What price, such wit?

I think this is a smart move by PMDG in all honesty - I know there will be some 'haters' that are 2D fans.But lets be honest if you've got the 'kit' to run PMDG software and FSX on decent settings you might as well get a real feel for the A/C in the 3D cockpit!

I got the kit. I just think 2d is a superior experience. The experience using it is much closer to real life. You dont have to fumble with your hand to reach the correct clickspot on the mcp in real life, you can reach over and grab the knobs blindfolded. In the VC the clickspot is in a different location all the time, and on top of that it moves when you fly .... even with ezca. It doesnt move in the 2d panel and the clickspot is always at the same point in the cockpit, hence the experience is much closer to real life (ie more realistic). I realise that most people are not into a realistic experience tho, they are more into eyecandy and fancy graphics

Edited February 4, 201214 yr by Sekstifire

I know there will be some 'haters' that are 2D fans.

Matthewthis is a matter of preferences, sanity, ergonomics, having choice and alternatives and of course not stereotyped thinking or selfishness.

as well get a real feel for the A/C in the 3D cockpit!

You can't get a real feel in a flight simulator like FSX and a virtual cockpit doesn't change anything on this fact. There is a very small sweet-spotin VC to see your flightdeck undistorted. The real challenge here is to make information readable, avoid distortion, and have a useful field of view at the same time. This is impossible even with EZDOK or other helpers.Of course the NGX VC is a real beauty and i use it in short final for myself , but the rest of flight like groundwork, climb, cruise is completed in 2D and surely without any hate There are still dozens of simmers, real pilots, enthusiasts using PMDG aircrafts purely as procedure trainers not for making impressive screenshots, videos, postcards who exactly know, why they prefer 2D.Sorry, i forgot. They must be all haters in your view of the world!

I realise that most people are not into a realistic experience tho, they are more into eyecandy and fancy graphics

Spot-on, Johan. There are far too many 2-D bashers, so well said.

Sorry, i forgot. They must be all haters in your view of the world!

Ouch! Touché!

for me, the VC is more realistic then 2D

I got the kit. I just think 2d is a superior experience. The experience using it is much closer to real life. You dont have to fumble with your hand to reach the correct clickspot on the mcp in real life, you can reach over and grab the knobs blindfolded. In the VC the clickspot is in a different location all the time, and on top of that it moves when you fly .... even with ezca. It doesnt move in the 2d panel and the clickspot is always at the same point in the cockpit, hence the experience is much closer to real life (ie more realistic). I realise that most people are not into a realistic experience tho, they are more into eyecandy and fancy graphics

like to see you fly blindfolded , so clicking a panel up in 2d view is more realistic than flying in 3d i think not (cant see the rw pilots clicking a click spot in the panel to bring up another panel) i use 3d in take off and landing since its easier to pan around slowly than snap looking left and right using the 2d views. plus more user friendly using the hud in take off and landing as well. In crz than i change to 2d view for a change. i used to hate the 3d before till i got the js4100 which converted me to the 3d experience and never looked back since

Dear Mr. Rodgers,we express our gratitude concerning your advisory opinion. As a business companywith a high grade of tradition, we got the idea humankind is stillneeding cars using low grade or at least appreciates the option.We all know high test gas would distort when hanging around in your car.Furthermore it uses more resources then needful, even though you have already thecomfort-package called "EZDOK". Finally, we don't know why, but you canexpect a field-of-view and the necessary details you willnever have with htg.At all times BMW did everything to achieve highest customer satisfaction, soexpect low grade in every of our car-series as an option.Best regardsJenny Doe ^_^Make-A-Wish-DepartmentBayerische Motörhead Werke AG80XYZ EDDMG E R M A N Y

Well done! I'm really not sure if you're making fun of me or not, but it doesn't matter. That was pretty good, no lie!

you get plus 1 for thatRodgers is turning into Deemer

Ouch? I think? I recognize the name, but can't place the rep.

Being compared to Deemer is indeed very much an "ouch"

I got the kit. I just think 2d is a superior experience. The experience using it is much closer to real life. You dont have to fumble with your hand to reach the correct clickspot on the mcp in real life, you can reach over and grab the knobs blindfolded. In the VC the clickspot is in a different location all the time, and on top of that it moves when you fly .... even with ezca. It doesnt move in the 2d panel and the clickspot is always at the same point in the cockpit, hence the experience is much closer to real life (ie more realistic). I realise that most people are not into a realistic experience tho, they are more into eyecandy and fancy graphics

I was reluctant to get into this arguement but it seems people use all kinds of reasons to justify why the cockpit they use is best. It's getting close to arguing what color is best. As far as 2D being superior that is a matter for each individual user to decide for themselves. Though the 2D cockpit is aboulutely not closer to real life or more realistic. What it is is a much easier way for a single pilot to fly a complex two man cockpit airplane. Based on what I've seen in the past it seems like it is easier for the developers to make avery crisp and clear detailed 2D cockpit than VC.That being said the VC is far more imersive. It is as close as a simmer is going to get (for now) to being in the actual cockpit. The simmer can look around and see the things the pilots can see in the real airplane. More than just the instrument panel. If you have a device like trackir you can actually move your position in the cockpit just like real life. You don't have a fixed view point like the 2D cockpit so its easier to look in the direction you want like down toward the runway on approack for example. I think this is why VCs are becoming more dominant in simming.PMDG is not the only develper that seems to moving away from 2D cockpits. The bottom line is that everyone has their favorite panel to fly with but it seems uselss to argue that "my way is best" when there really is no best. Unfortunately for those who prefer 2D the options are becoming more limited.

I was reluctant to get into this arguement but it seems people use all kinds of reasons to justify why the cockpit they use is best. It's getting close to arguing what color is best. As far as 2D being superior that is a matter for each individual user to decide for themselves. Though the 2D cockpit is aboulutely not closer to real life or more realistic. What it is is a much easier way for a single pilot to fly a complex two man cockpit airplane. Based on what I've seen in the past it seems like it is easier for the developers to make avery crisp and clear detailed 2D cockpit than VC.That being said the VC is far more imersive. It is as close as a simmer is going to get (for now) to being in the actual cockpit. The simmer can look around and see the things the pilots can see in the real airplane. More than just the instrument panel. If you have a device like trackir you can actually move your position in the cockpit just like real life. You don't have a fixed view point like the 2D cockpit so its easier to look in the direction you want like down toward the runway on approack for example. I think this is why VCs are becoming more dominant in simming.PMDG is not the only develper that seems to moving away from 2D cockpits. The bottom line is that everyone has their favorite panel to fly with but it seems uselss to argue that "my way is best" when there really is no best. Unfortunately for those who prefer 2D the options are becoming more limited.

well written

I would also like to tell my interest in a 2D panel. I could even go as far as paying extra but one thing is sure, I won't pay anything for a 777 without a full 2D panel.

I would most surely pay extra for a 2D panels. Landing and takeoff I use the 3D but it is just so much easier to use 2D for preflight and cruise etc.. Again my biggest concern is the overhead panel. It is not easy to use in 3D IMO. I stil can't find anything online or from PMDG saying the 777 is only 3D, but given what people are saying I presume it's true which is a pretty large negative for me and many others. But for now I can just enjoy the NGX I am sure we still have plenty of time till the 777 comes out

Being compared to Deemer is indeed very much an "ouch"

Out of curiosity, why? I'd like to know what qualities are being assigned to me.

No 2D panel all the way, but 2D popups are golden to have. :) Love the way the NGX is now.