I think last time I checked the poll(I created it :) ) it was 95 votes 3d, 59 votes 2d and 31 or something for both.

There are many good reasons to stop eating meat, few good reasons to start eating meat - even though I love a good steak. Back to 2D panels: I guess less than a quarter of the users even open them or think about them at all. BTW: With the extreme well made r/t 3d-graphics, why don't you just use the fixed camera positions in the VC - if you are opposed to dynamic view changes? You don't need a head tracking system if you just want to emulate the sensation of using the 2D panels.

I'm not opposed to anything in the VC, certainly not dynamic view changes. But a VC plus camera views is not as usable as a 2D panel. I use it in the J41 because I'm forced to, but I find it awkward having to scroll through the camera positions to the one I want. In contrast, it's easy to open the 2D pop-up panel you want if there are panel clickspots. I wish we could move on from the idea that 3D is progress and somehow better than 2D. There's a place for both IMO. FSX is not going to be developed further, so until an intelligent eyepoint movement addon is freely available arguing that 2D panels are no longer necessary is wrong. 3D may be better for you, but it isn't for me, and you aren't going to "convert" me as things currently stand. The VC does not replicate how the flightdeck panels appear in real life so I'll use 2D view as long as it's available. Kevin Hall

I wish we could move on from the idea that 3D is progress and somehow better than 2D.

That will be hard... As there is a reason why 2D panels came first, and a reason why most users have progressed to use 3D panels.

The VC does not replicate how the flightdeck panels appear in real life so I'll use 2D view as long as it's available.

Sorry?

I am sorry but that is pure BS. Do you know of a single VC guy that has not spent most of their simming career flying in 2D? Its just like the FS9 guys describing FSX users as 'them' and completly forgetting that the vast majority of FSX users used to be FS9 users and have upgraded! 2D guys keep telling us what is 'wrong' with VC and why 2D is so much better forgetting that we know all there is to know about 2D, and have still chosen VC. Who is trying to demean who here?

Yet it's always VC enthusiasts telling 2D users to "move on". It's nothing like FS9 v FSX either. It's not as if PMDG would need to develop an entirely different version of a sim to cater for 2D panel options, which is the case if they were to continue to serve FS9 users. This is about FSX (3D) v FSX (2D). Many people find 2D panels easier to navigate and more visually appealling. It's not to do with clinging to the past. Apart from anything else I don't like looking at the overhead from the side as if it's just an inch above my head. That is not how it appears to a pilot. It's not about better or worse in the end, it's about preference and choice. Kevin Hall

That will be hard... As there is a reason why 2D panels came first, and a reason why most users have progressed to use 3D panels.

2D panels have progressed in that time too.

Sorry?

I guess you haven't read my previous posts describing what's wrong in the VC perspective in FSX. Have you ever sat in an airliner pilot's seat? The glaring example is how the overhead panel appears in the VC. At non-distorting zoom levels the VC puts the eyepoint too close to the front of the Overhead. Slewing the view to the right to see the panel means you see it side on, almost level with it. The eyepoint is too far forward, it should be about level with the rear of the Fwd Overhead. In a real flightdeck the overhead panel simply does not appear at that angle, even allowing for the fact that you naturally lean back and inwards to use the overhead, If you have Track IR you may be able to get a better view of the panel. FSX zoom moves the eyepoint forward and back (if you zoom out the eyepoint moves aft of the pilot's seat for example). If this could be fixed maybe the VC would not appear to be so distorted. Kevin Hall

Yeah, I still remember those stubborn basterds that forced the developers to produce double-up add-ons for a while. Resulting in longer development times and more expensive add-ons. We could use a politburo in this community - to streamline things a little .)

You should moderate your language in this community Sir.I hope I am clear enough.Thx!

I'm not opposed to anything in the VC, certainly not dynamic view changes. But a VC plus camera views is not as usable as a 2D panel. I use it in the J41 because I'm forced to, but I find it awkward having to scroll through the camera positions to the one I want. In contrast, it's easy to open the 2D pop-up panel you want if there are panel clickspots.

Even simpler then remembering where the 2D click spot is and remembering if you need to right or left click on it is to Right click on empty space, left click on desired view point.

I wish we could move on from the idea that 3D is progress and somehow better than 2D. There's a place for both IMO. FSX is not going to be developed further, so until an intelligent eyepoint movement addon is freely available arguing that 2D panels are no longer necessary is wrong. 3D may be better for you, but it isn't for me, and you aren't going to "convert" me as things currently stand.

