One of the 777 captains told me that his son was about to get type rated on the 777 ...They spread the panels on the screens, the father (777 captain) sat there with him explaining all the flows and procedures.

Ah!

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

So it should really state 'One of my pilot friends and his son prefer 2D panels, because they want to train'? Thanks,

Ah! So it should really state 'One of my pilot friends and his son prefer 2D panels, because they want to train'? Thanks,

Not really. For real world training, unless you have a full cockpit simulator, 2d is used both in synthetic instrument training and procedure training. Some people like that. They don't want to "feel" like pilots, as they already are pilots. They want a good training solution. And they want it to look as close as possible as the 100.000€ piece of software they bought in their TRTO. But please, I'm not trying to be controversial here. Just explaining why some prefer 2d, so that others could at least understand.

But please, I'm not trying to be controversial here. Just explaining why some prefer 2d, so that others could at least understand.

I understand that Flexman (would be nice with a name and it is mandatory) but general statements as 'real world type rated pilots tend to prefer 2d panels' without backing it up with facts and evidence is not right. Don't get me wrong. I used to be a die-hard 2D guy until the JS4100 (Ask PMDG... They heard that alright). Now with the advance in optimization and TrackIR I couldn't dream of leaving the VC. Just don't twist the truth... :) Cheers,

I understand that Flexman (would be nice with a name and it is mandatory) but general statements as 'real world type rated pilots tend to prefer 2d panels' without backing it up with facts and evidence is not right. Don't get me wrong. I used to be a die-hard 2D guy until the JS4100 (Ask PMDG... They heard that alright). Now with the advance in optimization and TrackIR I couldn't dream of leaving the VC.Just don't twist the truth... :) Cheers,

Yes, and that is because as simmers we use our sims differently. I mean, we load passengers, we wait at the gate, then we do full on long flights. Most of the times a real world pilot uses flight simulator as a training aid, they do it to practice a particular approach or procedure over and over again. They want it to be there, ready to train and don't really need immesion because, for that, they have a far bigger sim at their training organizations. I'm just trying to give reasons why 2d panels are useful even in this day an age when our computers can pull off 3d panels decently. About the real name. I think i've already used up my name change. Whenever i can change it again, i'll happily use my real name. Sorry about that. My name is Omar Josef by the way. I don't fly anymore, Im a photo retoucher at a production studio... not trying to hide :)

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

Just buy some of Fred's nice cockpits and you do not need 3d cockpit as well... Lj. Prodanovic

Just buy some of Fred's nice cockpits and you do not need 3d cockpit as well... Lj. Prodanovic

That would be the solution to most of our performance problems. And a problem for all of our financial solutions.

Its not whining, its being disappointed over an incomplete plane. Assigning the start levers to a button doesnt really solve it. For example, how do you set the trim for takeoff? How would you feel about it if PMDG had decided that they couldnt get the animation for the throttle quadrant right in the VC so they decided not to model the throttle at all and just refered you to the 2d panel instead?

It's not incomplete, If you have to use the 2D panel, and if you don't you'll die, then just give the NGX to your brother or something.

That would be the solution to most of our performance problems. And a problem for all of our financial solutions.

Yea, I know. My point is that is not very nice to suggest someone to spend more money just to solve simple problem. Sometimes its necessary (for example when guy with pentium 2 want to use FSX), but usually, there are much simpler and chaeper solutions.

It's not incomplete, If you have to use the 2D panel, and if you don't you'll die, then just give the NGX to your brother or something.

2D panel is incomplete and that is the fact.

wonder how long this going to go for back and forward

for all those people who want a 2d of the throttle quadrant why dont u get the other 737 since its got a 2 d throttle quadrant

That's a very typical response in forums and is hardly ever the solution. If they want it they want it. They bought a sim, they have a way of flying that corresponds to how you CAN fly with flight simulator. All you can do is try to understand why they miss it and empathise. Imagine some other thing that you are used to wasn't there. Woulnd't you hate to be given that answer "you don't like pmdg? Go buy a bike..." Disclaimer (ill write this on all my posts in this thread): I don't prefer any of the 2. I really don't care but I understand those who prefer one or the other, and so should everybody.

yea i dont care either way 2d or 3d but as i said in the second post of this thread that this should be locked b4 it goes more south there are no winners here and never will be except for pmdg of course

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

+1 ( I was going to add something else, but really, Flexman has said it all ) Geoff

Yea, I know. My point is that is not very nice to suggest someone to spend more money just to solve simple problem. Sometimes its necessary (for example when guy with pentium 2 want to use FSX), but usually, there are much simpler and chaeper solutions. 2D panel is incomplete and that is the fact.

Yes but you don't get the point about what PMDG has elected to provide as part of the NGX package. My Word Processor software doesn't do voice recognition...is it incomplete? No...it is what it is. Andrew Vincent

Yes but you don't get the point about what PMDG has elected to provide as part of the NGX package. My Word Processor software doesn't do voice recognition...is it incomplete? No...it is what it is. Andrew Vincent

Fair enough. But if all previous versions, and i mean all, had had voice recognition, wouldn't you miss it if it had become the way you work with it? The most reasonbable reply to this post would be: I fly with 3d and I'd understand why you prefer 2d. Good luck in getting a 2d panel. End of thread. So please, whenever someone asks for something that isn't part of the way you use the sim, and you don't care, don't tell them to buy another sim. Disclaimer (ill write this on all my posts in this thread): I don't prefer any of the 2. I really don't care but I understand those who prefer one or the other, and so should everybody.

Yea, I know. My point is that is not very nice to suggest someone to spend more money just to solve simple problem. Sometimes its necessary (for example when guy with pentium 2 want to use FSX), but usually, there are much simpler and chaeper solutions. 2D panel is incomplete and that is the fact.

You're real stubborn, but it is expected from us teenagers, if you want a 'complete' (And it doesn't get more complete than NGX's) go make one yourself, PMDG has more important things to look at.