2D panel or only 3D panel

[g_precentralis 191]

Nobody is saying get rid of 2D pop ups, most of us here use the 2D FMC or eicas undocked to another screen. Basic home cockpits use pop ups, not the main captain/fo panel that some people want PMDG to continue developing.

 

Personally I have always used a multi monitor hybrid of VC on a large LCD and undocked 2d panels on smaller screens.

 

and why you use 2d pop ups when VC is so perfect?

[mikea76 184]

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.. Nice..

[Chris Kelly 14]

I've found that the EZDok camera solves a lot of the problems that I've had with maneuvering about the virtual cockpit. For instance, it's fairly easy to set up a camera that repositions the camera so that the CDU fills the entire screen. In my mind, that's just as effective as having the 2D pop-up. Similar camera angles can be made and saved for the rest of the displays and interfaces. I plan to do this again when the T7 and 747 launch.

 

 

Seems no different to me than the actual 2D pop-up that the NGX has, except for the fact that you can't be looking out the windscreen at the same time. Now, I understand that it's another add-on, but I think it's easier for folks economically to come up with a solution like this instead of buying an entirely new set-up.

[ajpongress 467]

and why you use 2d pop ups when VC is so perfect?

 

where did he say it was perfect?

[Ian McPhail 55]

Guys: there is in the PMDG 737NGX a VC cockpit view, that I call the jumpseat view. This is a dead centre view, and can be used perfectly like the old 2D panel for setting up. Even better in fact as the hat switch will take you up to the overhead, and down to the radio etc after pedestal stand.

 

I find it to be more flexible and useful than the old 2D panel.

 

However for takeoff and landing I use the pilot's view, which is also zoomable and adjustable and to me much more realistic. It is also the view for the HUD which is one of the most exciting additions to a civilian sim.

 

Yes, I put the popup CDU on another screen, but no other view needs to be pulled up as all instruments can be accessed cleanly just by moving through the cockpit views. The Triple 7 is sure to be the same so any demand for a 2D panel, is replaced by a greater range of views in the VC giving not only better access but far more realism.

[pete_auau 1,159]

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).

 

I cant see you argument here since when is the js4100 is too fast for a ga or too slow, havnt you heard of speed control called the throttles. Since the fact is that you dont like it since it hasnt got a 2d cockpit and never tried it, maybe you would changed you mind like it did me when i got it, since i was a 2d person before this.

[g_precentralis 191]

I cant see you argument here since when is the js4100 is too fast for a ga or too slow, havnt you heard of speed control called the throttles. Since the fact is that you dont like it since it hasnt got a 2d cockpit and never tried it, maybe you would changed you mind like it did me when i got it, since i was a 2d person before this.

 

No, what is throttle?

Seriously, with cruise speed of 260 knots its just in the middle of speed range, same as ATR-72 and dash-8. Simply, its not the aircraft I can enjoy, as its cannot land on small fields, and when I want to fly 200nm flight, its so time consuming. So 2d panels is the reason, but not the main reason I do not want to buy that js4100.

I can use VC, I like to taxi in VC, its impossible to taxi that good in 2d panel, but in IFR its a disaster when I want to fly manually and do all flows. Real 737 cockpit is designed for 2 persons, thats is one more thing why VC is not practical, its simply to wide for one person.

 

EZDock? when I buy aircraft package I expect to have all views preset already, do not want to spend money on one more software just because aircraft package lack of that feature.

 

Honestly, I expect T7 will be cheaper than 737NGX, as they are not going to "waste" money and time on 2d panels.

[pete_auau 1,159]

No, what is throttle?

Seriously, with cruise speed of 260 knots its just in the middle of speed range, same as ATR-72 and dash-8. Simply, its not the aircraft I can enjoy, as its cannot land on small fields, and when I want to fly 200nm flight, its so time consuming. So 2d panels is the reason, but not the main reason I do not want to buy that js4100.

I can use VC, I like to taxi in VC, its impossible to taxi that good in 2d panel, but in IFR its a disaster when I want to fly manually and do all flows. Real 737 cockpit is designed for 2 persons, thats is one more thing why VC is not practical, its simply to wide for one person.

 

EZDock? when I buy aircraft package I expect to have all views preset already, do not want to spend money on one more software just because aircraft package lack of that feature.

 

Honestly, I expect T7 will be cheaper than 737NGX, as they are not going to "waste" money and time on 2d panels.

So anything more than 200 nm is time comsuming, you can always use time accel. You can get fscrew2 to get the co pilot to some of the work for you

[scandinavian13 5,192]

How does the 3D make flows longer in the soup versus not?

 

It really doesn't. Seems like the issue is more that you're not properly remaining ahead of the aircraft. When I go flying - sim or real - I'll set in frequencies as early as possible. Often, if I'm flying somewhere on the GPS and I'm going to be arriving on the LOC/ILS, I've got the ILS freq either on NAV1 or 2, with the CRS dialed in on NAV2 as a reminder (as long as I don't need it during the flight) before I even depart. When I fly into Charlottesville, I know I'm going to get passed from 125.05 to 120.45 to 132.85. Can you guess what happens as soon as I get a freq change? I plug in the next expected freq.

 

When I fly, it's all single pilot. Sure I have passengers, but what are they going to do? A lot of the people who run with the excuse "oh, well it's a 2 pilot plane - even the FAA thinks so" really just aren't setting themselves up properly. It's not that the FAA thinks that it needs to be a 2 pilot plane, it's that the FAA thinks that when the [stuff] hits the fan, you'll need two pilots to attempt to get things straight (or things on the panel are physically out of reach of one of the sides).

