Do you have any evidence to prove me wrong? I'm not bashing 2D panel users, I'm just pointing out a commercial reality.

Answering a question with a question..We could do that all day and just go round and round in circles... To answer your question, nope, i dont.But nor do you.If your going to post in this thread with comments you seem to think is fact, then please, back it up.

dont get him going you only feeding him

Oh, your still here..How about posting something releated to this thread, and is worth reading? Otherwise keep your piontless comments to urself.

If pilots want a 2D 737 Throttle Pedestal , chances are that someone will make one and put it up on Avsim. "Supply & Demand" -- If enough pilots want it, or just one person capable of making an acceptable 2D Throttle Pedestal wants it, then it will probably get created. Thats the way it has always been in the Flightsim Community (from early versions of FS, through to FSX) I am just a little surprised that someone hasn't already created it -- or maybe someone is working on it, even as I type this.

Can you point to a single FS9 or FSX user that has not spent most of their flight career using 2D panels? Even today, most add on aircraft have to be flown from 2D panels because either no VC exists, or it is just not good enough. So when you suggest we do not know where you are coming from, you are ignoring the fact that we are all very, very familiar with 2D panel usage. Does the fact that so many of us are so adamant that VC is not just a bit better but so much better, not give you the vaguest clue that perhaps it is not us misunderstanding your needs for 2D, but you misunderstanding the opertunites of VC? To put your 'demands' in context, how would you feel about posters on this forum demanding that NGX be stripped of advanced features 'that no one ever uses' so they could get 50fps on their Pentium IV's? Such posters would insist that their needs were reasonable and legitimate and that they had no interest in the new fangled features of the FMC or that GPS was good enough for their grandfathers etc. Would you consider it patronising to suggest they were living in the past? Or would it be arrogant to suggest that this was not the product for them?

That wasn't aimed at all VC fans. I was replying to a forum member who implied that people who preferred 2D weren't up to flying in the VC. I found that comment patronising. I didn't suggest all VC converts didn't understand, just the one I was talking too. However converts do tend to be very zealous, so is it a case of "now I've converted to the VC, everyone else must"? FS9 has quite a few very good VC's (LevelD 767 and PMDG's 747 and NG to name a few). Good VC's didn't begin with FSX, but MS did emphasis the VC more in FSX. As for those asking for the more complex parts of the NGX to be removed, well they bought the wrong product, didn't they? There are plenty simplified sims around, many free downloads. Unlike them I'm not suggesting PMDG delete anything from the NGX, just add the missing piece they implicitly promised. Since FMS was in use long before GPS I don't see how it can be seen as "new fangled" compared to GPS. FMS may be new to people who have only flown default aircraft till now (the NGX does seem to have attracted a lot of simmers who are new to complex addons). There is no analogy to the 2D v VC debate there, just a misunderstanding of what GPS and FMS are. Unfortunately you are following the usual line that a VC is better by definition and so 2D is somehow the past. I'd be the first to agree that the NGX VC is probably the best airliner VC available for FSX, and the most usable. That doesn't mean I want to dispense with 2D completely. My opinion is that while the VC is great for hand flying when you aren't busy with panel selections 2D is more user friendly and more realistic if you are managing the flightdeck, as modern airliners require. In the real thing you have a PNF to assist you. It's harder to make accurate selections on the MCP and radio tuning heads when they are presented to you at an angle in the VC, not square on as in 2D. In the real aircraft you have a physical knob to lean towards and adjust which is so much easier than doing the same thing in the VC. A good example in the NGX is the way the altitude intervention button is tucked away behing the altitude select knob from the Captain's view. In real life you don't have to hunt for a click spot and wait for the cursor to change shape. A lot comes down to the way the brain perceives the environment. A 2D image of a 3D virtual environment can easily appear distorted, but if you actually sit in the real flightdeck environment in the same position it doesn't. I suspect that if you were able to view the VC as a 3D image this might not be an issue any longer. Obviously TrackIR and EZCA would help but not everyone has those so you have to consider the native FSX eyepoint movement in deciding whether the VC is good enough for all purposes. I maintain it isn't, yet. A good example here is the radio stack. In real life you would lean sideways and still be looking at the tuning head the right way up. In the VC you look right and see it sideways on. To summarise, many VC enthusiasts say the VC is better so 2D is no longer required. 2D enthusiasts have no problem with the VC being there, and may well use it, but prefer to use 2D panels and pop-ups. Why do VC people want rid of 2D panels? What's wrong with choice? Kevin Hall

...To summarise, many VC enthusiasts say the VC is better so 2D is no longer required. 2D enthusiasts have no problem with the VC being there, and may well use it, but prefer to use 2D panels and pop-ups. Why do VC people want rid of 2D panels? What's wrong with choice?...

