Maybe PMDG could forego their high standards and produce a 2D throttle panel with limited or no animation.

And you can guess what storm is on the horizon if they go ahead and do that. This 2D vs. 3D battle is a dead end argument, stalemate, every time.More and more developers of game like software simulations are heading away from the 2D environment, favouring new technologies which allow real 3D projection. I would love to run the NGX on a 30" monitor, but it still looks great in my 20". I use the VC for all ops, including preflight, as the presets give me all the views I need. I can understand the ill-feeling of those missing certain 2D panel functionality, really. Particularly for those who have invested a tidy sum in monitors and peripheral hardware. I do not believe that any where near 30% of purchasers need the 2D panels. It may be 30% of avsim forum posters, but how many hundreds or thousands of PMDG customers have never even visited the avsim forum?Those wanting the additional panels will need to submit a support ticket. If there are enough of you, perhaps they could add it as part of SP2...Andrew

Mate grow up..99.9% of your posts are garbage, nothing to do with the thread, in any way, shape or form...all you do is come into threads and leave pathetic, childish, immature comments that, sorry to tell you, are not funny.Posting to try and stir things up as usual.Your boring now.

Use "the force" Luke, sorry I mean use the "Ignore User" facility Luke, its really wonderful for clearing out moronic posters from threads.

Use "the force" Luke, sorry I mean use the "Ignore User" facility Luke, its really wonderful for clearing out moronic posters from threads.

I love the absurd points here in this thread that any number of posts are "trash" and "worthless" along with "unproductive."How about this:The search function could have answered this question about 20+ other times, and you may have even come across a thread back around the MD-11 days that mentioned that the days of FS9 are numbered, along with the era of the 2D panel. The devs themselves posted those, and mentioned the days where hardware couldn't handle the 3D are primarily gone.So, instead of coming here and getting irritated and claiming peoples' posts are worthless, how about a little look back at yourselves for adding more "worthless" discussion of this topic that's been beaten to death? You all are claiming these "worthless" posts are a waste of your time, whereas we could equally claim your lack of initiative to use the search feature is a waste of ours.For what it's worth, I don't recall any pictures of 2D panels in the pictures of the product before SP1 on the site. I do recall it being public knowledge here that the 2D panels would be limited in nature (similar to that of the J41). So the assertion that it's an incomplete product without them is blatantly false. That's like me walking into a car dealer having bought a car and yelling at them for producing said car without 4WD because I need it / want it, even though it was public knowledge it only had 2WD."Complete" isn't based on your definition of it. "Complete" is based on their billing of the product. Nowhere in the build up did they ever say they had intended on providing an entire 2D panel set - quite the contrary, actually. So, based on their billing of the product (one that would come with limited 2D pop-ups), it's complete. Your failure to see that is a fault of your own, and yours only.Furthermore, if you're running it on an older system (or one right at the mins) and complaining the VC is a frame hog, you have no grounds to speak, really. I'm not going to run up to Microsoft and whine to them about Server 2008 running slowly on your VMs here at work. Why? The computers running them are right at the mins. Minimums means it'll work. It doesn't mean it'll work well.Now, it's public knowledge PMDG indicated a nice trail off of the 2D panels, quite some time ago. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Can we stop beating the dead horse? I'm pretty sure it's a pulp by now....or should we work ourselves up into more of a drivel and start discussing the viability of producing more for FS9, FS2002, and on back, because those are lighter on our processors?

If it was my company, I would just give the 2D Throttle panel complainers a refund, then ban them from my forums for life. Would also put them on a No Sale Blacklist for any future products. Yeah I know its an extreme solution but it's simple and to the point. Some people just can't accept the word NO or understand what it means.

You know... I don't like to take part on this kind of battle, but I felt had to. Have you ever thought of how many topics about 2D vs. VC will be created when PMDG releases their next product with no 2D panels? Everybody here (or most of us) know what PMDG thinks about 2D panels and that future releases will not contain many of them, just a small set of pop-up panels for the CDU and other little things. Some guys here will go crazy! That'll be funny to watch. Anyway, in some post I cared to read, I found some comments that I'd like to point out that really made me laugh. Like:

It would pay dividends to 2D users.

Unless I get a good explanation as to why PMDG intentionally left it out and refuses to consider it in future updates I will be adding this fact to my description of virtual pilots interested in the product and I will be labeling it as LAZY PROGRAMMING!

Its not whining, its being disappointed over an incomplete plane.

You're f***ing kiddin' me, aren't you??? C'mon, people! Dividends to 2D users? What's that supposed to mean? The other guy asking for "good explanations" as to why PMDG left the 2D throttle panel out? First of all, they've given explanations hundreds of times about this and second, who are you to demand something from them? They owe you nothing! If you really care about 2D panels, you could have just not bought the plane at all. You could have bought the other 737. I bet they have a full set of 2D panels, don't they? "Lazy programming" and "incomplete plane"??? Those made me laugh very hard. One of the most advanced simulations for Flight Sim ever released and they tag it as incomplete and bad programmed because of a single 2D panel missing. From the bottom of my heart, you made my day, kids.Let me tell you something: If you can't live without a full set of 2D panels, don't even consider thinking about the possibility of buying future PMDG developments. You'll have an awful surprise

.... I bet they have a full set of 2D panels, don't they? "Lazy programming" and "incomplete plane"??? Those made me laugh very hard. One of the most advanced simulations for Flight Sim ever released and they tag it as incomplete and bad programmed because of a single 2D panel missing. From the bottom of my heart, you made my day, kids...

Dont belittle me for having an opinion, dont call me a kid mr 1995. Its fairly obvious who is the kid here I would think.

This thread sucks.

Regardless of the new topic, PMDG is not going to be making a 2D panel for the ctr ped...

