2D vs 3D cockpit?

[CaptainLychock 19]

2D is a great way to fly, cause you always have everything there in front of you when you need it (rather than having to pan to see things(I use Tracker IR)) But 3D is also nice cause its a different experience. Im more of a 2D guy

[mikkel 9]

If you re-read my post you will see I already noted the point about leaning back and inwards while looking at the overhead. Unfortunately FSX eyepoint slewing does not do this. Part of the problem is also the way zoom works. It moves the eyepoint too. If zoomed to a natural perspective the eyepoint seems too close to the panels. If you zoom out you notice the eyepoint moves back.

This is wrong. FSX nor any 3d-rendering/realtime engine I've heard of works this way. The eyepoint - when FOV (field of view) is changed - does not change. When you move and rotate the virtual camera along the different axis (X,Y and Z) in the VC, there are no distortion done. A real camera at the same position in the real cockpit would produce the same perspectives, using a lens reflecting the FOV in the FSX VC (I take it for granted that the PMDG 737 cockpit is accurate). Of course, human vision can sense about 180 degrees FOV, so using a zoom setting reproducing such a FOV will make a wide-angle distortion in the VC, comparable to an extreme wide-angel lens. But _even_ using a 2D panel does not make your FSX view and monitor into an 180 degree panorama on your desktop, unless you run multiple monitors. Anyways, using a zoom factor between 0.7 - 0.8 produce a more than satisfying FOV and panel overview on my 27" screen.

[kevinh 409]

This is wrong. FSX nor any 3d-rendering/realtime engine I've heard of works this way. The eyepoint - when FOV (field of view) is changed - does not change. When you move and rotate the virtual camera along the different axis (X,Y and Z) in the VC, there are no distortion done. A real camera at the same position in the real cockpit would produce the same perspectives, using a lens reflecting the FOV in the FSX VC (I take it for granted that the PMDG 737 cockpit is accurate). Of course, human vision can sense about 180 degrees FOV, so using a zoom setting reproducing such a FOV will make a wide-angle distortion in the VC, comparable to an extreme wide-angel lens. But _even_ using a 2D panel does not make your FSX view and monitor into an 180 degree panorama on your desktop, unless you run multiple monitors. Anyways, using a zoom factor between 0.7 - 0.8 produce a more than satisfying FOV and panel overview on my 27" screen.

I'm not suggesting distortion is going on as such, but if the VC eyepoint is not correctly placed and does not move in a natural way (as a human eye would) when the head is rotated or elevated, then panel views will not be correctly presented. The VC in the NGX is very good, but I still think the eyepoint is a little too far forward, leading to the overhead appearing at the wrong angle. Nor have I claimed 2D panels allow a more human FOV, so I don't know why you are arguing as if I did. What 2D does is allow complex control manipulations to be done quickly without taking attention from the outside view. In the real flight deck I can reach almost instinctively for the right knob or pushbutton. In the VC I need to look for it. As for your 27" screen, well lucky you, mine is a mere 19". Maybe size helps, but once again it means people have to invest in extra hardware or software to make the VC work as well as a 2D presentation. What it comes down to is this. A well made VC with some extra eyepoint controls may well be the most realistic visual presentation, but it is not as easy to use as a 2D set up. Flying from a PC screen is already harder than flying in a real flightdeck, there's no need to add to the difficulty. Maybe a VC with a selection of 2D pop-up panels is the best compromise. I just think that VC only is too limiting. Kevin Hall

[Paul_Smith 92]

I'm not suggesting distortion is going on as such, but if the VC eyepoint is not correctly placed and does not move in a natural way (as a human eye would) when the head is rotated or elevated, then panel views will not be correctly presented. The VC in the NGX is very good, but I still think the eyepoint is a little too far forward, leading to the overhead appearing at the wrong angle. Nor have I claimed 2D panels allow a more human FOV, so I don't know why you are arguing as if I did. What 2D does is allow complex control manipulations to be done quickly without taking attention from the outside view. In the real flight deck I can reach almost instinctively for the right knob or pushbutton. In the VC I need to look for it. As for your 27" screen, well lucky you, mine is a mere 19". Maybe size helps, but once again it means people have to invest in extra hardware or software to make the VC work as well as a 2D presentation. What it comes down to is this. A well made VC with some extra eyepoint controls may well be the most realistic visual presentation, but it is not as easy to use as a 2D set up. Flying from a PC screen is already harder than flying in a real flightdeck, there's no need to add to the difficulty. Maybe a VC with a selection of 2D pop-up panels is the best compromise. I just think that VC only is too limiting. Kevin Hall

I don't want to continue the bickering that got the other thread closed, but you did explicitly mention distortion in the VC on that thread. And it is also the pilots responsibility to follow the stipulated procedures to ensure that their eyepoint is in exactly the correct position. In the sim, this is simply done using standard FSX commands and only takes a moment or two as part of your pre-flight checklist. (See manual FCOMv1 NP.21.28 Captains Preflight Checklist and FCOMv2 1.40.44 Pilot Seat Adjustment) I don't think mikkel (signatures please mikkel) suggested you said the 2D was closer to human FOV, but you have repeatedly suggested that the VC is less accurate. As for the monitor, I upgraded to a 23" widescreen for just over €100 and it is an upgrade I would recommend very highly to anyone using a PC. I still have my old PC with a 17" I used to be very proud of. Even using it for docs or nav data is a pain now.

