...and just right for the regionals.

 

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:

 

Well, I never said we should not use VC, in fact, 3d users are the ones who actually trying to force 2d panel users to stop using it and constantly "lobbying" for abandoning 2d panels.

 

Do you see the difference? 2d panel users just want to have 2d panels along with VC, while VC users want to have VC, but in the same time they want 2d panels to vanish. Thats just mean and selfish.

Do you see the difference? 2d panel users just want to have 2d panels along with VC, while VC users want to have VC, but in the same time they want 2d panels to vanish. Thats just mean and selfish.

 

I see the "difference," but the issue is that it takes a very large amount of resources and time to create the 2D panels. That's one of the many reasons developers are moving away from them. It takes extra time and resources, and really we're saying drop it because we don't use it. Further we're saying drop it because they're not worth it. They're not worth the extra time to put together and work out exactly how to make it all work/fit.

 

Mean and selfish would be "drop them because we don't like them and don't care what anyone else thinks."

 

..and if 2D panel users actually used both (other than being forced to, through not providing a full set of panels), then they'd see the 3D pre-set views are just like 2D panels (but without the dimension distortion). Further, you'd also see less "I won't buy it if it doesn't have full 2D panels."

Yes, its a business after all, if its not profitable, its not going to happen... unfortunately, many good things fallen apart because of lack of profit.

 

But, in the same time, I see certain number of simmers want 777-200ER, and even base 777-200/300. Should I support them? I mean, Im not going to buy that products, its time and resources consuming to make it, why should I support it?

 

I can say, "ok, you do not want to support 2d panels, then I do not want to support -200ER". Is that fair?

c'mon just give it a rest. 2D cockpits are gone. End off........

c'mon just give it a rest. 2D cockpits are gone. End off........

@scandinavian13, you see what im talking about?

My point being quit all this stupid arguing, PMDG decided they are not going to include 2D, I still use the 2D in the MD11 for preflight but I'm not going to b**** about lack of 2D in future products.

 

If PMDG we're in two minds regarding adding 2D panels then I can understand a reason for debate. They have stated they wont add them from the NGX onwards. So just accept it and move on like the other 95% of users..

But, in the same time, I see certain number of simmers want 777-200ER, and even base 777-200/300. Should I support them? I mean, Im not going to buy that products, its time and resources consuming to make it, why should I support it?

 

I can say, "ok, you do not want to support 2d panels, then I do not want to support -200ER". Is that fair?

 

Your support one way or another means little, really. It's the support of the group that's going to bring in the profits that matters. If the larger group that will purchase is the group that wants 3D and doesn't care about 2D, why waste the effort? Similarly, if they saw that there was no dominant interest in the 777-200ER, they probably wouldn't waste the time. You as an individual? No, sorry.

 

You're welcome to your own opinion. I'm not going to deny you the fact that you're welcome to believe the world is flat, but the reality is that it's not. Similarly, you're welcome to believe that the future of simming is in 2D panels, but the reality is that it's not (pop-ups max is the prevailing trend).

 

The other flaw to that argument is that those extra models cost more than just the base, so that extra effort brings in extra revenue. Spending extra time on 2D panels doesn't (not unless you're going to get petty like other developers and charge piece by piece).

 

@scandinavian13, you see what im talking about?

 

I don't. Rob does have a point (below), and I'm also inclined to believe there was a little humor in what he said (despite its dry nature).

 

If PMDG we're in two minds regarding adding 2D panels then I can understand a reason for debate. They have stated they wont add them from the NGX onwards. So just accept it and move on like the other 95% of users..

 

Agreed.

Your support one way or another means little, really. It's the support of the group that's going to bring in the profits that matters. If the larger group that will purchase is the group that wants 3D and doesn't care about 2D, why waste the effort? Similarly, if they saw that there was no dominant interest in the 777-200ER, they probably wouldn't waste the time. You as an individual? No, sorry.

 

You're welcome to your own opinion. I'm not going to deny you the fact that you're welcome to believe the world is flat, but the reality is that it's not. Similarly, you're welcome to believe that the future of simming is in 2D panels, but the reality is that it's not (pop-ups max is the prevailing trend).

 

The other flaw to that argument is that those extra models cost more than just the base, so that extra effort brings in extra revenue. Spending extra time on 2D panels doesn't (not unless you're going to get petty like other developers and charge piece by piece).

