If there is a circle, and I insist its a straight line, that is not opinion. The 3D cockpit is a replica of the real deal, 2D panels are fictional representations made as compromises between usability and replication.

You say that if there is a circle and I think that it's a straight line, then it's not opinion. How can you be so sure? I say that there exist no such things as straight lines or circles, it's just matter of opinion as when you judge them to be what they are per your own definition. Therefore, straight lines and circles are just made up definitions by humans, which are opinions. So, according to my point of view the 2D panel can in fact be more realistic than the VC.

This discussion seems to boil down to Form versus Function. I choose Function.One more vote for the superiority of 2D!AR

+1

Ok, another explenation why I prefer 2D above 3D: If I fly an airplane, I always look outside and scan my instruments as in the book of every pilot If I am in a desc. and ATC gives me an STAR to follow, in 3D I am fiddeling around on an FMC on my huge Triple Head to Go wide screen without having the possebility to have an eye on where the horizon is and where I am going. For me that feels like a pilot stops flying an airplane and bent ride over close to the FMC to program it. Maybe for the 3D guys they don't mind, but for me it does not feel right. I am still young, but do not forget that in the FS community there are a lot of 55+ users (!Pay attention PMDG!; those are the users with money) who love the 2D panels because they can control the overview.

same story here 2D or 3D...see my thread at: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/343551-1x-30-vc-or-multimonitor-with-2d-panels/page__fromsearch__1

Surely, isn’t it the developer’s prerogative to develop a product as she/she wants to just as much as it’s our prerogative to buy his/her product? I discovered that their J41 was only going to be VC much as I’m a big fan of 2D,but because I wanted that J41, I opted to exercise my choice to make a purchase. So, no quibbles from me there. Likewise, if PMDG choose to go down the no 2D route, isn’t that their choice too? After all, nobody is holding a gun to our heads to make a purchase Seems fair to me.

Surely, isn’t it the developer’s prerogative to develop a product as she/she wants to just as much as it’s our prerogative to buy his/her product? I discovered that their J41 was only going to be VC much as I’m a big fan of 2D,but because I wanted that J41, I opted to exercise my choice to make a purchase. So, no quibbles from me there. Likewise, if PMDG choose to go down the no 2D route, isn’t that their choice too? After all, nobody is holding a gun to our heads to make a purchase Seems fair to me.

So what's your point? I don't get it, all you're saying is that PMDG is free to develop their product how they want. No one is saying the opposite.

Most of the pilots i know flying at IVAO are still using the 2D Panels, cause there is nothing more ergonomic out there than the 2D view with an over 25 years tradition. If you do exams on IVAO/VATSIM you have to react instantly, it is part of the grading and i would never spend an idea on that, doing an exam in VC, even it looks that nice as the NGX. Changing between 2D and VC needs around 3 seconds (with recommended settings TML 4096, hardware like this: 2500k@4,5Ghz, 570 GPU and 8GB RAM) to refresh totally. Btw. i have to lock my FPS at 25 to compensate the FSX variance the NGX produces in VC, never seen this high level of variance in FSX before. I did support PMDG one time on an VC-only aircraft (BAe) i wouldn't do this a second time, cause i never use this VC-only aircraft, and not for beeing a barrater. conclusion: VC: nice for cruising, screenshots, videos, posing.... 2D: works on older system also, native ergonomic, very usable at departure and approach under real ATC conditions and doesn't snub customers. It has always been a difference in selling and using a product.

So what's your point? I don't get it, all you're saying is that PMDG is free to develop their product how they want. No one is saying the opposite.

Point is, if PMDG have chosen to go for the future being strictly VC, no amount of arm-twisting in this thread is going to get them to acquiesce to 2D demands for the throttle quadrant,or any other 2D future options.

Point is, if PMDG have chosen to go for the future being strictly VC, no amount of arm-twisting in this thread is going to get them to acquiesce to 2D demands for the throttle quadrant,or any other 2D future options.

Thanks for clarifying. I think the majority of us in this thread aren't demanding a 2D TQ panel for the NGX, it's more of a request. And as to what PMDG have chosen to go for in future products is of no relevance to us regarding the NGX.

I think 2D in an important part of complex simulations. Until such time as frame rates are on a part with virtual cockpits there will always be a demand for 2D panels. If companies are serious about developing addons then they should be listening to the customer. For this reason i really do hope that they will provde 2D panels for their 777 also because, as mentioned before, it is a very ergonmic way of flying in high intensity situations

I think 2D in an important part of complex simulations. Until such time as frame rates are on a part with virtual cockpits there will always be a demand for 2D panels. If companies are serious about developing addons then they should be listening to the customer. For this reason i really do hope that they will provde 2D panels for their 777 also because, as mentioned before, it is a very ergonmic way of flying in high intensity situations

+1

+1

I think 2D in an important part of complex simulations. Until such time as frame rates are on a part with virtual cockpits there will always be a demand for 2D panels. If companies are serious about developing addons then they should be listening to the customer. For this reason i really do hope that they will provde 2D panels for their 777 also because, as mentioned before, it is a very ergonmic way of flying in high intensity situations

Someone should start a new poll. "Would you buy the 777 if it had no 2D panel?". Lets see how many customers PMDG would lose by dropping 2D panels.

