PMDG: Please Reconsider

[CaptEm1 6]

Before I begin, I'll start with a disclaimer: I enjoy PMDG products very much, and I love what you guys do. All critique in this post is meant to be constructive and informative, it's nothing personal. I've been flying PMDG for years now, and I'm not about to stop ... at least when it comes to your current products. And here comes my point: Why are you being so stubborn when it comes to the 2D cockpit?Do you not realize that a lot of people find the 2D cockpit to be better version than its counterpart?No matter how much you praise and brag about the new and shiny VC's, (and they do look very nice), it won't change the fact that the VC is not very user friendly compared to the 2D version, even with other 3rd party payware like trackir and ezdok. And you can't seriously expect people to buy expensive 3rd party programs just to be able to enjoy your products?The VC looks great, but as soon as you turn off the autopilot or stop following the planned out route it quickly becomes frustrating, especially for people who enjoy raw data / IFR flying. It's not fun trying to think about camera angles and clickspots while you're flying a complex airliner like the 737 or a 777 *hint, hint*. It's even less fun when the plane is bouncing around during turbulence and you're desperately trying to pin down a clickspot with your tiny little mouse cursor.And YES, the experience can be improved with 3rd party programs, but these programs are NOT perfect, some people love them, and some hate them. And as I said above, they are expensive and not everyone can afford them. I on the other hand own both trackir and ezdok, and I admit they can be fun with smaller planes, but I do not use them for large airliners as I enjoy raw data / IFR flying. I use the 2D cockpit for fast input in an ever changing flight environment.To sum it up, I'm not arguing for a 2D only PMDG aircraft, I'm arguing for the customer to have a choice between 2D and 3D. Both are flawed in their own way, but let the customer choose what he/she wants to use. Yes, it will require a slightly longer development time, but I think a PMDG product should be ready to fly and user friendly right off the bat, and not have costly 3rd party software requirements in order to be flyable, and only so with autopilot turned on.That's all. No flaming, sarcasm or hateful comments please.

Edited January 21, 2012 by CaptEm1

[Guest dlrk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIYThe VC is MUCH better than 2D, and I don't need anything other than a hat switch for it work fine. Why are you needing to hit clickspots? Assign keys,

[CaptEm1 6]

The VC is MUCH better than 2D, and I don't need anything other than a hat switch for it work fine. Why are you needing to hit clickspots? Assign keys,

We're not talking about Cessna's here, there are only so many keys you can assign for large and complex airliners. Edited January 20, 2012 by CaptEm1

[G7USL 117]

Before I begin, I'll start with a disclaimer: I enjoy PMDG products very much, and I love what you guys do. All critique in this post is meant to be constructive and informative, it's nothing personal. I've been flying PMDG for years now, and I'm not about to stop ... at least when it comes to your current products. And here comes my point: Why are you being so stubborn when it comes to the 2D cockpit?Do you not realize that a lot of people find the 2D cockpit to be better version than its counterpart?No matter how much you praise and brag about the new and shiny VC's, (and they do look very nice), it won't change the fact that the VC is not very user friendly compared to the 2D version, even with other 3rd party payware like trackir and ezdok. And you can't seriously expect people to buy expensive 3rd party programs just to be able to enjoy your products?The VC looks great, but as soon as you turn off the autopilot it quickly becomes frustrating, especially for people who enjoy raw data / IFR flying. It's not fun trying to think about camera angles and clickspots while you're flying a complex airliner like the 737 or a 777 *hint, hint*. It's even less fun when the plane is bouncing around during turbulence and you're desperately trying to pin down a clickspot with your tiny little mouse cursor.And YES, the experience can be improved with 3rd party programs, but these programs are NOT perfect, some people love them, and some hate them. And as I said above, they are expensive and not everyone can afford them. I on the other hand own both trackir and ezdok, and I admit they can be fun with smaller planes, but I do not use them for large airliners as I enjoy raw data / IFR flying. I use the 2D cockpit for fast input in an ever changing flight environment.To sum it up, I'm not arguing for a 2D only PMDG aircraft, I'm arguing for the customer to have a choice between 2D and 3D. Both are flawed in their own way, but let the customer choose what he/she wants to use. Yes, it will require a slightly longer development time, but I think a PMDG product should be ready to fly and user friendly right off the bat, and not have costly 3rd party software requirements in order to be flyable, and only so with autopilot turned on.That's all. No flaming, sarcasm or hateful comments please.

As far as I am concerned the 2D is still available with the NGX and all the others so, why do you complain? Remember F9 for 3D, F10 for 2D. Sorted!

[CaptEm1 6]

As far as I am concerned the 2D is still available with the NGX and all the others so, why do you complain? Remember F9 for 3D, F10 for 2D. Sorted!

PMDG have stated several times that they will not be making any more aircraft with 2D cockpits.

[738 72]

Okee dokee then but "I use the 2D cockpit for fast input in an ever changing flight" aint right on a 777? 3d is as immersive in this NGX sim as your getting to the real thing man!

[CaptEm1 6]

Okee dokee then but "I use the 2D cockpit for fast input in an ever changing flight" aint right on a 777? 3d is as immersive in this NGX sim as your getting to the real thing man!

Immersive and pretty to look at, but not very practical and user friendly.

[vc10man 732]

++1 Emil

[Guest dlrk]

We're not talking about Cessna's here, there are only so many keys you can assign for large and complex airliners.

You don't need to have quick access to the whole overhead. You shouldn't really need to have quick access to more than flaps, gear and so.

[CaptEm1 6]

You don't need to have quick access to the whole overhead. You shouldn't really need to have quick access to more than flaps, gear and so.

"flaps, gear and so"? Yes, if you're flying a GA plane, or if you have autopilot on from beginning to end and have everything planned out perfectly. My point is that the VC doesn't work very well in a high workload IFR / raw data environment where you have to input things very quickly. Edited January 20, 2012 by CaptEm1

[mikea76 184]

I don't know if I am a super talented pimping sim pilot or what but I don't seem to have a issue with manual flying in the vc on vatsim during events and switching radios.. sometimes I even type in squakbox on short final.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mikea76

[Guest dlrk]

"flaps, gear and so"? Yes, if you're flying a GA plane, or if you have autopilot on from beginning to end and have everything planned out perfectly. My point is that the VC doesn't work very well in a high workload IFR / raw data environment where you have to input things very quickly.

How so? I pretty only use AP in cruise and fly raw data quite often in IMC. I'm not sure what you're talking about. What exactly are you referring to?

[CaptEm1 6]

I don't know if I am a super talented pimping sim pilot or what but I don't seem to have a issue with manual flying in the vc on vatsim during events and switching radios.. sometimes I even type in squakbox on short final.

Maybe you are ;) I'm not just talking about flying manually though, mainly I'm referring to IFR with AP turned on where you have to input a lot on the MCP / EFIS / FMC.

[Guest dlrk]

Maybe you are ;) I'm not just talking about flying manually though, mainly I'm referring to IFR with AP turned on where you have to input a lot on the MCP / EFIS / FMC.

The FMS has a pop-up and is likely to always have one. You shouldn't be using it in a high-workload anyway. The MCP works fine in the VC.

[JSkorna 137]

Why are some you super pilots jumping on someone who is making a legitimate request, not to you, but to PMDG?