Throttle Quadrant 2D panel missing?

[RYR738 9]

I hope they include the throtle panel in an update !!

Gents- This was a deliberate decision because of the animation and time resources that are required to model it. 2D panels are going away for all future projects- so this would be a great product to start practicing VC use!

2d panels are great for teaching/training !! Fred.

[VARIG 0]

Gents- This was a deliberate decision because of the animation and time resources that are required to model it. 2D panels are going away for all future projects- so this would be a great product to start practicing VC use!

Robert, You have 62 replies (63 with this one) and ALL OF THEM disagree with you. Do you really think that a "VC-only" product would make the same success as NGX? I didn't buy the J41 because it has no 2D panels. And I'm not buying a VC-only 777 even if you make it for $10. PMDG cannot force me to fly VC-only... Well... Actually you can, but I'm not buying anymore. Oh wait... I'm not alone.

[audiohavoc 24]

For all the 2D panel users, the best you can do is let your money do the talking. If there really are enough 2D panel users to make it worthwhile for developers to spend the resources on developing them, surely there will be a market force that will motivate developers to comply. Of course, with several aircraft for FSX having been released with no 2D cockpit, and products like EZDok and TrackIR that enhance the VC experience, the market is likely driving developers in this direction.

[kjjj11223344 48]

For all the 2D panel users, the best you can do is let your money do the talking. If there really are enough 2D panel users to make it worthwhile for developers to spend the resources on developing them, surely there will be a market force that will motivate developers to comply. Of course, with several aircraft for FSX having been released with no 2D cockpit, and products like EZDok and TrackIR that enhance the VC experience, the market is likely driving developers in this direction.

I agree.

[RYR738 9]

For all the 2D panel users, the best you can do is let your money do the talking. If there really are enough 2D panel users to make it worthwhile for developers to spend the resources on developing them, surely there will be a market force that will motivate developers to comply. Of course, with several aircraft for FSX having been released with no 2D cockpit, and products like EZDok and TrackIR that enhance the VC experience, the market is likely driving developers in this direction.

In the flight traing world we use only 2d panels and multimonitor seups.I reckon that would be a few thousand users worldwide. We have no interest in VC or any of that typical gamer, simmer stuff. Frederic.

Robert, You have 62 replies (63 with this one) and ALL OF THEM disagree with you. Do you really think that a "VC-only" product would make the same success as NGX? I didn't buy the J41 because it has no 2D panels. And I'm not buying a VC-only 777 even if you make it for $10. PMDG cannot force me to fly VC-only... Well... Actually you can, but I'm not buying anymore. Oh wait... I'm not alone.

I am with you all the way !! Frederic Steiner.

[VARIG 0]

In the flight traing world we use only 2d panels and multimonitor seups.I reckon that would be a few thousand users worldwide. We have no interest in VC or any of that typical gamer, simmer stuff. Frederic.

I couldn't agree more! Actually, if I could be able to choose between VC+2D and 2D Only, I'd stay with 2D Only. I'm thinking about the guys who spent dozens of thousands dollars to build a home-cockpit to fly 2D.

[RYR738 9]

I couldn't agree most! Actually, if I could be able to choose between VC+2D and 2D Only, I'd stay with 2D Only. I'm thinking about the guys who spent dozens of thousands dollars to build a home-cockpit to fly 2D.

Me too !!

[invun 0]

But how to persuade PMDG to bring throttle quadrant panel (also F/O panel) back for us?

[audiohavoc 24]

In the flight traing world we use only 2d panels and multimonitor seups.I reckon that would be a few thousand users worldwide. We have no interest in VC or any of that typical gamer, simmer stuff. Frederic. I am with you all the way !! Frederic Steiner.

This isn't the flight training world where procedures are the name of the game. This is simulation as a hobby, where immersion and the experience of being in the cockpit is paramount, and this in my opinion is where the VC far surpasses 2D panels. Anyways, what I stated about market forces still stands and is irrespective of individual preference as it is based on average user preference. If most users demanded 2D panels and didn't purchase simulations without them, then more aircraft developers will include and continue to include 2D panels.

But how to persuade PMDG to bring throttle quadrant panel (also F/O panel) back for us?

