I must be thick. Why do you need one. Position a camera directly above the pedestal and voila - a 2D panel !!!

Yes, there is a center pedestal view, but that's not the point, the point is that if you do that you have to go into the 3d panel to do that, and it doesn't matter where you position the camera, the computer is going to render the WHOLE 3D cockpit, and that causes freezes and really poor FPS, and once even a CTD. It's just really annoying that I have to keep on encountering that, and it's a jolt back to the fact that this is a sim. The immersion goes because of that 5-7 second loading time it takes for the VC. A 2D panel would fix that.

The weekend is here !! They have been let out for the weekend again.As long as they take their meds it will be alright. Why psychiatrists recommend flight simming I will never understand.

What a pathetic post by a pathetic person. (Rightly) Criticizing PMDG makes these ###### come out and show their true colors, eh? Well get over it, I think that PMDG went wrong with this one, and a 2D panel for at least the fuel levers (ok, fine, no throttle quadrant) would be fine.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTSMinimum OS: Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7 (latest service packs), Flight Simulator X with SP2 or Acceleration installed.Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD equivalentRAM: 2GB if only running the NGX, 4GB if running other addons (scenery, traffic etc)Video Card: DirectX 9 compatible with 512MB of video memory (examples: Nvidia 8800GT, AMD/ATI Radeon 4870) Best Performance OS: Windows 7 64-bitProcessor: Intel Core i5 or i7 (Sandy Bridge core) or betterRAM: 4GB+Video Card: Nvidia GTX560 Ti, 570 or 580 with 1GB+ of video memory or betterMonitor: Widescreen 1920x1080+ PMDG *highly* recommends the use of 64-bit versions of Windows due to memory limitations in FSX.

Another useless post. My computers meet the requirements. It's a fact that even higher end machines struggle with the NGX sometimes.

Nowhere on the product page does it state that the airplane has complete 2d panels.

Uhh yeah, so? I have NEVER seen a FS company state that there is 'full 2d panel'. When someone says a 2D panel is included (And yes, PMDG has said that), it is assumed that the WHOLE 2D panel is covered UNLESS SAID OTHERWISE. There are exceptions, like the Aerosoft Airbus X, but IIRC they actually mention that there's no real 2D panel. The fact is that there should be at the very least a 2d panel for the fuel levers. Karan.

Set up all of your views in the 3D cockpit - I find it hard to differentiate between 2D and 3D with this bird as it is so good. If you can't bear to lose a few FPS then you know the solution... Andrew Vincent

Set up all of your views in the 3D cockpit - I find it hard to differentiate between 2D and 3D with this bird as it is so good. If you can't bear to lose a few FPS then you know the solution... Andrew Vincent

Nope, I will not pay for a new rig for this, especially on something that should have been there from the beginning

Yes, there is a center pedestal view, but that's not the point, the point is that if you do that you have to go into the 3d panel to do that, and it doesn't matter where you position the camera, the computer is going to render the WHOLE 3D cockpit, and that causes freezes and really poor FPS, and once even a CTD. It's just really annoying that I have to keep on encountering that, and it's a jolt back to the fact that this is a sim. The immersion goes because of that 5-7 second loading time it takes for the VC. A 2D panel would fix that. What a pathetic post by a pathetic person. (Rightly) Criticizing PMDG makes these ###### come out and show their true colors, eh? Well get over it, I think that PMDG went wrong with this one, and a 2D panel for at least the fuel levers (ok, fine, no throttle quadrant) would be fine. Another useless post. My computers meet the requirements. It's a fact that even higher end machines struggle with the NGX sometimes. Uhh yeah, so? I have NEVER seen a FS company state that there is 'full 2d panel'. When someone says a 2D panel is included (And yes, PMDG has said that), it is assumed that the WHOLE 2D panel is covered UNLESS SAID OTHERWISE. There are exceptions, like the Aerosoft Airbus X, but IIRC they actually mention that there's no real 2D panel. The fact is that there should be at the very least a 2d panel for the fuel levers. Karan.

lol just love it when they come out of the wood work oh well the weekend is nearly finished time to go back and see who else is complaining

Nope, I will not pay for a new rig for this, especially on something that should have been there from the beginning

Well is that so? Hey don't hold your breath for a 2D pedestal panel for too long...almost as dangerous as flying. Andrew Vincent

I think this thread is about the question "why has the 2D throttle quadrant been left out?" and "will it come back?" The answers that have been given in all the posts have not been satisfied. If it is this disscusion will stop.

just use EZDOK (and TrackIR5) and you don't need a 2panel view anymore ;-)

If you post garbage/useless topics, expect to receive garbage/useless answers. This post is simply a rant, workarounds by the helpful people on this forum have been provided in previous posts (as well as this one).

give it a week and another thread wil start wheres the throttle quad

Yep, you are right. A lot of garbage, but also a lot of good workarounds. Stil not the answer if it will come back. Only a none satisfying answer: It was to difficult too build in a too short time...

QUESTION ? HOW MANY psychiatrists does it take to change a panel, only one but it has got to really really wan,t to change..2D OR NOT 2D.... THIS IS JAMES, NEWS AT TEN SOME WHERE OVER LONDON...

I used to be a 2d flyer and now I stay in the 3d cockpit most of the time. Having said that, there are some panels that i just like to have a 2d version of. Mainly the mcp, the cdu and PFD and ND. Even in 3d view, there are flows i like to do on a 2d version. I guess this is because there are certified procedure trainers based on 2d panels that used to be as realistic as what we have now, only 20 years ago. These "pro" sims were part of airlines CBT (computer based training). So the idea of having 2d panels spread over a couple monitors, giving no importance to the external view, had always been appealing to me as a child wanting to train as a pilot. 2d flyers want simulators to be as close as possible as real world desktop procedure training solutions like they use in FTOs and airlines with moving maps and failure management for the instructor.3d flyers want simulators feel as close as possible as sitting in the real airplane. There's nothing wrong with any of them. Everybody is free to use the sim as they like. Real world type rated pilots tend to prefer 2d panels, because they want to train.

Real world type rated pilots tend to prefer 2d panels, because they want to train.

Source? Cheers,

Source? Cheers,

Yes...source?

Source? Cheers,

I was a flight attendand in Emirates Airlines while i was doing my pilot training. I had always been an airplane nerd and, on the long flights, i would go with my laptop to the cockpit and show the pilots what little treasure i had. Most of them's jaws would drop with PSS 777. There were some pilots that, after the flight, came to my hotel room to check it out properly. This happened more than 10 times. A few of those pilots were also TRIs at the company and were interested in training solutions. They had all they needed in the company's training center, but i guess sometimes they needed something simpler to explain something to someone. One of the 777 captains told me that his son was about to get type rated on the 777 and that he needed something to train at home, so i offered my self to set up a rig for him to practice. He bought many monitors and didnt care about the game factor or the immersion factor. They spread the panels on the screens, the father (777 captain) sat there with him explaining all the flows and procedures. It was magic, cause for the first time i saw a real 777 instructor teaching things that, more or less, i already knew, and that feels amazing... but yeah, for training they prefer 2d panels that they can look at all the time. Some real computer based training devices have the same looks as the diagrams you find in the manuals. I have a real a320 FMGS trainer (used during type rating)... it's so 2d that it's almost 1d ;) Again, i don't care what i fly with. I like both ways. But, just understand that when someone uses 2d only, he's more of a flight training purist, than a flight simulation heretic.