 

I don't. Rob does have a point (below), and I'm also inclined to believe there was a little humor in what he said (despite its dry nature).

 

Agreed.

Personally, Im happy the way this topic is going, discussion substantiated with arguments prevails.

 

What is actually a group? Just a bunch of individuals like Rob, you and me. In order for group to exist, there have to be individuals who support the idea.

 

World is not flat, but we project it on 2d surface all the time. Should we ban geographical charts, and declare that future is globe model?

 

2d panel cost, its not the separate product, but the price is included in whole package. Should I mention that some other developers (someone would say "the competition") announced full 2d panels for upcoming projects?

Btw, MSFS VC is badly coded at first place, just try DCS's VC and compare it with MS's one. Big difference.

Should I mention that some other developers (someone would say "the competition") announced full 2d panels for upcoming projects?

 

Good for those developers. PMDG has already made their decision and they stand by it.

As a customer, you can choose to either not buy the product, or buy it.

 

That's pretty much the bottom line at this point. I'm not in favor of full 3D or 2D either way. I appreciate giving customers a choice, but if they decide to go full 3D, then that's it. We can either buy it, or not.

 

There isn't really a 3rd option, or any point continuing to ask them to reconsider.

This is just another dead horse.

World is not flat, but we project it on 2d surface all the time. Should we ban geographical charts, and declare that future is globe model?

 

Did I say ban the 2D? No, I did not. I did, however, say don't waste time on things that really aren't cost effective. Charts and maps representing a 3D object in 2D have a distinct purpose: wayfinding/planning/etc. A 2D panel only has the job of attempting to represent a 3D cockpit (that's already modeled and functional beyond any 2D panel now), in 2D. It's a redundant effort, and really has no use other than causing a headache for the dev to recreate 3D into 2D because someone "likes it better." Seriously, if you're running FSX to any appreciable degree, you can run a VC with nearly the same frames as the 2D.

 

I really can't think of any other reason you'd want 2D panels.

 

 

but the price is included in whole package. Should I mention that some other developers (someone would say "the competition") announced full 2d panels for upcoming projects?

 

First, it's "included" but it isn't what you're thinking. Sure, the cost to any developer is included in the cost, but when it comes down to it, PMDG is going to set a price point based on the market. If you think about it, the NGX was released without all of the extra panels at the same price as it was later on when they included more of them because people got upset about it. That being said, they put in extra work for the 2D panels while collecting zero for the panels specifically (excepting the fringe sales of those whose purchase decision depended on that SP's panel inclusion). Meaning, those who already paid for the NGX got the 2D at no extra charge. Those who get it in the future get it at the same price as they would have without it. How PMDG chooses to price their products is likely a very internal subject, and it's really entirely up to them. If they factor it in that's one thing, but they're also subject to the market, so their actual factoring may not actually fully cover the time delay or properly compensate the people who made the extra effort.

 

Regardless: extra effort, not much added. I still don't see why people are stuck on full 2D environments.

2D panels are used almost exclusive in home cockpits with multi number of monitors. Home cockpits numbers are growing and 2D is not dead, for single monitors I guess 3D works fine but little use with muilti monitors. I am just amazed at the lack of knowledge display here about this hobby, all it takes is a little research on the net to open up a lot of eyes. check out mycockpit.org you will not see one 3D in use....BTW that site receives 100,000s of hits a year.

percy clapp

I am just amazed at the lack of knowledge display here about this hobby, all it takes is a little research on the net to open up a lot of eyes.

 

If you're going to accuse others of not reading, you should also make sure to read what others are saying:

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.

 

As you see, I specifically exempted that a while ago.

There are many threads not only here but in other forums, if not applying to you just ignore it, not bashing just an observation about this constance 2D -3D stuff......percy clapp

There are many threads not only here but in other forums, if not applying to you just ignore it, not bashing just an observation about this constance 2D -3D stuff......percy clapp

 

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.

Rob, having all necessary pop ups is fine as long as you also have a complete key code so that all function can be programmed into home made MPC and throttle ..with out the panel not able to use FSUIPC marco for button functions with out key codes...Not sure how to undock outside view and move to a projector screen....

percy clapp