I reckon most real airline pilots would prefer 2d panels.

Why?I'm not an airliner pilot, but I find that using the VC with a camera system like EZzok with or without a head tracking device it's very easy to fly using a VC. I never understand why some think that a 3D is so much easier, if you get a good eyepoint set up in a VC it's almost like looking at a 2D but a littler better in my opinion. Plus when your flying an approach its not like you need to press a lot of buttons anyways, get most of the buttons/switches needed set up thru your joystick or yoke and it almost completely takes away from clicking anything. Not only that but I think its a lot nicee to look around in the VC than had a 2D panel stuck in your face the whole time.Just my opinion, but after flying 2D panels back in FS9 out of necessity since my rig at the time couldn't handle VC's, flying VC's now seems so much nicer. I loaded the NGX 2D's the other day just to see how they were, granted they looked nice, and I tried a few T&G's with it but really couldn't stand the limited view and static feeling.Sean Campbell

I love the VC view, but for inputs the 2d can't be beat. VC for flying 2d buttons for input imo. Tim Neelan

That's quite the statement. First, the 2D, by its inherent nature is in and of itself a distortion. You cannot take a 3D object and make it 2D without that distortion. Take a look at the 2D for the NGX, and you'll see a vertical center pylon. From the perspective of the pilots' seats, it's not going to be vertical. In this case, concessions were made, and distortions accepted. In the case of the 3D VC, your zoom level greatly affects the distortion as it fisheyes at various zoom levels. Zoomed at a natural level, there is little to no distortion, but you need to pan, just as you need to move your head in real life. As far as the overhead looks, your assertion is wrong as well. On the real flight deck of the NGX (among others), you'll need to lean over slightly, and lean back to get a full view of the panel (imagine the overhead view, zoomed out slightly, with a slight left slant, if you're sitting left seat). If I sit straight up as if I'm looking straight ahead and turn my head, I'm going to have an awkward view of the overhead. Really, your issue is the eyepoint, not the VC.

Most aircraft panels are essentially two dimensional, and so a 2D presentation on a PC monitor is the best and least distorting way. 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. I've sat in flightdecks and operated panels for many years and so I know how it should look from the pilot's seat. The FSX VC "out of the box" does not represent it properly. If the eyepoint automatically moved naturally as it was rotated sideways and vertically then it might improve things greatly. I'd hate to be in a position where addon developers all went 3D only therefore forcing people to invest in head tracking to get an accurate view. Perhaps someone will write an application to automatically move the eyepoint as it rotates, that might be a perfect solution. PMDG have already gone a step towards "3D only" because the NGX has no throttle pedestal in 2D. An engine start is only possible in 3D. Flap setting and speedbrake operation is only possible in the VC (apart from using the keyboard). Kevin Hall

You might have already tried something like this in the past, but assuming you aren't already using your middle mouse button for something, try X-Mouse. Create an FSX profile, assign the middle mouse button as enter, then change the mouse look control inside FSX to the enter key. Now you can press your middle mouse button instead of having to sit there and use spacebar. http://www.highrez.c...ttonControl.htm

I've used the mousewheel click to slew before (the original Wilco A320 PIC was VC only and used this key assignment IIRC). It improves things but you still have to pan, zoom in the operate the control. Then pan and zoom out to fly or operate another control. 2D popup panels may be visually obtrusive but they offer a quick method to operate a number of controls on several panels in quick succession, as it would be possible in reality. My main issue with the VC is the unrealistic perspective, especially the overhead panel. Also in the NGX some overhead controls are not visible from the Captain's seat (flight controls switches and yaw damper for example). Others take a while to correctly identify because the panel legends cannot be seen. 2D and 3D proponents will never agree, but it's a matter of personal choice and IMO both should be offered so the user can choose which is best for the situation. Kevin Hall

2D for me, no doubt.

3d panels all the way.

Kevin, As a pro-2D guy, I agree with everything you say. I must say though that I've used virtual cockpits very little. The VC doesn't really give me whole 'being there' any more than the 2D does. But having said that, with PMDG probably now going to be doing VC only aircraft, I am teaching myself how to use the VC.

