I wish there was one more option: I use VC's and the occasional 2d popup for things like gps/fms/nav radios. But I also use Track IR so I really don't need the popups, they're just a bit faster than pausing TIR at a good spot.

For the third time: the poll is not flawed, nor am I going to change it. I am not interested in the 100 ways you are using VC together with 2D panels, nor vice versa. The poll is intended to reveal the percentage of FS users who will consider the existence of 2D panels a "requirement" / preference for themselves, be it in any possible combination with VC, TrackIR, Ezdok, ten monitors side-by-side, or whatever you are possibly using. If you normally combine VC with 2D, and would like to see 2D in the future, you can just select option B. If you're indifferent about the existence of 2D, even if you are using it right now with some add-ons, to display pop-ups of FMC, TQ etc., just select C. You can think of the question like this, if it makes it any easier to grasp what I am after here: Would you like to see 2D in future flightsim add-ons? A.) Yes!B.) Yes!C.) No! The reason I added "B" was so I could see how many of the "Yes!" people would like 2D to "stay" but who would at the same time be content with using VC for any (or all!) functions that wouldn't be available in 2D. Hope this clears it up. Tero

I like the 2d panels because I like to modify the panels to suit me by adding gauges and Simicons for all popups. The VC panels are not easily editable. The clickspots are either missing on some VC's or are so small you can't see them for my old eyes. If there was a simple way to edit the VC's to add missing gauges and Simicons I'd probably use the VC's. Bob.

I used to prefer 2D panels, but increasingly I find myself staying in the VC. And since I got the Flight1 BN-2 Islander and the PMDG 737 I've completely forgotten about them. So I voted C. As if any of you care..... Ian

Mostly VC with the occasional use of a 2D pop up if it will be easier to hit the odd button. I would still buy an aeroplane that had only the VC, but I'd rarely consider buying something that did not have a VC. 2D main panels have had their day. Al

You really need to edit the poll to include a combination (VC/2D) of both

... And also neither, for those of us using external instrumentation such as Project Magenta, ProSim, Sim-Avionics, and so on.. RegardsPete

VC or 2D, personally I think it depends on the aircraft you fly, to be more specify, the workload. General aviation aircraft, like Beechcraft Turbine Duke, is very easy to handle in VC nearly all the time. I have flown this aircraft for more than 6 months online, from uncontrolled airspace to busy airport. There's nothing difficult to reach any switch or panel under VC. For larger aircraft, say airliners, from classical to leading edge one, I prefer use VC during the taxi, perform takeoff roll, and landing. Other time I'd like to use 2D. For Cold and Dark cockpit, it is easier for me to use the keyboard hotkey to reach any panel instantly, while I have to use right click view menu or "A" Ctrl+A to cycle around the presaved VC viewpoint. But I can stay with VC only product, like JS4100 from PMDG. however, during the high workload scenario, I feel VC couldn't work effectively as 2D panel does. Modern airliners panel layout like A320 or 747 filled with advanced automatic avionic is easier to handle under VC, especially in FSX that can switch between panel by right click menu or "A". On the other hand, the classical stuff, like Concorde or 707's. Working with VC only is difficult but better than the words "nightmare" I used to have the Track IR, but I abandoned it long time ago, the reason is simple, I don't want to put a hat on my head, It's just a personal preferences, I don't feel comfortable with something on my head, because my hair is so soft. I haven't try the new track chip for the similar reason.

...during the high workload scenario, I feel VC couldn't work effectively as 2D panel does.

Agree on that. VCs may contribute immensely to the "being there" factor, but productive handling of a complex airliner is best performed when you're really there - or use 2D panels/instruments/popups that kind of mimick that reality. Having important displays/cockpit portions in view simultanously - like it is possible in 2D panels with their pop up windows - is better than having a zoomed out and shrunken VC on a relatively tiny computer screen. Human vision can cover almost 180 degrees horizontally - you'd need to have a really big monitor to approximately compensate for this - nothing that's available on the market at the moment. The usable display area of e.g. 737 NG displays is >16x16cm! Put that on your computer monitor, you'd hardly manage to get even three of the six on your screen! Now think of what happens when you sit in front of your VC - those displays shrink to ridicuously small sqares. There's a reason they're that big in real life! I see A mixture of VC and 2D as the best compromise. Abandoning 2D completely for me is kind of a show stopper. PMDG have announced to provide at least a way to serve cockpit builders. As a long time airliner armchair pilot, this would be sufficient for me 'cause I'm interested in realistic systems and true to life displays and less in eye candy of the cockpit environment. That's nice, too, agreed, but several displays lined up on my monitor, together with "software switches" would suffice - I can live without those photoreal backgrounds of glareshields etc. "Function over form"...

VC ONLY + TIR + EZCA (making 2D completely irrelevant for my use)...I never use 2D in DCS series anyway... And I just don't miss them or need them.

You can think of the question like this, if it makes it any easier to grasp what I am after here: Would you like to see 2D in future flightsim add-ons? A.) Yes!B.) Yes!C.) No!

That's not how you worded the questions though. These are is the choices you effectively gave. A.) 2D only (no VC) B.) Can live without 2D. C.) VC only, (no 2D) Clearly you are not after the actual preference, but rather seem to want topigeonhole everyone to either deciding for or against the 2D or VC. If someone prefers both 2D and VC they likely will not take the poll, because none of thechoices apply to them. Your results will be flawed. Regards.Ernie.