Someone should start a new poll. "Would you buy the 777 if it had no 2D panel?". Lets see how many customers PMDG would lose by dropping 2D panels.

As much as i love my 2D panels, it wouldn't stop me buying a top notch project made by the market leaders. If they drop 2D panels, i would like to see an SDK, and the ability to have pop up PFD, ND etc, when you click on them in the VC.

....If the eyepoint is in the wrong place, as it often is, then the VC view of panels is very distorted. This is especially a problem with the overhead panel. At least in 2D the panel can be viewed properly. Kevin Hall

Can you show a screen shot of the distortion you are talking about please. As you might have guessed, I use VC only (on the aircraft where I can) and I do not know what distortion you are talking about. If my eye point is in the wrong place, just like a real pilot, I move my eye point.

This discussion seems to boil down to Form versus Function. I choose Function.No panning or zooming to see where you want to go or to find a switch that's always in a different location on the screen every time you need it!The original PMDG 737NG still looks good to me! And this on a seven year old 'puter.One more vote for the superiority of 2D!AR

If you are still happy with a seven year year old sim on a seven year old computer, I am happy for you. You do know that computers have doubled in performance for the same price point every 18 months since then. Thats an improvement of between 8 and 16 times more power at the same price. So while you may well be happy with the latest and greatest that the market had to offer in 2004, I personnally am very grateful that the likes of PMDG thought that the standard could and should be raised.

Ok, another explenation why I prefer 2D above 3D: If I fly an airplane, I always look outside and scan my instruments as in the book of every pilot If I am in a desc. and ATC gives me an STAR to follow, in 3D I am fiddeling around on an FMC on my huge Triple Head to Go wide screen without having the possebility to have an eye on where the horizon is and where I am going. For me that feels like a pilot stops flying an airplane and bent ride over close to the FMC to program it. Maybe for the 3D guys they don't mind, but for me it does not feel right. I am still young, but do not forget that in the FS community there are a lot of 55+ users (!Pay attention PMDG!; those are the users with money) who love the 2D panels because they can control the overview.

I also look either outside, or at the primary flight display. So when I went to react to changes from ATC, I adjust my view, much as a pilot would, to be able to perform the task at hand while also monitoring the instruments. If you look at a real cockpit (or the VC), you will see that they have been ergonomically designed to allow a pilot to do just that.Thanks for thinking I might be young but I am afraid that people over 55 are more likely to resist change simply because it is change and not because of any inherent weakness. As for spending money. People are far more likely to spend money for what they see as an obvious improvement then for more of the same. If PMDG released the MD-11, J41 and now the 737 to the same standard as their 747, their fans would still be pleased, but not many would show the excitment and delight that has been seen on these boards. Excitment that attracts new customers and draws back old ones.

Most of the pilots i know flying at IVAO are still using the 2D Panels, cause there is nothing more ergonomic out there than the 2D view with an over 25 years tradition.

How many of them are using default aircraft? How many of them are using aircraft that do not have a VC worthy of the name? I can remember what the 2D panels of 25 years ago looked like, they were the best that you could do on a PC 25 years ago. Guess what, we can do bit better now that we can actually map the ergomonics of the real cockpit to a home PC.

If you do exams on IVAO/VATSIM you have to react instantly, it is part of the grading and i would never spend an idea on that, doing an exam in VC, even it looks that nice as the NGX.

So you would rather demonstrate that you know where a button exists on a fictitious 2D panel then know where it is in the cockpit and where it is in relation to everything else you need to work with? Doesn't sound a very useful exam to me, but that is just my opinion.

Changing between 2D and VC needs around 3 seconds (with recommended settings TML 4096, hardware like this: 2500k@4,5Ghz, 570 GPU and 8GB RAM) to refresh totally. Btw. i have to lock my FPS at 25 to compensate the FSX variance the NGX produces in VC, never seen this high level of variance in FSX before.

I never experiance that 3 second delay, but that is because I don't use 2D on aircraft where I don't have to. You don't think the variance in FPS might to due to the NGX being the most complete and complex aircraft ever released for FSX do you?

Looking at a 3D object on a 2D monitor is NOT the same as real life. In real life, displays, controls, switches etc are all fixed in one place, and always look the same from position x. This is why a home cockpit will always be more realistic than a 3D cockpit on a 20 foot projector screen, perspective. 3D is great, but not always practical for functionality. I use 3D to fly, and then 2D for overhead, and main panel if i need to read a display more accurately or reach a switch/knob at an awkward angle. Throttle, flaps, spoilers, yoke, radios, MCP, EFIS, and CDU are all taken care of by third party panels/hardware. That is why i think an SDK is a better use of resources than SOME 2D panels, the FS hardware market seems to have boomed in recent years and i feel it is not long before radios and MCP's become as common as the yoke/stick and throttle.