I used to be 2D only until I got TrackIR. And like someone else said, it depends on the add-on. But with the NGX and TrackIR, the amazing thing is if you pause TrackIR at any point in the field of view, it looks like a 2D panel. On approach, I'll look over the glareshield but keep the PFD/ND/Engine indications and most of the MCP in view and pause TrackIR...it amazes me how crisp the detail is and I think looks better than a good portion of the 2D's out there. That's a testament to how extremely well the textures and VC in general has been designed.Adam

I've sat in flightdecks and operated panels for many years and so I know how it should look from the pilot's seat.

Oddly enough, if I was going to say similar, I definitely wouldn't have put it like this. I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'. So what you're saying is, since the Cessna I often fly has a panel that is primarily only in two dimensions, the 2D cockpit is a more accurate representation here in the sim? Hardly. The 2D completely disregards perspective. Don't get me wrong, there are certain oddities of the sim that are definite faults in the 3D modeling, and certain 2D tricks help you to avoid them, but nothing is going to be more realistic than the 3D environment. No matter how hard you argue that point, disregarding an entire dimension is ignoring a fact of life. Try ignoring the 4th dimension here in the sim. Try it. It's called pause. Doesn't make for a very fun experience, does it? Not very realistic, either.

Oddly enough, if I was going to say similar, I definitely wouldn't have put it like this. I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'. So what you're saying is, since the Cessna I often fly has a panel that is primarily only in two dimensions, the 2D cockpit is a more accurate representation here in the sim? Hardly. The 2D completely disregards perspective. Don't get me wrong, there are certain oddities of the sim that are definite faults in the 3D modeling, and certain 2D tricks help you to avoid them, but nothing is going to be more realistic than the 3D environment. No matter how hard you argue that point, disregarding an entire dimension is ignoring a fact of life. Try ignoring the 4th dimension here in the sim. Try it. It's called pause. Doesn't make for a very fun experience, does it? Not very realistic, either.

Being patronising and sarcastic is not the best way to have a civil discussion. Aircraft panels are basically 2D. No distortion is involved in portraying them in 2D in a PC simulation. What you and your "more realistic 3D environment" totally ignore is that the overhead panel in the VC looks nothing like an overhead panel appears in real life. A 2D overhead is much more realistic. In my opinion of course, which is just as valid as your opinion. You would know what I mean if you were to sit in any airliner pilot's seat and look at the overhead. The "VC only" parts of the NGX are really limiting. Stand the throttles up and you can't see the TOGA button, let alone click it. And no handy little screw to click on on the MCP. So you have to select TOGA at idle, very unrealistic. With the HGS selected the pilot in the NGX VC can't operate the yaw damper switch or the flight controls switches. Kevin Hall

I'm 3D only myself, and with the NGX I have even stopped using the pop-up 2D panels on alternate monitors, but I will say, that I was taking some screenshots of the NGX 2D cockpit, and when I finished I forgot it was in 2D mode so it wouldn't pan around. I thought it was a bug at first til I realized, I had already gotten myself immersed in the 2D cockpit and didn't notice.

Being patronising and sarcastic is not the best way to have a civil discussion. Aircraft panels are basically 2D. No distortion is involved in portraying them in 2D in a PC simulation. What you and your "more realistic 3D environment" totally ignore is that the overhead panel in the VC looks nothing like an overhead panel appears in real life. A 2D overhead is much more realistic. In my opinion of course, which is just as valid as your opinion. You would know what I mean if you were to sit in any airliner pilot's seat and look at the overhead. The "VC only" parts of the NGX are really limiting. Stand the throttles up and you can't see the TOGA button, let alone click it. And no handy little screw to click on on the MCP. So you have to select TOGA at idle, very unrealistic. With the HGS selected the pilot in the NGX VC can't operate the yaw damper switch or the flight controls switches. Kevin Hall

First, the "screw shortcut" did get "removed" on the Collins, visually, but a quick browse through the tutorial would point to the fact that it's still there, immediately below the Speed wheel. The Honeywell still depicts a screw, which you can click on. Sarcasm is how I survive life. Without it, I'd be driven mad by some of what happens here on the forum (and in life in general). I understand it can undermine cvility, but it's being used here as a simple way of pointing out that willfully ignoring an entire dimension of space and calling that more 'realistic', when 'realism' is defined as accurately representing the real world (which has 3 physical dimensions), is bordering on absurdity. The PMDG 747 uses faux perspective on its overhead, mimicking 3D, to appear more realistic. The MD-11 does not, and in that manner, there's no way that it's how you'd see the panel sitting on the real deck. Based on where you put your head, the view (perspective) will change. 2D panels cannot compensate for that. The lack of the ability to move your head realistically in FSX currently (without add ons) is not reason to discount VCs as unrealistic, rather unmanageable depending on your personal tase. This is why they have eye point presets. It allows us 3D realism, while allowing ease of movement of the eye point without an external program. If you really want a more oblique, I'm-leaning-over-from-the-left-seat view, edit the eye point to show that. That increases realism and functionality of eye point presets. Your zoom point still mystifies me. You're mentioning your eye point moves, when it really doesn't. When looking through a telephoto (zoom) lens on a camera, I appear closer than I really am. If I zoom out, I appear farther away. In the end, I'm still standing in the same spot. Zooming out is simply making your current eye point more or less inclusive within the current environment.