And I wish that people would stop trying to patronise people who have have used 2D for many years and have now decided that 3D obviously is progress and obviously is better then 2D.

The VC does not replicate how the flightdeck panels appear in real life so I'll use 2D view as long as it's available.

How on earth can you keep a straight face and say that a 2D panel looks more like a flight deck then the flight deck does?

At the end of the day, regardless of the VC vs 2D argument (which I don't understand as I can't imagine why the option of having 2D panels is so despicable to VC-only supporters), the bottom line is that PMDG offered a 2D panel for the NGX. So when the same developers of the awesome MD-11 (which has a very nice implementation of a 2D experience) announce a 2D panel, my expectations were set higher, not lower. Hard to believe such a "small" component, and forgive me PDMG for understimating the effort needed here, is actually making this great piece of software feel half-baked. It's all about the workflow in the cockpit, regardless of it being 2D or VC. Mixing VC and 2D when working the aircraft systems feels awkward as the difference (at least to me) is very evident. Do I own Track-IR? No. Do I own EZDOCK? No? Do my frame rates degrade when switching between 2D to VC? Not badly, not noticeable enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth. And before you shoot me down with the usual-suspects arguments (you should invest in better Hardware, go buy other enhancing addons you cheap dinousaur of a simmer, bla bla), consider I never needed these nor had these problems on the MD-11, which is a marvel. So PMDG, next time you say 2D (which apparently will be: never), we expect full 2D, not half-baked 2D. I'm not expecting you to release a 2D throttle quadrant, but the PR issue this is causing sure is worth a review of your tech decisions for the next products. Enrique Vaamonde

How on earth can you keep a straight face and say that a 2D panel looks more like a flight deck then the flight deck does?

I think you need to cool down, it just a matter of opinion. Don't expect everyone to hold your's.

I think you need to cool down, it just a matter of opinion. Don't expect everyone to hold your's.

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 should moderate your language in this community Sir.I hope I am clear enough.Thx!

Sorry, I just tried to make a joke about those obnoxious FS9 load mouths.

Even simpler then remembering where the 2D click spot is and remembering if you need to right or left click on it is to Right click on empty space, left click on desired view point.

Panel clickspots don't need to be as complex as PMDG make them, but you get used to what's what very quickly. FSX camera views are less friendly to use, in my opinion. :)

And I wish that people would stop trying to patronise people who have have used 2D for many years and have now decided that 3D obviously is progress and obviously is better then 2D.

If people want to move from 2D to 3D then good for them. I only have a problem with people who say this must be done to "move on". "Obviously better" is your opinion, not fact.

How on earth can you keep a straight face and say that a 2D panel looks more like a flight deck then the flight deck does?

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

I think alot of posters to this thread are missing the point..... this is not a debate about VC vs. 2D panels and which is better or the "way of the future"....... it's about representations and promises. It was represented by PMDG that this product would have a fully functional set of 2D panels. In my mind (and apparently the mind of most 2D panel users) that would include a 2D throttle panel or at a minimum a panel that included access to the parking brake, trim and engine start functions. Is it a big deal to set up a VC view of the throttle quadrant to access those functions?? Not really.... BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT! PMDG did not not state that this product would include a fully functional set of 2D panels "except the throttle quadrant".... for those who fly with the 2D panels and bought this product on the assumption that a 2D throttle panel like the one included in the previous 737 product would be available, it's my opinion that PMDG messed up. Robert's comment earlier in this thread that 2D panels may not be included at all in the future is not an appropriate answer for this issue..... and the excuse that animation issues were at the core of why a 2D throttle panel wasn't created comes across (to me) as a lame excuse. We all waited a long time for this product. PMDG was able to create a very usable 2D throttle panel many years ago when they released the previous 737 product. I would have been happy to wait longer for this product if it included a complete set of 2D panels.... as promised by the developers. This is a great, great product. It is obvious to any user how much work went into the details of it's construction. Postings that discuss purchasing IR Tracker and other hardware or software clearly miss the point here. We are just asking for what was promised...... nothing more. If PMDG wants to develop future products that are strictly based on VC cockpits and they represent the product as such, it will be up to us individually to decide if we want to buy it. Phil

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

Excellant post Phil

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

+1