Regarding Sevice Pack 1

[VARIG 0]

The engine start levers can be assigned to keyboard shortcuts in the mean time, as well as the parking brake (which already is: CRTL-.). The only thing that you can't do right now is set your trim for TO. Maybe a tooltip somewhere on the 2D panel would fix that.

Oh really? Just like the heading selector... you can assign "=" (equal sign) to increase and "-" (minus) to decrease. We all can do that, but that doesn't mean we'll ignore the 2D MCP...If you used to use 2D MCP and suddenly, start to use keyboard commands instead (EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC), you'd miss that panel too.

[crosswind 825]

Let's see...tentative release date for SP1 is "around sept, 23" and, on sept, 8, you say you can't guarantee it's going to be in it?Hmmmm, Rgds, Bruno

Really????? It is called prioritizing . While the requested 2D panel is in high demand by users, there are other pertinent issues that PMDG will address before looking at this. I don't think that Ryan could have been more lucid in his statement - "not going to guarantee" simply means may or may not, but will be looked at and determined if not for SP1 a later update. I think that is a reasonable response considering the work load and pressure these guy are under to fix the underlying problems.

[VARIG 0]

Really????? It is called prioritizing . While the requested 2D panel is in high demand by users, there are other pertinent issues that PMDG will address before looking at this. I don't think that Ryan could have been more lucid in his statement - "not going to guarantee" simply means may or may not, but will be looked at and determined if not for SP1 a later update. I think that is a reasonable response considering the work load and pressure these guy are under to fix the underlying problems.

I think it's reasonable too. They have priorities, that's perfectly normal.

[aceridgey 330]

I would vote for NO 2d panel for the throttle,, I heard it's not there because of FPS issue! So why don't people just use the VC and have 2d panels for backup and hard to reach places.

[romulo 2]

Please, realistic refueling like MD-11 it would be fantastic!

[fencer 16]

Really????? It is called prioritizing . While the requested 2D panel is in high demand by users, there are other pertinent issues that PMDG will address before looking at this. I don't think that Ryan could have been more lucid in his statement - "not going to guarantee" simply means may or may not, but will be looked at and determined if not for SP1 a later update. I think that is a reasonable response considering the work load and pressure these guy are under to fix the underlying problems.

Hi Simeon (and Gabriel). Sorry if this sounded negative. I was just thinking that, keeping in mind the time necessary to design, code, integrate, test and document software, I would have expected PMDG to need more time beween decision (to implement the 2D panel) and release. But I really don't know. After all, maybe this stuff is already coded and needs only a release decision to be made. As far as the need for 2D panel, it seems to me that quite a few users have been vocal about it and it would certainly be nice to have it but, as I won't buy the NGX at least until SP1 is released, I have no personal experience of simming without one ! Rgds, Bruno PS : (Alex) I disagree with you. If a 2D panel is necessary, you don't want to give it up because of fps issues. If it's necessary, then the developpers have to do what it takes to implement it correctly.

[ZachLW 37]

Please, realistic refueling like MD-11 it would be fantastic!

Why? Not that it's any skin off my back if that feature is added (actually, it would be), but it's extremely pointless. You can already add and subtract fuel via the FMC! If you want to simulate fuel loading times (again, why?), just wait 20 minutes before adding the fuel. It would greatly irritate me if fuel load times took as long as they should in real life. And remember there's no control panel.

[romulo 2]

Why? Not that it's any skin off my back if that feature is added (actually, it would be), but it's extremely pointless. You can already add and subtract fuel via the FMC! If you want to simulate fuel loading times (again, why?), just wait 20 minutes before adding the fuel. It would greatly irritate me if fuel load times took as long as they should in real life. And remember there's no control panel.

I just like this feature, i can or not?

[ZachLW 37]

I just like this feature, i can or not?

Absolutely. But I pose the question, why can't you just twiddle your thumbs for a bit, staring at the screen, and then add fuel? Anyway, I doubt it will ever happen. This feature would greatly inconvenience other users who use the CDU to fuel.

[romulo 2]

Absolutely. But I pose the question, why can't you just twiddle your thumbs for a bit, staring at the screen, and then add fuel? Anyway, I doubt it will ever happen. This feature would greatly inconvenience other users.

In the MD-11, this feature works together with the manually fueling! The user can choice the best method to use...

[ZachLW 37]

In the MD-11, this feature works together with the manually fueling! The user can choice the best method to use...

I see, Romulo. Forgive me!

[VARIG 0]

I would vote for NO 2d panel for the throttle,, I heard it's not there because of FPS issue! So why don't people just use the VC and have 2d panels for backup and hard to reach places.

I don't know HOW you came to this conclusion, since 2D it's the LEAST fps consuming. You heard it from who? A cousing of your friend? Actually, it's the VC that KILLS your fps. I'm surprised that you didn't know that.The fact is that modeling the Throttle movement + Flap movement, is TIME consuming. That's why they didn't put that on Release Candidate. Be careful with your sources.

Hi Simeon (and Gabriel). Sorry if this sounded negative. I was just thinking that, keeping in mind the time necessary to design, code, integrate, test and document software, I would have expected PMDG to need more time beween decision (to implement the 2D panel) and release. But I really don't know. After all, maybe this stuff is already coded and needs only a release decision to be made. As far as the need for 2D panel, it seems to me that quite a few users have been vocal about it and it would certainly be nice to have it but, as I won't buy the NGX at least until SP1 is released, I have no personal experience of simming without one !