First, the "screw shortcut" did get "removed" on the Collins, visually, but a quick browse through the tutorial would point to the fact that it's still there, immediately below the Speed wheel. The Honeywell still depicts a screw, which you can click on.

I took a comment in the manual about the scr w not being there and suggesting users click the TOGA buttons instead as meaning no MCP clickspot. Thank you for correcting me, I'll go look for it later.

Sarcasm is how I survive life. Without it, I'd be driven mad by some of what happens here on the forum (and in life in general). I understand it can undermine cvility, but it's being used here as a simple way of pointing out that willfully ignoring an entire dimension of space and calling that more 'realistic', when 'realism' is defined as accurately representing the real world (which has 3 physical dimensions), is bordering on absurdity. The PMDG 747 uses faux perspective on its overhead, mimicking 3D, to appear more realistic. The MD-11 does not, and in that manner, there's no way that it's how you'd see the panel sitting on the real deck. Based on where you put your head, the view (perspective) will change. 2D panels cannot compensate for that. The lack of the ability to move your head realistically in FSX currently (without add ons) is not reason to discount VCs as unrealistic, rather unmanageable depending on your personal tase. This is why they have eye point presets. It allows us 3D realism, while allowing ease of movement of the eye point without an external program. If you really want a more oblique, I'm-leaning-over-from-the-left-seat view, edit the eye point to show that. That increases realism and functionality of eye point presets.

I use sarcasm too, but I learned a long while ago it doesn't play well in forums, as people can take it far too literally. As for presets I'm well aware how they help but they are less user friendly than 2D popup panels (in my opinion that is).

Your zoom point still mystifies me. You're mentioning your eye point moves, when it really doesn't. When looking through a telephoto (zoom) lens on a camera, I appear closer than I really am. If I zoom out, I appear farther away. In the end, I'm still standing in the same spot. Zooming out is simply making your current eye point more or less inclusive within the current environment.

Try this experiment. Sit in the flightdeck and rotate the view 90deg down to the floor. You should be looking down at the seat as you'd expect. Reset the view forwards and zoom out wide. Rotate 90 deg down and you'll find the eyepoint is now further back in the cockpit. Zooming is affecting the eyepoint position. With the recommended by PMDG zoom setting of 0.6 if you pan right 90 deg to the overhead you are near the front edge of it. The aft overhead appears to be in the far distance. In the real aircraft your head would be about level with the rear of the forward overhead panel. This means the eyepoint is too far forward and much closer to the cockpit roof than it should be (as the roof slopes). If the eyepoint was further back (and therefore lower relative to the roof) the perspective of the panel in the VC would be much more acceptable. Kevin Hall

Can you really fly IFR in VC with NGX ?I mean, is the refresh rate of the gauges good enough to do that or you still have to fly in 2D cockpit to really fly let's say an ILS ? For me "really" means raw data = flight directors OFF

Most of my pre-flight and cruise is done in the 2D, taxi, takeoff and landing is done in the 3D. But even close to approach I will swtich to 2D to make final changes to the A/P or overhead etc.. I just find that changing a lot of switches radios etc.. is not easy nor comfortable on the eyes in the 3D. There are a few add ons out there that I wanted to buy very much but with no 2D main panel and overhead panel I just cant see myself enjoying it much for full real flights,Aerosoft twin otter, Capsiom 707, 727 and the PMDG JS41. I understand why PMDG did it, and unfortunately for me it looks like the Dash-8 will be VC only too, but the price was lower and it came out quicker. But for the price of the other three add ons I would expect a 2D panel. Well the otter isnt expensive but also it is a very simple plane to simulate.