2D panel or only 3D panel

[kevinh 409]

Sorry Kevin, I didn't want to comment on your screenshots because I thought it was so obvious.

 

Are you sitting down? Look up towards the roof until you can't raise your head anymore. Now what do you do? What I do is turn my chin so I can see further up, however, the world looks sideways. Funny how realistic this unrealistic view can be.

Sitting in a 737 pilot's seat if you look up at the IRS panel it certainly does not look to be at anything like the angle it appears to be at in FSX. The problem is the eyepoint pans and tilts in a completely unnatural way, whether you use mouse+spacebar or hatswitch. I think TrackIR would help, because it adds the ability to easily tilt the eyepoint sideways as well as up/down and left/right. It shouldn't be necessary to buy TrackIR to make the VC more realistic though.

[AAfan 49]

 

Sitting in a 737 pilot's seat if you look up at the IRS panel it certainly does not look to be at anything like the angle it appears to be at in FSX. The problem is the eyepoint pans and tilts in a completely unnatural way, whether you use mouse+spacebar or hatswitch. I think TrackIR would help, because it adds the ability to easily tilt the eyepoint sideways as well as up/down and left/right. It shouldn't be necessary to buy TrackIR to make the VC more realistic though.

What else can you use to simulate all the motions we can really make without having to hit 4 buttons or TrackIR, remember its a game and it's not nearly as easy as it looks to make everything perfect in any game!

[pete_auau 1,168]

If the VC view from the pilot's seat was so realistic, as enthusiasts for it say, I wouldn't need to change views. In real life you can sit in the pilot's seat, look up at the IRS and see it correctly. In FSX you can't.

guess i should i should have said only use this view for starting from cold and dark than you can go back to the capt view

[Paul_Smith 92]

I think if you sat in the pilots seat of a 737 in flight position and tried to look at the IRS controls, you would have no choice but to turn your head as well as tilt it back. Therefore, what FSX is showing you is accurate. You seem to be associating 'natural' and 'realistic' with conforming to your expectations. I associate them with conforming to reality, as a result, I sometimes have to reconsider my view of reality.

[kevinh 409]

I think if you sat in the pilots seat of a 737 in flight position and tried to look at the IRS controls, you would have no choice but to turn your head as well as tilt it back. Therefore, what FSX is showing you is accurate. You seem to be associating 'natural' and 'realistic' with conforming to your expectations. I associate them with conforming to reality, as a result, I sometimes have to reconsider my view of reality.

You think so? I take it you haven't actually sat in a 737 flightdeck seat then? I have. People are saying the VC is now so realistic that 2D is dead, I'm pointing out a situation where even in a PMDG VC the view is unrealistic, that's all. The VC should be 100% realistic in theory but the way the eyepoint moves in FSX makes it much less realistic. No account is taken of the way the human eye position moves right when you turn your head right, or move up and back when you tilt your head back to look up, for example. Or that you tend to try and keep your eyeline as near horizontal as possible if looking up/down and to the side. All these movements are available in FSX, it would just take a few simple algorithms to calculate x, y and z offsets automatically with rotations, and automatically lean sideways to keep the eyeline horizontal. If EZCA added this, or maybe another addon developer, then the VC could look so much more life like.

 

My hope is that people will become less hard over and dismissive of other people's opinions. I use VC or 2D as the situation demands, which is why I prefer to have both available. I find that now I use the VC more I need to use hot-keys for certain functions, things I used to select quickly from a 2D panel that I can't select quickly in the VC. EZCA helps a lot, but users should not have to pay extra to enable a "VC only" product to be usable.

[pete_auau 1,168]

You think so? I take it you haven't actually sat in a 737 flightdeck seat then? I have. People are saying the VC is now so realistic that 2D is dead, I'm pointing out a situation where even in a PMDG VC the view is unrealistic, that's all. The VC should be 100% realistic in theory but the way the eyepoint moves in FSX makes it much less realistic. No account is taken of the way the human eye position moves right when you turn your head right, or move up and back when you tilt your head back to look up, for example. Or that you tend to try and keep your eyeline as near horizontal as possible if looking up/down and to the side. All these movements are available in FSX, it would just take a few simple algorithms to calculate x, y and z offsets automatically with rotations, and automatically lean sideways to keep the eyeline horizontal. If EZCA added this, or maybe another addon developer, then the VC could look so much more life like.

 

My hope is that people will become less hard over and dismissive of other people's opinions. I use VC or 2D as the situation demands, which is why I prefer to have both available. I find that now I use the VC more I need to use hot-keys for certain functions, things I used to select quickly from a 2D panel that I can't select quickly in the VC. EZCA helps a lot, but users should not have to pay extra to enable a "VC only" product to be usable.

you seem to forget that your not in a real 737 and in front of a pc, which will never be the same what ever you use 2d or 3d

[CaptCraig 226]

you seem to forget that your not in a real 737 and in front of a pc, which will never be the same what ever you use 2d or 3d

 

Well done!

