I can sit in the cockpit of a real plane and think to myself, "Self, this sounds just like the PMDG version on my home PC". Perhaps you can tell me where I should look to see what the 2D panels should look like?

lol yea u just have to point your finger and touch one of the displays and it will appear before your eyes:)

Perhaps you can tell me where I should look to see what the 2D panels should look like?

 

In panels, of course.

Hello all

 

thank you very much for your answer

 

 

Sorry for my latest answer (work work work....)

No, they're making the popup PFD screens, not the whole panel.

As long as we still get the CDU popup I'm happy. That's the only popup I use anymore. Track IR + EZDOK handles the rest!

 

Exactly how I feel. The 2D panels are really a technology of the past. We are in 2012 not 2006!

I can sit in the cockpit of a real plane and think to myself, "Self, this sounds just like the PMDG version on my home PC". Perhaps you can tell me where I should look to see what the 2D panels should look like?

 

I definitely just laughed in the middle of the class I'm teaching (okay...so they're doing labs right now...the same).

Bummer. I hate 3D cockpits.

Exactly how I feel. The 2D panels are really a technology of the past. We are in 2012 not 2006!

 

whole FSX is "really a technology of the past".

These are honest questions:

Why do people want a full 2D panel? What is it about the 3D that you hate? Why is the 2D so much better in your opinion?

 

 

 

I can't find the posts from back in the day, but I remember being a huge 2D supporter, and listed reasons. My main reason was my computer's lack of ability to handle the 3D and that's about it. The rest of the reasons were all justified conservatism (resistance to change).

and what is it about the 2D that you, 3d cockpit lovers, hate?

and what is it about the 2D that you, 3d cockpit lovers, hate?

 

It's unnecessary and unrealistic. Pretty much it.

and what is it about the 2D that you, 3d cockpit lovers, hate?

 

Number one thing I hate is when people answer questions with questions, deflecting the original, but that aside:

 

When you create a 2D panel, you have to make sacrifices. Things end up out of position, re-sized, in a completely wrong position, distorted, among other things, just to make it fit onto the panel. There's also a fundamental disconnect in operating a 2D panel with a 3D environment beyond it. A Cessna panel is one thing: about the only piece that would introduce a third dimension is the glareshield, yoke, and throttles. An airliner is a completely different ballgame. How do you negotiate the transition from the main panel to the pedestal? What about the MCP? Answer: Compromise. You sacrifice the integrity of how the cockpit looks and performs - angles get distorted to make 3D into 2D. Buttons get moved in order to include them on a particular 2D panel instead of another, and so on. In the end, the 3D panels - especially with the better developers out there - allow an approximation of what the 2D panels would be through the clever use of VC Views, while still allowing panning, zooming and avoiding distortion.

 

Hardware is no longer really an issue (if it is, had you saved a few bucks a month since FSX came out, again, it wouldn't be an issue). Even the cheaper hardware can churn out performance enough to work in the 3D without a huge frame hit. More of the frame hit probably comes from your FSX environment anyway (weather, autogen, terrain detail and shaders).

 

Other than resistance to change, and those who want faux sim pits (placing the 2D panels on different monitors), I don't see the need to keep the 2D around.

It's unnecessary and unrealistic. Pretty much it.

 

Great arguments...

/sarcasm off

 

Number one thing I hate is when people answer questions with questions, deflecting the original, but that aside:

 

When you create a 2D panel, you have to make sacrifices. Things end up out of position, re-sized, in a completely wrong position, distorted, among other things, just to make it fit onto the panel. There's also a fundamental disconnect in operating a 2D panel with a 3D environment beyond it. A Cessna panel is one thing: about the only piece that would introduce a third dimension is the glareshield, yoke, and throttles. An airliner is a completely different ballgame. How do you negotiate the transition from the main panel to the pedestal? What about the MCP? Answer: Compromise. You sacrifice the integrity of how the cockpit looks and performs - angles get distorted to make 3D into 2D. Buttons get moved in order to include them on a particular 2D panel instead of another, and so on. In the end, the 3D panels - especially with the better developers out there - allow an approximation of what the 2D panels would be through the clever use of VC Views, while still allowing panning, zooming and avoiding distortion.