No problem at all, Bruno! I didn't take it negative. If you like to fly with 2D, you'll definitely miss the TQ, especially on engine start/cut and takeoff preparation.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

Oh really? Just like the heading selector... you can assign "=" (equal sign) to increase and "-" (minus) to decrease. We all can do that, but that doesn't mean we'll ignore the 2D MCP...If you used to use 2D MCP and suddenly, start to use keyboard commands instead (EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC), you'd miss that panel too.

I was talking about looking at the throttle quadrant and seeing either the scale indicating you current trim, or hovering the mouse over the trim wheel and reading the trim off of the tooltip.And i do have trim mapped to my joystick, FYI ;)

[JC75 22]

I wouldnt call 200 people a huge number in a vote when 1000s have brought the aircraft, and 80 said no - and thats of those who would have bothered to read the thread as if I saw a thread with 2D panel in subject I wouldnt read it. You say assigning keys/joystick etc to keycommands to control Flaps, MCP etc is "Unrealistic" how you figure that using your mouse to click on a 2D panel is more realistic? A VC maybe not be realsitic either - but it is far more so than having a load of pop up panelsall over the place and clicking away like a madman - airbus may have a joystick but they not gone down route of having a mouse also! You have to move your eyes or head, or body to see various parts of the aircraft panels. and the VC helps simulate this - especially if you use multiple montiors or/and track IR coding the various buttons to your joystick, or other various hardware addons (such as soft autopilot to a button on your yoke - just as in real world) is far more realistic than clicking on a 2D or 3D panel. I see no point PMDG until they get to the point that they are twiddling their thumbs with nothing better to do spending time on creating 2D panels for such things - especially as your request is to have the 2D panel even more simplified than a full throttle quadrant (in fact you state the throttle quadrant shouldnt have any throttles!!!) When they can be spending time, not only on some of the bugs and incorrect functions - but also adding more features to the aircraft to make it even more realistic. Features on the FMC etc. 2D panel pop ups are useful for certain parts (such as the PFD and ND, fmc) for people who have Hardware cockpits that want to have these displayed maybe even the overhead - but see no point in a throttle quadrant being created. As one poster stated the more 2D panels that get loaded the more it effects the resources of the sim. 2D panels also cause issues for those on multimonitors at high resolutions. So my vote - apart from PFD - ND type pop ups - remove all 2D panels - remove the code, remove the graphics, remove the space on my harddrive for the textures, remove them permantly from the next PMDG products - time to move with the times - im sure Flight will see a massive move away from 2D.

[VARIG 0]

I wouldnt call 200 people a huge number in a vote when 1000s have brought the aircraft, and 80 said no - and thats of those who would have bothered to read the thread as if I saw a thread with 2D panel in subject I wouldnt read it. You say assigning keys/joystick etc to keycommands to control Flaps, MCP etc is "Unrealistic" how you figure that using your mouse to click on a 2D panel is more realistic? A VC maybe not be realsitic either - but it is far more so than having a load of pop up panelsall over the place and clicking away like a madman - airbus may have a joystick but they not gone down route of having a mouse also! You have to move your eyes or head, or body to see various parts of the aircraft panels. and the VC helps simulate this - especially if you use multiple montiors or/and track IR coding the various buttons to your joystick, or other various hardware addons (such as soft autopilot to a button on your yoke - just as in real world) is far more realistic than clicking on a 2D or 3D panel. I see no point PMDG until they get to the point that they are twiddling their thumbs with nothing better to do spending time on creating 2D panels for such things - especially as your request is to have the 2D panel even more simplified than a full throttle quadrant (in fact you state the throttle quadrant shouldnt have any throttles!!!) When they can be spending time, not only on some of the bugs and incorrect functions - but also adding more features to the aircraft to make it even more realistic. Features on the FMC etc. 2D panel pop ups are useful for certain parts (such as the PFD and ND, fmc) for people who have Hardware cockpits that want to have these displayed maybe even the overhead - but see no point in a throttle quadrant being created. As one poster stated the more 2D panels that get loaded the more it effects the resources of the sim. 2D panels also cause issues for those on multimonitors at high resolutions. So my vote - apart from PFD - ND type pop ups - remove all 2D panels - remove the code, remove the graphics, remove the space on my harddrive for the textures, remove them permantly from the next PMDG products - time to move with the times - im sure Flight will see a massive move away from 2D.

James, every poll in the world works with a SAMPLE. In our case, let's say PMDG had 1000 NGX customers. The probability theory applied in the sample, can pretty much give us the (very) approximate number of all customers opinion. If you want to row against the tide, go ahead, but you must admit that 200 out of 280 IS a huge number. we're talking about approximately 71,43% saying YES to 2D and 28,57% saying NO to 2D. Look, peopole who voted for McCain wanted him to win. But they had to face the numbers and accept the facts. So we have 81 now against 200. Thank you for your vote and PLEASE respect people who prefers to fly 2D. This doesn't mean that we don't fly VC. We do, but not most of time, especially on SID/STAR procedures, when we need to focus on procedure and not trying to hit the right spot on VC due the head movement. Think about it and PLEASE (again), there's a lot other people who thinks different from you. It's a matter of point of view, simple as that. Don't take this wrong, I didn't mean to be agressive or anything like that. I just gave you the facts.