 

I for one love the VC in the NGX. It's the only VC I use cause it's so beautiful and functional and 3D. Plus when I get my TrackIR5 next week that will fix the taxi problems when I'm trying to flip switches, changing views and turning corners with my feet.

 

I'll also probably stop using the 2D panel when I get TrackIR cause I will be able to see everything properly.

 

I also find it funny that there are so many fights on these forums.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

:LMAO:

[Paul_Smith 92]

I take it you haven't actually sat in a 737 flightdeck seat then?

Of course not, I am just making this up as I go along to wind you up...

 

Here is a simple test you can try without leaving your room. Get a postit pad and draw an arrow pointing up. Stick it on the wall infront of you. Now draw another arrow and stick it a couple of feet above the first and repeat. When you reach the roof, keep going. Now sit in a chair facing the first post it note and follow the arrows with your eyes. Each arrow points to the next one and as they cross the roof they still point in the same direction, exactly as you expect.

 

Now take a camera and holding it steady to your eye, take a picture of each of the arrows. In the photos, you wil see each of the arrows still points to the next but the ones on the roof above and behind your head no longer point from the bottom of the photo to the top. This is because you had to turn your head to one side (or the other) to see further back. This is exactly the effect that FSX is showing you on your monitor. It is not that FSX is not taking account of eye movement, it is that you are overlooking your own head movement.

[g_precentralis 191]

exactly, head can rotate, but can translate too, so in order to properly see aft overhead you have to do both. We can do that partially in fsx using trackIR, but still we cannot make it perfect, like in RL, simply whole body movement (including eyeballs movement) is not something can be recreated in virtual world using just some little device mounted on our head. So as I said, its a compromise.

[kevinh 409]

you seem to forget that your not in a real 737 and in front of a pc, which will never be the same what ever you use 2d or 3d

I'm not forgetting that at all, I'm simply trying to point out that the VC view is not quite as life like as some people assume.

 

Of course not, I am just making this up as I go along to wind you up...

 

Here is a simple test you can try without leaving your room. Get a postit pad and draw an arrow pointing up. Stick it on the wall infront of you. Now draw another arrow and stick it a couple of feet above the first and repeat. When you reach the roof, keep going. Now sit in a chair facing the first post it note and follow the arrows with your eyes. Each arrow points to the next one and as they cross the roof they still point in the same direction, exactly as you expect.

 

Now take a camera and holding it steady to your eye, take a picture of each of the arrows. In the photos, you wil see each of the arrows still points to the next but the ones on the roof above and behind your head no longer point from the bottom of the photo to the top. This is because you had to turn your head to one side (or the other) to see further back. This is exactly the effect that FSX is showing you on your monitor. It is not that FSX is not taking account of eye movement, it is that you are overlooking your own head movement.

That's precisely the point I was trying to make. The perceived appearance of a panel above your head in real life is different to a picture taken of it that you look at without moving your head. That, combined with the fact that your eyes are in the front of your head, not at the point of rotation of your head, causes the VC view to look at the wrong angle.

 

There's not much that can be done about this, though I imagine that using TrackIR probably helps.

 

exactly, head can rotate, but can translate too, so in order to properly see aft overhead you have to do both. We can do that partially in fsx using trackIR, but still we cannot make it perfect, like in RL, simply whole body movement (including eyeballs movement) is not something can be recreated in virtual world using just some little device mounted on our head. So as I said, its a compromise.

Exactly, it's a compromise. Whether the VC or 2D (or a combination of both) is a better compromise is a matter of opinion, it's not a matter of fact. However unless you have TrackIR the VC is not as realistic as some claim it is.

[awyeah! 0]

How many companies are dropping 2d for just 3d anyways not many correct me if i am wrong. I'm sure that the combination of both would keep everybody happy, i dont know about everyone else i still find 2d panels simulates better, in real life your seated in and 3d simulates way too much movement. To give you an example if your trying to click something and you zoom in the movement generated whilest flying can actually move of the edge of the screen. All in all for me zooming in and out and around shits me off. Also a lot of youtube clips using 3d panels to taxi and manual landings are pretty poor as far as the runway centreline is concerned.

[Paul_Smith 92]

How many companies are dropping 2d for just 3d anyways not many correct me if i am wrong.

Consider your self corrected.

 

...The perceived appearance...causes the VC view to look at the wrong angle...

We have been back and forth on this. The view on the monitor is the same as the 'actual' appearance. It doesn't get any more realistic then that.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

You know I've seen some people complain they can't see the overhead good, I'm using a 15" Laptop at the moment and I can perfectly. How? Simply move back! Then you (well I can) see the whole over head so much better. I suggest trying that, not saying it'll solve all your problems.

[kevinh 409]

We have been back and forth on this. The view on the monitor is the same as the 'actual' appearance. It doesn't get any more realistic then that.

It's close but not exactly the same. It can't be, because of how the eyepoint moves (or rather how it doesn't move).