Throttle Quadrant 2D panel missing?

[january 19]

Paul- Re your quote - "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."---------No, in Flight Simming, one is never happy with the status quo. But having flown with 2D panels on triple monitors for many years, I would be reluctant to regress to Virtual and what I see as an inferior method of presentation. My judgment is that Virtual presentation is not satisfactory for a simulator because of the need for panning and zooming.The FAA seems to agree with that view in terms of certification of Flight Training Devices.AR

[PGBosak 4]

but that is just my opinion

exactly! You totally missed, that i don't argue against VC but i still advocate 2D. And my preferred way of FS usage is no matter for negotiation. Nobody really wants to steal anyones virtual cockpit. So fly VC as long as you want but pls don't try to prevent other customers to get satisfied as you are already. That does't make any sense, exactly as your non subtle way to convince me, will never be successful.

[VARIG 0]

Three simple questions: 1. Why VC-users try to convince us that VC is better?2. Why 2D-users respect every VC-user and feel happy to fly the way they want, instead of trying to convince them to fly 2D?Why don't we agree to have both of them JUST LIKE 99.9% OF FS AIRPLANES? If you like VC, use VC>. If you like 2D, fly 2D. SIMPLE! Both sides are satisfied! Can't really see what's the problem with VC-users...

[kevinh 409]

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.

No point in showing you a screenshot. We'd see exactly the same thing. You'd be convinced the perspective was correct, I'd know it wasn't. I suspect you assume that the eyepoint is in the correct place, the VC is geometrically correct and therefore the view must be realistic. If either assumption is wrong the view is unrealistic. I'm sure PMDG's VC is as accurate as it's possible to get, but the FSX eyepoint is not, it seems to move with selected zoom level. For the airliner addons I have, when zoomed in enough to avoid fish-eye distortion the eyepoint is too far forward relative to the panels. The overhead appears side on and far too close. At least, that's how it appears to me, and I'm familiar with the view from the real pilot's seat in the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and A320. I don't have Track IR or EZCA so easily moving the eyepoint to the correct position is not an option for me. Therefore 2D panels are for me the best way to view and operate the aircraft, especially when busy flying too. I do use the VC as well, mainly for enjoying the view outside. That's what it's best for. Kevin Hall

[mikkel 9]

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.

I only use VC on IVAO, and I seem to be able to fly quite progressive and efficient. I handfly and make VFR short-cuts if allowed by the ATC during approaches, looking out the window in turns, making adjustments on the MCP - all in the same view. It lets me fly more like in the real world, with much more flexibility.

1. Why VC-users try to convince us that VC is better?

You get this sensation because the VC-users left the 2D panels behind because they saw progress and betterness in using a virtual photoreal cockpit.

[january 19]

"I only use VC on IVAO, and I seem to be able to fly quite progressive and efficient. I handfly and make VFR short-cuts if allowed by the ATC during approaches, looking out the window in turns, making adjustments on the MCP - all in the same view. It lets me fly more like in the real world, with much more flexibility." You get this sensation because the VC-users left the 2D panels behind because they saw progress and betterness in using a virtual photoreal cockpit.

----------------------------- Mikkel- That being so, I would expect that General Motors might soon offer a car without any windows or dashboard - but with a monitor in front of the driver, a mini cam on the roof and a mouse pad on the steering wheel.The driver would simply pan to look aside and perhaps also pan & zoom in to locate the switch for the headlights or check the gas gauge. Somehow I think that glass windows (the equiv. of multiple monitors) and a fixed position panel will prove to be superior to a car with only virtual windows & dashboard.One could easily experiment with this in a car, simply by a test drive using only binoculars- zoom in normal way around or increase the field of view by turning the binocs end for end!But thanks anyway- I'll walk while you try this experiment!AR

[mikkel 9]

Congratulations on a bizarre and out of focus comparison. So you compare using 2D panels on your desktop to sit in the real deal, and somehow I would wish - due to my insistence on VC's - to replace the real car, with it? Then I guess you'll also gladly believe that I would trade a physical cockpit or flying a real 737 with a VC on a desktop simulator?

[pawel-d 2]

Actually this is quite good comparison. Maybe in VC the view "looks" more natural, especially on wide screen and perhaps with TIR, but working on flight management in 2d panel is much more close to reality than in vc. You don't have to use any device to move your view. You just move your eyes and change focus a little bit, still having in control main displays and forward outside view. In VC you loose for some time a view of those crucial elements. It's not present in real aircraft.

[Paul_Smith 92]

No point in showing you a screenshot. We'd see exactly the same thing. You'd be convinced the perspective was correct, I'd know it wasn't. I suspect you assume that the eyepoint is in the correct place, the VC is geometrically correct and therefore the view must be realistic. If either assumption is wrong the view is unrealistic. I'm sure PMDG's VC is as accurate as it's possible to get, but the FSX eyepoint is not, it seems to move with selected zoom level. For the airliner addons I have, when zoomed in enough to avoid fish-eye distortion the eyepoint is too far forward relative to the panels. The overhead appears side on and far too close. At least, that's how it appears to me, and I'm familiar with the view from the real pilot's seat in the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and A320. I don't have Track IR or EZCA so easily moving the eyepoint to the correct position is not an option for me. Therefore 2D panels are for me the best way to view and operate the aircraft, especially when busy flying too. I do use the VC as well, mainly for enjoying the view outside. That's what it's best for. Kevin Hall

I do not assume the eye position is correct. I adjust my eye position exactly as the manual stipulates so that I know it is correct. This is a mandatory action all pilots are expected to perform minimze paralax errors etc. and I use the standard FSX key commands to do so as EZCA/trackIR are not required. Is that not part of the IVAO/Avsim tests Paul G was talking about? I was not aware that distortion was open to opinion or a matter of taste. When something appears distorted that means it either does not appear in its correct location or with the correct appearence. Since the Boeing manuals PMDG have provided tell us where each item is located in the cockpit, it should be easy to say "here is the page of the manual showing where X should be and what it should look like, and here is a screen shot showing it incorrectly". Hard to argue with that. Perhaps 'Distortion' is not the word you meant to use in this context.

[Paul_Smith 92]

Actually this is quite good comparison. Maybe in VC the view "looks" more natural, especially on wide screen and perhaps with TIR, but working on flight management in 2d panel is much more close to reality than in vc. You don't have to use any device to move your view. You just move your eyes and change focus a little bit, still having in control main displays and forward outside view. In VC you loose for some time a view of those crucial elements. It's not present in real aircraft.

How is a 2d panel "more close to reality"? If I want to glance at the PFD or the standby intruments or anything else in a real cockpit, I do not press a magic click spot which puts a ficticious panel in my eye line, I adjust my point of view until I can see what I need to. And yes, in a real cockpit, that means I can no longer see something else. If I want to study or manipulate something that is going to require the focus of my attention, then I think about what I intend to do and try to mitigate the risks. In a real cockpit I would have the co-pilot or the A/P take control. I would certainly ensure I was in stable flight, and I would plan my actions to allow for a heads up glance to monitor the situation on a regualr basis. I do not focus on FMC to the exclusion of all else, I try to position my point of view and zoom level so I can do the job I need to do and still monitor at least one of the flight display instruments. Real world cockpits are ergonomically designed to do exactly this. Also, in the real world, the pilot flying can not manipulate the FMC when hand flying a tricky approach. So they do not try.

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Gents- As this thread is reducing to bickering- it is now closed...