Don't buy products that are missing features you require?

[VARIG 0]

Don't buy products that are missing features you require?

Shane, I agree with you. But you must remember that NGX was presented as a VC+2D aircraft (that's the standard since late 2003). I bought NGX thiking that I'd have a throttle quadrant. Within 40 seconds "sitted" on the flight deck I missed the throttle quadrant, I searched the manuals and couldn't find. I even thought that I was a dumb, that could not find the panel. But it seems that the dumb is not me (or us).

[audiohavoc 24]

Shane, I agree with you. But you must remember that NGX was presented as a VC+2D aircraft (that's the standard since late 2003). I bought NGX thiking that I'd have a throttle quadrant. Within 40 seconds "sitted" on the flight deck I missed the throttle quadrant, I searched the manuals and couldn't find. I even thought that I was a dumb, that could not find the panel. But it seems that the dumb is not me (or us).

Gabriel, I agree with you too, I think that if I was going to develop a 2D panel, I would prefer to go all the way with it and I think it is a bit disappointing that it wasn't included. I am a VC user only, but I can understand your position.

[MatthewS 761]

Do people that already have throttle quadrants with a speed-brake handle need to see a 2D throttle/speed-brake? How many people would be happy if PMDG just added a trim indicator, fuel cutoff and parking brake "gauges" and put them on a simple panel? That doesn't seem like a lot of work and would mean most 2D users wouldn't need to use the VC at all.

[hp500 1]

Well, hopefully the J41 and future VC only products will show the developers the importance of including 2D panels - complete ones. I don't know how well the J41 sold, but if that 2D-less package was the be all and end all, why even include the 2D panel in the NGX? The J41 didn't get my sale, and like Gabriel said, the 777 and subsequent releases won't get my money either if they're VC only products. Its very clear I'm not alone out there. Quite honestly, I don't even have a remote interest in the 777, but in support of EV and the guaranteed technical accuracy, I would get it to toy around with if it did have a 2D panel. Look at the iFly release for FS9 - PMDG said FS9 was obsolete and that no one was using it. Well the iFly sold, and continues to sell off the walls for FS9 because the base FS platform just works. Users continue to use it for that reason, and it doesn't look half bad with the very complete list of free and payware addons available. Just because FSX is newer doesn't make it automatically better. From a technical and visual perspective, the iFly is a pretty crude package, but it is the most complete and up-to-date 737NG for FS9, and therefore sells. I'm positive the same logic applies to 2D panels. I think whatever market research they've drummed up saying otherwise is seriously flawed or fabricated, and by alienating users from either side of the visual interface fence, their sales numbers will be affected. Remember, this hobby is shrinking at an alarming rate, it's maybe a third the size it was 5 or 10 years ago. We don't know what Microsoft Flight has in store, but chances are it will be dumbed down to appeal to Live/XBox audiences and therefore not be of any real value to the general and hard-core simmer community. Interest on the whole is dwindling, and in 2011, who's rushing out to buy a 5 year old copy of flawed FSX? Why push away any of the users who are left? It's simply silly logic. We can't tell them how to run their business anymore than they can dictate what form of panel or VC interface we use to fly. All we can do is voice our concerns and hope they see the light. Again, alienating either side limits your sales ability - and if you push either customer base away in a dwindling market, what are you going to have left? Sure, catering to both sides is time consuming, but after a 3 year development, what's another few months if you'll reach that many more customers? Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

[Kosta 122]

Count me in to this bunch. No 2D is really poor. You MUST give it as an option. If nothing else, performance. On the other side, I must admit, I created myself EZCA profiles to point to corresponding parts in the cockpit using simple numbers on the keyboard. It's way better and faster considering also that I have some movement to simulate sitting in the aircraft. On the takeoff I'm really quick about anything in the cockpit, and I find myself in 2D basically only if performance suffers, which it does even with machine... Heathrow and Gatwick going around 20fps is no fun, thus switch or outside.

[Jannier 14]

Cancel that idea. Just tested this on a friends machine and opening a 'new view' locks up the MCP and the only way to get it back is to close the view and refresh the plane.

And I received a crash of FSX due to uiautomation.dll or something like that!