Regardless of the new topic, PMDG is not going to be making a 2D panel for the ctr ped...

Where have you been, btw? I haven't seen you around the skies in a while.

Dont belittle me for having an opinion, dont call me a kid mr 1995. Its fairly obvious who is the kid here I would think.

Yeah. It's crystal clear.

Let's take this in a different direction. Before we do that, it's interesting that the pro VC posters here don't think it's a big deal that a 2D panel is missing that's required to start the engines and instead proceed to tell the 2D guys to get over it. The pro 2D guys meanwhile show no ill will towards the pro VC guys, at least I don't. FS has the capacity to do both panels, why not do both to completion instead of one complete and the other missing this little used but very important panel? That panel is needed for the fuel cutoff switches. Having to change to VC soley to actuate the fuel cutoff switches isn't acceptable. Sure we've got keyboard commands and I've got my CH throttle quad switches programmed to cover this function which somewhat deadens the issue but this is an issue of principle for me personally, it's bigger than just a missing 2D panel.I digress. So last night I sat down determined to get to know this VC panel with an intent to like it. I saw this industry shift coming long before any of you posted above and long before the NGX was released. I don't get it. The VC is horrible in terms of functionality. It's so bad that I figure I'm doing something wrong because so many others love the VC. My serious question to the VC guys is how do you do it? I'm not asking to start any arguments, I'm asking to learn to like the VC. The following questions and statements of my own observations also has the same intent to learn and point out the current frustrations I have with VC. My first observation is that the eyepoint is far too high and forward to make the overhead panel useable. What are the tricks you are using to make this workable? Are you moving the eyepoint aft and down so you can see what the switches on the other side of the overhead are? I know one technique is to use the bookmark/shortcut, whatever they call them, of a head on view of the overhead or other panel. But this is essentially giving you a 2D panel making this whole argument like that of a politician. I played with a couple of methods such as opening the overhead in 2D, moving it to my second monitor, then going back to VC but it creates a bad experience on the overhead in that when I right click a switch it first opens the popup menu and a second right click actuates the switch. VC works great for taxiing, that feels good and realistic. I just don't see how to make it functional in terms of interaction with systems, hopefully someone can enlighten me. At the end of the day functionality must rule to have a good experience.

So last night I sat down determined to get to know this VC panel with an intent to like it. I saw this industry shift coming long before any of you posted above and long before the NGX was released. I don't get it. The VC is horrible in terms of functionality. It's so bad that I figure I'm doing something wrong because so many others love the VC. My serious question to the VC guys is how do you do it? I'm not asking to start any arguments, I'm asking to learn to like the VC. The following questions and statements of my own observations also has the same intent to learn and point out the current frustrations I have with VC. My first observation is that the eyepoint is far too high and forward to make the overhead panel useable. What are the tricks you are using to make this workable? Are you moving the eyepoint aft and down so you can see what the switches on the other side of the overhead are? I know one technique is to use the bookmark/shortcut, whatever they call them, of a head on view of the overhead or other panel. But this is essentially giving you a 2D panel making this whole argument like that of a politician. I played with a couple of methods such as opening the overhead in 2D, moving it to my second monitor, then going back to VC but it creates a bad experience on the overhead in that when I right click a switch it first opens the popup menu and a second right click actuates the switch. VC works great for taxiing, that feels good and realistic. I just don't see how to make it functional in terms of interaction with systems, hopefully someone can enlighten me. At the end of the day functionality must rule to have a good experience.

TrackIR or EZCA or both. EZCA goves you all the custom views you need plus easy eye movement. TiR lets you pan around more quickly & naturally, but the tradeoff is you may need to pause TiR to hit little buttons/switches and if your sim isn't pretty smooth you're gonna get headaches. Any stuttering & you can pretty much toss TiR out the window.That said, I use TiR & love it. I tried EZCA but haven't reinstalled it. Nothing wrong with it, I just haven't bothered to put it back on the PC.

For such a hyped product as being 'the most complete and best simulation ever', the NGX sure has its shortcomings.

Sounds like your PC has the real shortcomings from your description, not PMDG just because they "shorted" you your 2D center pedestal. By witch you then have to switch to the VC; witch from my own estimation I'd guess at least 90% of community uses VC/3D cockpit.10 second freezing/loading, lag, and low FPS were all programmed in my PMDG so it must be their fault and not your "average PC". I have seen people run NGX on modest hardware (C2Q etc) and they have not the problems you report and at most just avoid heavy scenery. Maybe you just need a good fresh reformat, or practice better HDD health if it takes your PC ten second to load the VC.Oh and full names required here on PMDG forum, hate to be that person who drops that bomb but if I was admin I long had dropped that one on this thread to rid you of your complaint post over a 2D panel.

TrackIR or EZCA or both. EZCA goves you all the custom views you need plus easy eye movement. TiR lets you pan around more quickly & naturally, but the tradeoff is you may need to pause TiR to hit little buttons/switches and if your sim isn't pretty smooth you're gonna get headaches. Any stuttering & you can pretty much toss TiR out the window.That said, I use TiR & love it. I tried EZCA but haven't reinstalled it. Nothing wrong with it, I just haven't bothered to put it back on the PC.

I appreciate your respectful response. I am watching videos on both options to begin my research. I'm not all that thrilled about having to invest more money but if that's what it takes I might have to bite the bullet. The internet connection where I am at right now is pretty bad so videos are a bear to attempt to watch. I made it through most of a video using EZCA. To me it seems like what I mentioned before that root action is taking the VC and positioning the camera to view a panel from a 2D perspective. If this is the best we can do, why aren't we keeping the full compliment of 2D panels? Now I'm looking at videos with TrackIR which look a little more promising. I'll have to wait to get home to hit the research hard. Thanks for the tips.