harm in continuing to include the 2D panels for those who like them.

Share this post


Link to post
HelloHave you even sat down and used a good headtracking system on a modern PC system ?Like it or not the 2D panel is fast becoming a thing of the past and once you have become accustomed to the freedom of view that headtracking gives in a good VC you would realise why.A fixed 150 degree view without moving your head is not realistic at all, try driving your car without turning your head.
Actually, normal human vision (which you require for a pilot's licence) spans a Field of View of approx 180º without moving your head. Between 150-180º the eye/brain sees mostly shadow or motion with little detail. So triple integrated views in simming comes very close to real world vision.(Triple views: 3 x 45º + two 5.5º bezel width corrections= 146º) Most jurisdictions will deny you a driver's licence if you don't have a 135º visual FOV without head movement. I doubt that they would accept TrackIR as a substitute. Would you attempt to drive your car if there were no windows- only a single LCD in front of the driver, and a minicam on the roof? )No wonder IMAX uses triple images!AR

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, normal human vision (which you require for a pilot's licence) spans a Field of View of approx 180º without moving your head. Between 150-180º the eye/brain sees mostly shadow or motion with little detail. So triple integrated views in simming comes very close to real world vision.(Triple views: 3 x 45º + two 5.5º bezel width corrections= 146º) Most jurisdictions will deny you a driver's licence if you don't have a 135º visual FOV without head movement. I doubt that they would accept TrackIR as a substitute. Would you attempt to drive your car if there were no windows- only a single LCD in front of the driver, and a minicam on the roof? )No wonder IMAX uses triple images!AR
Why not just get a curved, 3D ready screen and use Track IR on that? You might as well break the bank if you want the best immersion ever (paired with 7.1 surround sound speaker system, lots of add-on scenery, that would be so amazing!). That is much better than 3 screens that I believe downgrade the experience. I love my VC's! Jamie ♥

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, normal human vision (which you require for a pilot's licence) spans a Field of View of approx 180º without moving your head. Between 150-180º the eye/brain sees mostly shadow or motion with little detail. So triple integrated views in simming comes very close to real world vision.(Triple views: 3 x 45º + two 5.5º bezel width corrections= 146º) Most jurisdictions will deny you a driver's licence if you don't have a 135º visual FOV without head movement. I doubt that they would accept TrackIR as a substitute. Would you attempt to drive your car if there were no windows- only a single LCD in front of the driver, and a minicam on the roof? )No wonder IMAX uses triple images!AR
HelloBut would you be granted a pilots licence if you were physically unable to move your head.Would you drive your car without moving your head ? I hope not(watch out for Alex at intersections guys) :( Head movement is natural, pilot do move their heads, when turning onto base leg the runway will be around 45 degrees behind you and with TrackIr that is just an easy movement.How do you simulate that with your fixed view ?I realise that there is no point in discussing this you, as you only have your setup as a point of reference and are unable to accept any other way.The developers on the other hand seem to be moving away from the 2D view seeing it as a relic of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
HelloBut would you be granted a pilots licence if you were physically unable to move your head.Would you drive your car without moving your head ? I hope not(watch out for Alex at intersections guys) :( Head movement is natural, pilot do move their heads, when turning onto base leg the runway will be around 45 degrees behind you and with TrackIr that is just an easy movement.How do you simulate that with your fixed view ?I realise that there is no point in discussing this you, as you only have your setup as a point of reference and are unable to accept any other way.The developers on the other hand seem to be moving away from the 2D view seeing it as a relic of the past.
If you can't move your head, you flunk the physical!A wide field of view is essential for situational awareness. That allows you to move your eyes to better focus on something- while maintaining overall visual awareness. That's how you are aware that there is a car beside you and you should not change lanes- while concentrating on the car ahead that just flashed his brake lights.Here is a screenshot of turning final for Rwy 09 CYYJ. The runway can be seen in the left view- top centre right- to guide the pilot into a smooth turn, while maintaining overall situational awareness. The pilot can see both an overall 146º wide view while at the same time, watching the runway threshold, to guide his turn and descent- without having to pan or zoom out (which damages distance perception).This pic setup is actually about 45" wide- with angled outer mons, it wraps around and spans my entire peripheral vision. Just the same as in a car or airplane. (With two more monitors/2D views, I could turn my head and look sideways out of the plane!) AR

Share this post


Link to post
Not to worry as they are not going anywhere.
Are you beta testing this version too?! How do I get in on that gig, lol.

Share this post


Link to post

I choose to vote for "other." Yes, a 2D cockpit should be in MS Flight, but for other reason then just those given in the poll. The 2D cockpit also has benefits for home cockpit builders and for those who use multiple monitor setups. I saw many replies posting pictures of their home setups and they all use 2D panels to aid them. In my own usage, I have moved on to only using the VC, and I hope to someday have a 3 monitor setup to have a nice wide angle view in a VC. I don't want to go back to 2D cockpits for own flying.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted other - I use 2D popups, normally FMS or GPS popups, but that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest ShinyJetSyndrome
If FLIGHT doesn't offer or have the capability for 2D panels, then it could not be used in a certifiable Flight Training Device, where virtual panning & zooming is not permitted.
Who uses MSFS as an FTD outside of Redbird Flight Simulations? As for Redbird, their FSX-based simulators/FTD's have a very poor reputation in the industry. Lack of realism, less-than-functional G1000 simulation (I think they use the default FSX G1000), and absolutely pointless motion simulation (only there to get more student $) are just a few of the complaints I'm hearing.As far as I'm concerned, Frasca has the market cornered for PCATD/FTD fidelity. Microsoft should just stick with PC flight simulation and let LockMart (Prepar3D) figure it out. IMHO, I think being FTD-certifiable is one of the last things the current development team cares about -- nor should they.I say keep the 2D panels because sometimes trying to change radios and manipulate other knobs/switches can be a huge pain in the VC.

Share this post


Link to post

Microsoft never has had any interest in using flight sim,ulator for PCATD, and I can't see that changing. There's no money in it for Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post

You can have so much more detail now in 3D cockpits, hard to see the need for 2D cockpits anymore ... I guess its only the pre FSX crowd that want them? then again X Plane 10 seems to want to keep some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...