 

So, yes, you'll be busy, but you're not going to be any busier in the 3D than you are the 2D. That's quite a dramatic overstatement. I'll accept the single pilot versus dual pilot argument somewhat, but again, provided you're ahead of the plane and not setting up the approach while trying to fly said approach, you'll be just fine.

[g_precentralis 191]

I fly RL too, and its good practice to set next freq. you expect on stand by as you said. In VC you need to move your hand off throttle to move your head via mouse or to move your hand off yoke to cycle via A key. Then, you need to scroll via mouse for right freq while stupid armrest mask your view. During that time you do not monitor main instrument at all, and you cannot feel the acceleration as its not motion-sim. In 2d you still have to move your hand off throttle or yoke to open panel, but while you scrolling for freq. you can monitor main instruments. Same is for lights and auto ign, in 2d you can open a little overhead panel and leave it open until you finish aft take off flow. In 2d panel, you can open whole MCP in front of you so its easy to fly via MCP too. In VC its really difficult to turn knobs on MCP at other side of the cockpit.

 

If your display is not big enough you have to zoom in to read your PDF/ND, so you narrow your FOV, and do not see EICAS anymore. WHen I fly online, I noticed that my reaction to ATC request is much quicker in 2d panel.

In RL you can press button even if you do not look at it directly, you see it with your peripheral view, you sense the space around you, in FS thats impossible in VC and in 2D too.

 

2d panel is always bad positioned, outside view is tilted a little bit in order to see panel and terrain/rwy right, its really hard to taxi as reference lines is not at correct places, and you cannot turn your head in way you want...

 

Beside NGX, I fly DCS A-10C too, and they provided VC only, but, its a military jet, single seat, you are in middle of narrow cockpit, there is no overhead panel, and HOTAS is so good you can do almost everything with your hands on throttle and stick, its a much different experience from NGX and there I do not need 2d panels at all.

 

So as I said its really a compromise, both VC and 2d offering something good and something bad and thats the reason we should get both of them.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Most joysticks have hat switches, so there goes the need to remove your hands from the yoke and throttle for the mouse and spacebar. Beyond that, taking your hands off of the controls should yield little issue, as you should know as you're a pilot. Trim is your friend (also something you can assign via your joystick).

 

Even if you're flying outside of the sim and can feel the plane, it doesn't mean you're immune to altitude/heading creep. Whenever you look down at the map, or look over to mess with the GPS, you're going to get a little off when flying by hand. There's a big unrealistic expectation when using the 2D that everything needs to be visible along with the view out the front window. When you look at the overhead in either 2D or 3D, you're not going to be looking out the front window.

 

To me, it seems like you haven't fully given it a chance to get good with it. If I'm flying on the captain side and I need to switch something on the overhead, I triple-tap 'a', and then triple-tap SHIFT+a. Moreover, I have a key mapped on my joystick that allows me to cycle views that way. Granted, it only goes forward through the rotation, but I know how many clicks to get to each panel. It's just the same as memorizing where I need to click on a 2D panel to bring up whatever view.

 

With the exception of the pop-up FMS for the FO's side, because I don't feel like zooming in on it, I don't touch the 2D panel, and I don't have a single issue. All I have is an old Saitek X-45, but I've mapped the keys properly to fit what I need to do better.

[awyeah! 0]

I cant stand 3d for landing and take off i never get the centre line as good. I went to flight experience 737-800 on the Gold Coast and 2d panel gives the same feel for me anyways and i wont be building 3 home cockpits for each individual aircraft thats why i think 2d and a bigger screen. If i wanted the pushed back in the seat feel i'd buy a ticket or get my licence.

[ajpongress 467]

If I had the money and resources to build a 2D multi panel simpit I would do it...it would be so much cheaper then a real simpit with custom hardware.

But since I can't do that, a big LCD monitor with the 3D VC and TrackIR is the closest I can get to a real cockpit in my apartment. (and smaller too).

 

Having one monitor and using 2D exclusively just isn't real enough.

 

In the end it won't matter, since the 777 will be exclusively 3D. :)

[pete_auau 1,159]

I cant stand 3d for landing and take off i never get the centre line as good. I went to flight experience 737-800 on the Gold Coast and 2d panel gives the same feel for me anyways and i wont be building 3 home cockpits for each individual aircraft thats why i think 2d and a bigger screen. If i wanted the pushed back in the seat feel i'd buy a ticket or get my licence.

I find take off and landing more realistic using the 3d since you can pan around using the hat switch and u can leave the view at 45 or whatever angle you like up or down try that in 2d u have to hold the switch in place, Also in taxing around the tarmac as well is alot more easier as well than 2d

[Paul_Smith 92]

...In VC you need to move your hand off throttle to move your head via mouse or to move your hand off yoke to cycle via A key. Then, you need to scroll via mouse for right freq while stupid armrest mask your view. During that time you do not monitor main instrument at all, and you cannot feel the acceleration as its not motion-sim...

Do you not think this is very true to life? When flying a real plane, large or small, you have to plan when you can afford to spend time concentrating on details for exactly the reasons you mentioned. You are correct again when you say larger aircraft are designed for two man crews, so having a PNF tune the radios while the PF flies is the norm. But when the PNF has a higher priority task or is indisposed, the PF has to decide when and how long they can spend not flying so they can tune the radios or do what ever else it is that needs doing. This is part of the decision making process that makes flying fun (for me anyway).