[kevinh 409]

I don't want to continue the bickering that got the other thread closed, but you did explicitly mention distortion in the VC on that thread. And it is also the pilots responsibility to follow the stipulated procedures to ensure that their eyepoint is in exactly the correct position. In the sim, this is simply done using standard FSX commands and only takes a moment or two as part of your pre-flight checklist. (See manual FCOMv1 NP.21.28 Captains Preflight Checklist and FCOMv2 1.40.44 Pilot Seat Adjustment) I don't think mikkel (signatures please mikkel) suggested you said the 2D was closer to human FOV, but you have repeatedly suggested that the VC is less accurate. As for the monitor, I upgraded to a 23" widescreen for just over €100 and it is an upgrade I would recommend very highly to anyone using a PC. I still have my old PC with a 17" I used to be very proud of. Even using it for docs or nav data is a pain now.

Paul, I don't want to bicker about anything. Distortion is not what I meant, so I apologise for inaccuracy. The VC's panels aren't distorted, they appear to be at the wrong angle relative to the eyepoint. This angle may even be visually correct, but the way you perceive the panel in real life is different, possibly because in real life your head is actually tilted back to see the overhead, but when at a PC screen it isn't. Regarding pre-flight alignment, surely the VC eyepoint should automatically be aligned in the right place every time? There is only one correct eyepoint, both in the aircraft and the sim. I'll read the manual as you suggest, but I thought it was fair to assume the eyepoint was preset correctly. We're going round in circles on this. I think the the 2D is more user friendly, VC fans think 2D is superfluous. I hope PMDG continue to provide some form of 2D panel in their high end products. Kevin Hall

[jncgn 0]

I always used 2D until i saw those Angle of Attack videos. It took me like 1 day to get used to 3D, and panning with space+mouse (+stepping through all the views with "A"). Just'cause I got a bit lazy and I like the looks of it, I got EZdok.2D panels just don't make sense to me(!) anymore, but I see that there are different opinions and I'm fine with that. I just find that it adds a lot more realism to it (except you have home cockpit). But just having 1 screen I wouldn't know why ever to use 2D again.Just my 2 cents.

[Paul_Smith 92]

I always used 2D until i saw those Angle of Attack videos. It took me like 1 day to get used to 3D, and panning with space+mouse (+stepping through all the views with "A"). Just'cause I got a bit lazy and I like the looks of it, I got EZdok.2D panels just don't make sense to me(!) anymore, but I see that there are different opinions and I'm fine with that. I just find that it adds a lot more realism to it (except you have home cockpit). But just having 1 screen I wouldn't know why ever to use 2D again.Just my 2 cents.

Welcome to the club. There is one very good reason to still use 2d which I am quite surprised has not been mentioned much. Some aircraft models have poor, aweful, or no VC's. To my taste, PMDG's 747x is about the lowest level of VC where is it still possible to actually fly the plane in all situations as opposed to sit and look around (and even then I will still use the 2D overhead on occaision).

[jncgn 0]

Welcome to the club. There is one very good reason to still use 2d which I am quite surprised has not been mentioned much. Some aircraft models have poor, aweful, or no VC's. To my taste, PMDG's 747x is about the lowest level of VC where is it still possible to actually fly the plane in all situations as opposed to sit and look around (and even then I will still use the 2D overhead on occaision).

I totally agree with that. In the meantime I ONLY use PMDG planes (I also have the Wilco Airbus which I haven't even installed on my new machine). To be honest, I didn't use the 747 much recenty since I really enjoyed the MD11 which has a great VC (the NGX is of course even better).

[carlan2uk 0]

I used to use a mix of both but since I got the MD11 it has been vc only.what helps me a good deal is the Saitek yoke and throttle. On the yoke I have the left up/down toggle tomove my eyepoint up/down/The right left/right toggle moves my eyepoint l/r.On the throttle I have another toggle switch which I use (rarely to move my eyepoint in/out.This means that when I am in the normal captains position and I want to (say) put on the seat belts sign,I just pan upwards and then slide to the right with my right thumb, use the mouse for the swtichesin the normal way then slide back and down. Apart from the mouse swtich my hands don't leave the yoke.I also by the way have the other two toggle switches on the throttle to adjust the heading and altitude.It is all very easy and quick to learn and after a while , I move to wherever I wish to work without thinking!Just my thoughts on the subject.David