Ernie, Rather than making up on your own my motives, or even miswording, why not concentrate on what is given? I am a bit surprised at all this "conspiracy theory" due to a simple question. Really. Original question: Do you require (and use) 2D panels in a flightsim add-on? Original options: * Yes, 2D is my (only) way of sim-flying* Yes, but lack of 2D is not a show-stopper, I'll then just use the VC instead* No, I am a VC user, 2D is irrelevant The same options I quoted, with different (simpler) wording in the original message: 1. 2D only2. 2D preferred, VC ok3. VC only -- It amazes to me how You can see these options as (your text below): A.) 2D only (no VC)B.) Can live without 2D.C.) VC only, (no 2D) Option B, if you will see what I have written, says: Do you require (and use) 2D panels ,,, -> Yes, but lack of 2D is not a show-stopper / (or alternatively): 2D preferred, VC ok If that equates to you that: "No, I don't require / want 2D" then that is beyond me. Why not give this twisting and turning a rest already? You say: "Clearly you are not after the actual preference, but rather seem to want topigeonhole everyone to either deciding for or against the 2D or VC." => YES! If you have read my explanations, that's exactly what I am after. Or even simpler (yikes!), who wants to see 2D panels in the future? LOL, but... enough. The question and options are there, answer if you like. If not, then don't. Very simple. You all can create a poll, if you like, including maybe 20 options so that everyone can list their setups and even driver versions for all I care. I am only after the percentage of sim-users who utilize 2D and would like to do so in the future as well. Tero

Maybe what creates the biggest confusion is the fact that some people would LIKE TO have 2D, but if they aren't getting it, they'll adapt to VC's and be done with it. This is option B (like it's written). This, however, does NOT mean that this group (option B users) would *not* prefer 2D over VC. It's important to notice that there are people who consider 2D as their only option, much as there are people who consider VC their only option. And then there's the middle-ground, and that's perfectly fine. I am interested in that middle-ground from the point of view that looks at that group of people and asks them: "whom of you guys here would rather use 2D panels, if they were available to you?". It's really that simple. I consider groups A and B those users, who are "for 2D". This is the percentage of people using FS that would appreciate (and group A people even "require") the existence of 2D panels in a product. I realize airliners and GA are different for many, with respect to "what is preferred" or "what I normally use". It's true that this poll could've been made to include anything between A to Z. But I chose not to do so, for the sake of simplicity, and to illustrate the "general idea" that users have of their panel preferences. This is best illustrated with a simple enough of Poll so that the options themselves cannot be masked to represent anything and everything afterwards. I hope I am being clear enough, but if not, then... so be it :). For me this poll already shows a clear portion of 2D users, and that seems to be about one third of the userbase. Ergo, quite many. Tero

Option B, if you will see what I have written, says: Do you require (and use) 2D panels ,,, -> Yes, but lack of 2D is not a show-stopper / (or alternatively): 2D preferred, VC ok

And what is the choice if the lack of a 2D or the VC 'is' a show stopper ?? There is no applicable choice in this poll, because question 1 is 2D only, and question 3 is VC only. This is the 'flaw' in the poll we have tried multiple times to point out to you. Why do you not see this ?? But you know what ?, its your poll you can ask or not ask whatever questions you like. Do what you wish with your flawed results. Regards.Ernie.

Ernie, For the "hundredth" time: the combination of 2D & VC is not of interest to me. What is of interest is: what portion of sim pilots prefer 2D over VC (either strictly 2D, or would just prefer 2D), in comparison to people who prefer VC over 2D. In its simplicity: if you want to see 2D, you'll vote either A or B, depending on what your take on VC flying is. If you don't want it, you'll vote C. You can vote "B." even if you flew 2D+VC in any combination whatsoever, If you want to see 2D panels in the future. (in ANY combination again whatsoever). The lack of "any 2D+VC combination" is not descriptive of anything. For the Very Last Time: Your question: "And what is the choice if the lack of a 2D or the VC 'is' a show stopper ??" Choice for the blue part: option AChoice for the red part: option C "Do what you wish with your flawed results." => no need for any of that pompous stuff. It's just a simple poll, not a brain surgery lecture. Tero

I sort of agree with Ernie here. the option that I would have chosen simply is not present. I'm a VC flyer but I like having 2D panels for some functions. For example, on the PMDG 747 I find it hard to get to some buttons on the VC, so I like having a 2D panel for that. I probably could use the "A" button to switch to a position that shows all of the overhead, but I'd rather just have a 2D panel that doesn't require me to cycle through a multitude of views just to see what I have to see and then cycle through an other multitude of views just to get back. Sadly, this option of "I use a combination of both" isn't available in the poll, and option C is not an option for me, because I do not think that the 2D panel is completely irrelevant: I prefer the VC, but do want some 2D panels for specific functions. Having no 2D panel is not a show stopper, however, but I like their presence just for when I might need them. Isn't this a valid option also? Having to choose both A and C, as you seemingly suggest, just doesn't work, because it doesn't differentiate at all between users. It makes the poll flawed, as Ernie says, because various groups that are different are combined.