I myself hate the VC. I only use it during final approach when I start hand flying and all buttons are pressed. Any product not having 2D panels is dead for me. The NGX not having the throttle quadrant is not terrible but it is very strange why PMDG doesn't make a 2D panel after putting so much work into such a large add-on. All buttons I press I use the 2D panel which you can simply press the button instead of having to scroll and change view to be able to press it. Also it takes a lot of time when in a hurry... I understand that many of you think that you are so cool that you can use the VC and have to brag about it for as soon as someone wants a 2D panel but I think that it is much easier to use. I am sure that using the VC is very easy to use if you have track ir or just you are very patient but some of us just don't want to buy so much hardware just because PMDG doesn't want to make 2D panels. Then there also comes the problem of computer performance. In the 2D cockpit I have about 30 fps but when switching to the VC I get 15 fps. That is a big difference for me since the first one is smooth but when switching to the latter it even gets hard to taxi straight... What I wonder most is why so many people are against the 2D panel being made? If you are only using the VC it shouldn't bother if there is a 2D panel too. It doesn't disturb you at all but for us 2D panel users it really ruins the flight sim experience if the 2D panels are removed. One thing is sure, if the 777 will lack 2D panels I will not buy it. If you VC guys can't handle having a 2D panel that you don't use I suggest that PMDG releases 3 version of any airplane. One with only 2D panels, one with only VC and one with both for us normal people... Please don't take away the 2D panels and ruins the experience for so many of us and just let us have the old-school flight sim experience...I hope that I didn't upset anyone but this is how I feel about the issue.. Manfred

If pilots want a 2D 737 Throttle Pedestal , chances are that someone will make one and put it up on Avsim. "Supply & Demand" -- If enough pilots want it, or just one person capable of making an acceptable 2D Throttle Pedestal wants it, then it will probably get created. Thats the way it has always been in the Flightsim Community (from early versions of FS, through to FSX) I am just a little surprised that someone hasn't already created it -- or maybe someone is working on it, even as I type this.

Highly unlikely. As the devs sure enough won't give out their code that is required to create such highly customized gauges, and they're not exactly using much of the FSX SDK, no one can't just go out and create another 2D panel out of nowhere. Well I haven't tried but I'd estimate chances to be close to zero. How ever their own SDK turns out though, things might change eventually. Would sure be cool if it's not only for hardware devs but could also be used to communicate with other software.

The thing that gets me is: I thought the deveopment of a 2D panel would be relatively simple compared to the complexity of 3D. With all the systems, exterior models, and slew of other stuff,the 2D would be quickie, a no brainer. I thought a 2D panel could be built in a week? or a month? and it wouldn't be that much of a deal for such an experienced developer like PMDG. Too bad, I have a $4500 computer that runs the 3D faster than anything out there, but I love the 2D and ALWAYS use the 2D on final approach. I will add TrackIR soon anyways, but I still think the 2D is a great option for so many people. I know LevelD has a stunning 2D for the new 757- maybe that will be my favorite plane and not the 777. And see Sandpatch used the VC ONLY on final approach - the opposite of me -we all have our preferences - give us the choice.

The thing that gets me is: I thought the deveopment of a 2D panel would be relatively simple compared to the complexity of 3D. With all the systems, exterior models, and slew of other stuff,the 2D would be quickie, a no brainer. I thought a 2D panel could be built in a week? or a month? and it wouldn't be that much of a deal for such an experienced developer like PMDG. Too bad, I have a $4500 computer that runs the 3D faster than anything out there, but I love the 2D and ALWAYS use the 2D on final approach. I will add TrackIR soon anyways, but I still think the 2D is a great option for so many people. I know LevelD has a stunning 2D for the new 757- maybe that will be my favorite plane and not the 777. And see Sandpatch used the VC ONLY on final approach - the opposite of me -we all have our preferences - give us the choice.

Do you know something about the 757 that the rest of us (including LevelD) don't? By the way, the screen shot on "+++ The 757 post +++" is 1) from 2008 and 2) from their VC cockpit, not a 2D panel.

So, after reading every thread I can find on the 2D missing throttle panel, I tried an experiment...... I added the 2D panel from another 737 to the 800 NGX to see what would happen. Guess what, it partially works, the throttle and fuel cut offs are operational. However it doesnt enable the spoliers, trim, or flaps. I am no programmer, but if part of it works, Im sure someone out there has the talent to get the rest working, any takers?

You're trying to inject years old code from the FS9 version into the NGX designed for FSX?No one can get it working fully because....it wasn't designed for the NGX or for FSX.

You're trying to inject years old code from the FS9 version into the NGX designed for FSX?No one can get it working fully because....it wasn't designed for the NGX or for FSX.

No, this is from another FSX native plane that 'I Fly'. I simply copied the entry from one panel.cfg to the other to see what would happen. :-) Actually just not having to go to the VC to find the fuel cutoffs is a huge improvement, even if nothing else works

If it is so easy to make a 2d panel, why can't we just offer 1 PMDG worker for 1 hour to fix a panel. Than we would have a complete 2d panel as well and everyone would be happy...

I'll suggest a simple solution. Try the iFly 737 FSX which has both 2D and 3D. I have and I'm totally satisfied. John Taylor, California