Hi guys,I've tried... I mean REALLY tried to understand the appeal of virtual cockpits. I've spent hours and hours squinting at their tiny gauges, panning around to adjust a switch (when I need to be looking out the window), and getting frustrated when I can't "lean forward" to look for traffic or a scenic landmark that is slightly below the aircraft. I have to admit that I just don't get it! I agree that the VCs create a powerful illusion of being confined within a tin box hurtling through the air - but from a pilot's perspective, what else makes them so wonderful? I've read countless posts from people swearing that they'll never use a 2D panel again and it completely baffles me - I can't imagine trying to fly with any kind of precision without a good 2D panel. Surely, I must be missing something - can someone tell me why virtual cockpits are preferable to the old 2D cockpits?Thanks,Marc

Hi,A DECENT VC can add a massive amount of immersion to the sim for me.I would say that one of the most needed pre-requesites for VC's is active camera, I could'nt imagine using VC's without it, it makes it so much easier to zoom and pan around the cockpit, which with the keys or joystick hat is frankly a pain.Saying that I would not ignore an addon if it didnt have a VC, having a VC is not essential for me to enjoy an FS plane, I have a couple that I fly regulaly that do not have a VC, and it does not really bother me at all.But, I do a a few addons that I fly exclusivly from the VC, namely the CS YAK-3, the FFS Vans and the PMDG B1900D, these are good examples of VC's that can be used permenatly.Now that the SDK from MS is available VC's can only get better, as this "should" cure one of the bugbears I have with current VC's, non operational engine controls, although it is not that much of a problem to remember CTRL-F2 and CTRL-F3 to adjust mixture and props.There will always be people from both sides, those who like VC's and those who dislike them, but you have a choice, if you dont like VC's dont use em, likewise if you do, dont get an addon that does not have a VC, and if they have both, everybody is happy.CheersDan.

Marc, have you ever tried the RealAir Simulations SF.260? That's the perfect virtual cockpit for me. But a lot of planes have very good VCs, all the planes by Dreamfleet, FSD and CaptainSim are good examples of what can be done. In my opinion a good VC is a must in a GA plane. I fly these planes VFR most of the time, and the ability to scroll smoothly in any direction gives my a much better impression of the plane in relation to the surrounding area.Still I'm glad we have the choice between 2D and VC. The more I depend on instruments in a plane, the more I prefer the 2D panel. PMDG's 737NG and CaptainSim's 727 both have outstanding virtual cockpits, but I fly them from the 2D panel most of the time because of smoother and clearer gauge rendering.Just my 2c (EUR),VOlker :]

> and getting frustrated>when I can't "lean forward" to look for traffic or a scenic>landmark that is slightly below the aircraft. Marc, I think you've got it the wrong way round! A huge advantage of the VC is that you can indeed lean forward - or sideways, or back, or move down to get a better view below the wing. Or quickly jump into the co-pilot's seat! Or take a stroll into the passenger cabin.... In the VC you have complete freedom of movement. Unfortunately the default keys for moving and turning in the VC are completely bizarre and require large numbers of fingers to operate them. I reassigned these keys to simple, easy to remember ones and now moving and turning in the VC is completely natural. I often do precisely what you mention - I change my position slightly to see landmarks otherwise hidden by cockpit structures. You can still access 2D panels with the click of a button. I would strongly recommend Active Camera, though it is payware now, but cheap. It allows you tp pan around the VC with the mouse among other things. You can also define ten views and recall them with a single button press. You could easily define some to be close-up views of the panel instruments. To me virtual cockpits are completely natural. Clearly they're more realistic - and therefore more enjoyable. Best regards, Chris

i have to say VC 4 me. i won't d/l an a/c if it dosen't have vc. matter of fact, if the vc isn't

Hello,So far, I like the VC concept far better. I have started to use my TRACKIR2 in my VC's and it really adds a lot to the experience. I will say that the VC's are far better for my small A/C flights like the SM260, Capt Sim Yak and Captain Sim 104 jet.The only place that I really fell in love with the VC in big AC was the A320PIC. It only had a VC and one was forced to use it. Once into it, I was able to find everthing I needed without ICONS and Shft keys.The only drawback to a VC for me is if the sim developer does not implement a lot of the gauges and switches. Then you get a mix of concept and it becomes a drag.Happy flying,Ron Sagel near [email protected]

I use 2D panels ..... VCs are frame rate eating, blurry gauged monsters :-lol

>I use 2D panels ..... VCs are frame rate eating, blurry>gauged monsters :-lolHmmm, interesting you say that, because in many planes I have noticed the exact opposite, where by the framerate in the VC is better than the 2D panel, odd.As for the blurryness, there is an easy fix for this, just increase the figure in the VC section of the panel.cfg, so if it was 256,256 increase in to 512,512, this makes the VC much sharper without effecting framerates.CheersDan.