 

Hardware is no longer really an issue (if it is, had you saved a few bucks a month since FSX came out, again, it wouldn't be an issue). Even the cheaper hardware can churn out performance enough to work in the 3D without a huge frame hit. More of the frame hit probably comes from your FSX environment anyway (weather, autogen, terrain detail and shaders).

 

Other than resistance to change, and those who want faux sim pits (placing the 2D panels on different monitors), I don't see the need to keep the 2D around.

 

Well, I do not really hate 3d panel, so do not know what to answer you; however in comparison to 2d, VC is too narrow, you need really big screen in order to see all you need to see; if you want to reach some remote switch you need to turn whole head, some switches are masked by cockpit interior (armrest masking radio panel, and HUGS projector mask aft overhead panel (I know I can "move it by click", but is it realistic?)), so you need to " move whole body" which is painful if you dont own trackIR (expensive and produce awkward feeling - I mean, trying to turn head at one side, but in the very same time trying to keep eyeballs in center, its so dizzy feeling). Next, on MCP, knobs masking each other so its really hard to click on them sometimes. Although VC is 3d and 6dof, you cannot experience the real depth of cockpit, like you can in RL because it is flat screen in front of you after all, no matter what is drawn on that screen. Next, its very fps consuming, so preset views is not the solution for low end rigs. Actually you experience much more distortion in VC than on 2d panels because in VC, you are projecting 3d space onto 2d surface, just like with geographical charts, you cannot project globe on paper without distortion.

In RL we have very very wide view, just try to move your finger around head and you will see how wide you can see (well, not see, but notice its there). Its over 150 degrees left and right (almost 180 if you move eyeballs), you need really big projector and empty wall to cover whole view field of human eye.

 

So, both 2d panels and VC are compromises, and thats why its important to have 2d panels feature as well as VC feature.

 

At the end, please do not assume everyone have money for new rig, you dont know economic, social or any other status of other members of FS community, the world is big and what is natural for you, for some else is almost unachievable.

I suppose you havnt got the js4100 than since thats all vc view and is one of my favorites since getting this aircraft converted me from 2d to 3d

Actually, lack of 2d panels is one of the reasons I do not want to buy js4100. (Second reason is I do not like turboprops, its just too fast for GA and to slow for line traffic).

Actually, lack of 2d panels is one of the reasons I do not want to buy js4100. (Second reason is I do not like turboprops, its just too fast for GA and to slow for line traffic).

 

...and just right for the regionals.

 

So, both 2d panels and VC are compromises, and thats why its important to have 2d panels feature as well as VC feature.

 

So, since the 3D is a big compromise, mainly because you have to move your head around (or use 'A' to switch views just like you'd have to hit a button to bring up the overhead anyway), we should just not use it?

 

Following that logic, we should can the 3D environment, because it's also a big compromise by representing 3D space on a 2D screen? Scrap the autogen and the buildings, and all quasi-3D depiction and just let it go? After all, it's no better than the compromises of a 2D depiction, right?

 

A 2D panel is a much bigger compromise of 3D space, depicted on a 2D monitor, than a 3D panel representing 3D space, depicted on a 2D monitor. If it weren't, we'd still be playing side-scrollers and playing games in augmented 2D like PaperBoy:

 

 

At the end, please do not assume everyone have money for new rig, you dont know economic, social or any other status of other members of FS community, the world is big and what is natural for you, for some else is almost unachievable.

 

I didn't. I said if you'd saved a couple bucks here and there since FSX came out, you'd have the money for a better setup (new hardware or a new computer entirely). In 2008, I hit a wall where I was supposed to be going to flight school on a loan and Sallie Mae closed up aviation lending (and withdrew my loan offer). I had moved 2200 miles away from home, signed a lease on an apartment, and the loan didn't come through, so I had to scramble for a job and went jobless for a month and a half (in 2008, when the economy here in the US was terrible). I pulled myself up out of that hole, but I'll tell ya, I've been at $0 before. I know what it feels like, and I don't assume everyone else is rich enough to afford a nice new rig. Even used/old stuff can run a VC well enough if you don't max your sliders on the environment.