Personally, vc or 2d depends on how I'm going to fly the aircraft. I know my way pretty well around gauge and panel editing, and have modified two default aircraft (pluss numerous others, including even the default cub :)); the Cessna C182 and the Baron B58. 2D: The Baron I use solely for IFR, focusing on instrument scanning, planning, fuel monitoring etc. 2D is much prefferred due to accuracy and readability.VC: Flying the C182, I tend to use slightly less structured flying, mostly VFR. I don't have activecam, but have made gauges that enables autolook, headbobbing, and mouselook functions. I.e. "grab" the attitude and look around, arrowkeys for move (agree, weird default setup), snap back to preset when released. Panel.cfg has been carefully tuned so that I can use direction look (instead of normal pan) to preset areas. This includes leaning over to tune radios, "under" the yoke etc. I've yet to see an aircraft with decent view directions set. Then again, I haven't downloaded much either lately :)Verdict: 2D for IFR, VC for VFR and funflights.

For me, it also depends on the plane. VCs are great for GA flights, while I would take a 2d panel in a commercial airliner anyday. My biggest problem with virtual cockpits is that the gauges are nowhere near as smooth as with a 2d panel. For example, in 2d mode, the Reality-XP avionics are amazingly smooth. Switch them to VC mode, and they don't perform nearly as smooth.

Yes this is the main issue with FS2002/FS2004: VC is not coded to be efficient (re: instrument refresh rate) but visually exciting. This is why whatever you do, FS panel engine DO NOT refreshes the gauges fast enough for giving enough visual cues to the IFR pilot. Still, in the case of Reality XP Jet Line 2/4 for example, you can fly in the VC and have the EADI/EHSI popup in a window for the most critical phases of the flight and enjoy a smooth instrument scanning!As a matter of fact, most of the answers above are either: VC for VFR flying and/or visual/experience. When flying IFR, I find it hard myself to fly in the VC because of the poor FS panel engine for gauges in the VC.In my opinion, VC is a customer driven request/feature in the last 2 FS series, which is far from being the best approach yet (in how it is implemented right now). The good news? it is still a very juvenile feature in the life cycle of FS, and the best is ahead of us!!Hope this helps!

Hi.The BEST thing MS did was to implement the VC, reasons, too many to count. Here are a couple:1-Ability to look in the proper direction / scan to view the instruments / controls.2-Ability to move in a realistic virtual space to approximate the proper pilot perception.3-Ability to set / teach, a proper outside scan

Hi Guys,Thanks for your responses. I have a confession to make - I had an ulterior motive for creating this thread (in reality, I enjoy using the VC in several aircraft). I'm currently writing a review and wanted to get a feel for what VC features were most important to the hard-core simmer. As some you pointed out, not all VCs are created equal and the ideas you have contributed are really going to help me in evaluating these cockpits in the future. I appreciate your help...and hope you don't feel too "used" :-).Thanks again,Marc

ill toss in my opinion quicklyIf a VC has sharp guages, and are very readable withough having to zoom straigh in, ill tend to spend more flying time in them, i like the perspective they give, being able to use the plane as a refrence is really niceI dont make much use of the clickable components for the vc, i still hop back into the 2d to make all my mouse inputs, not sure why could be quicker, less picky. I alike my vc to have alot of detail, real air simulations, eaglsoft, cs727 alre all very well done. Planes that are missing alot of detail i tend to avoid the vc such as the iron knuckles dc9so in summary. Sharp good quality guages(readable) and then just an over all completness and quality of the the vc are why I use the ones I do.

I've got to add to this thread as well. I just purchased Captain Sim's Yak-3, which is the first aircraft I've acquired that doesn't even include a 2D cockpit.Like Captain Sim's F-104 before it, the Yak-3 virtual cockpit is beautiful, functional, and highly detailed, but were it not for the fact that I run FS2004 at high resolution (1600x1200x32), I might find the lack of a 2D cockpit a little daunting.As it is, when flying my other FS2004 aircraft I'm constantly switching between 2D and 3D views. The best part of a 3D cockpit for me is in conjunction with AntiCyclonE's Active Camera, which ups the 3D view to a whole new level of realism--head latency, mouse panning, and full XYZ movement. (One drawback with head latency is working the VC cockpit controls--the constant movement of the panel in relation to the mouse cursor can make operating buttons and dials a little hit and miss.)Jane's 1999 F/A-18 Super Hornet was the first sim I'm aware of that relied solely on a virtual cockpit, and that was a winner. I'd like to see more VCs in FS2004.-- WaltFlying FS2004 at 1600x1200x32Intel Pentium 4, 2.0 GHzWindows XP Pro512MB PC800 RDRAM,8100128MB ATI Radeon 9600 ProCATALYST Windows XP 3.10 video driverDirectX 9.0bViewSonic P95f+ 19 inch Ultrabrite CRT MonitorSound Blaster Audigy2 ZSCreative I-Trigue 2.1 3300 SpeakersMS ForceFeedback 2 joystick