No more 2D panels = sad tumtiddle

[squerble 300]

Hi all,

 

I was hoping to get some clarification from the guys at PMDG as to why they have decided to discontinue the 2D panels in future releases?

 

For those of us with poor machines (I use a MacBook Pro with integrated graphics!), 2D is a perfect way to fly. I have FSX locked at 30fps and it runs brilliantly. If I switch to the VC for the fuel cutoff levers at startup/shutdown, my FPS drops to a measly 14fps which is completely unacceptable (yes, I have lo-res everything turned on).

 

I want to buy the 747-400X (+ the -8X) but I will not do this now that I know 747x V2 is coming. You've already explained that it will be completely new based on the NGX engine (great), and the -8x will be fully modelled (fantastic) yet you won't offer a 2D panel, therefore I automatically will not be buying it (same with the 777).

 

So I'm left with only an 8 year old 747 with just a 'model' -8X as an addon, which, quite frankly, is sub-par compared to what you will be offering.

 

So please, can there be some official clarification as to why this decision was made?

 

 

Kind regards.

[sheepfu 3]

I'm not sure you will get an official response from PMDG as this has been beaten to death. The basic answer you will get is that the VC offers a more realistic prospective and that most people fly with the VC. This is not to start an argument, and not to offend the very loyal and vocal 2d crowd. Just a summation of the hundreds of posts on this topic.

[ryanbatc 12,932]

I don't work for them but I'd guess technology changing, along with demand for high fidelity and HD graphics, found in VC's.

 

I know where you're coming from - I used to be stuck on a low end desktop for many years. But eventually you have to upgrade to something faster :)

[scandinavian13 5,192]

The official answer as to why was mentioned back in 2009, I think. If tried a quick search, but I couldn't find it (remember AVSIM's servers got killed between now and then, so it couldn't gotten lost in that).

 

If I remember correctly, the old explanation was that users were going more toward 3D and hardware was making that more of a possibility (cheaper hardware to run VCs means more users have access). It's also very time-intensive, because of the task of forcing 3D space onto 2D.

 

Unfortunately, your machine simply isn't meant to handle this type of processing (even my old HP laptop wasn't, but it could at least pull it off).

 

You can find user arguments for and against here:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/371017-2d-panel-or-only-3d-panel/

 

In the end, though, this was all it came to:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/371017-2d-panel-or-only-3d-panel/page__st__175#entry2370911

[ajpongress 467]

No offense, but an 8 page long thread specifically about 2D panels was just linked, and it was very very recent.

Don't you guys do a forum search before reposting the same topics that keep getting locked?

[g_precentralis 191]

I hope that Ryan understand how wrong he was when he closed that 2d panels topic in 777 subforum. Instead we have discussion in one topic, now every day someone opens new 2d panel topic. But, this is not my forum, so I do not care what they do with it.

 

back on topic, RSR said that 2d panels are time and money consuming to make, and because this is just business for them, they do not want to lose money making 2d panels. Realism is not the reason at all, since we found out that immersion of realism is very subjective matter.

 

So, as this is business, and PMDG sell their product same as BMW sell their cars, your right as a customer is to support (lack of) features, or punish that, same as you would buy BMW car or not because of (lack of) some feature. Its your choice mate.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

How is that wrong? Why let a forum devolve into a never-ending fight because there's no "right" answer. There's either agree with PMDG or don't agree. There's no sense in discussing it.

[squerble 300]

Firstly; apologies for doing another one of 'those' topics. Perhaps I should have clarified I'd looked, but couldn't seem to find any official word on it.

 

Secondly; I guess you could say this comes down to capable hardware. Realistically I'd have to spend another £600-700 quid to get a half-way decent FSX rig plus another £100-150 on a decent monitor to play it on, which is a lot of money really. I could get that for my current laptop on eBay, but I'd rather not switch from OS X to Windows. It's just a shame that I have a brilliant way of playing the game smoothly (whilst looking decent) and that's going to be taken away.

 

I can't, in all fairness, bring myself to purchase the current version of the 747 knowing the -8X is just a model, when the next version (from what I gather from the forums) is going to a fully simulated (new flight characteristics, sounds, panel? etc).

[g_precentralis 191]

How is that wrong? Why let a forum devolve into a never-ending fight because there's no "right" answer. There's either agree with PMDG or don't agree. There's no sense in discussing it.

 

Its still happening, as you see, someone opened new topic, Ryan will close it and tomorrow, someone else will open the new 2d panel topic. So, its better to leave one topic open and reduce clutter of other parts of forum.

 

But, as I said, not my forum, not my business.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Secondly; I guess you could say this comes down to capable hardware. Realistically I'd have to spend another £600-700 quid to get a half-way decent FSX rig plus another £100-150 on a decent monitor to play it on, which is a lot of money really. I could get that for my current laptop on eBay, but I'd rather not switch from OS X to Windows. It's just a shame that I have a brilliant way of playing the game smoothly (whilst looking decent) and that's going to be taken away.

 

What is somewhat odd about that statement is that it's Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Microsoft really didn't intend the software to be used on Macs, so your best bet in any case is to run it on a Win7x64 environment. I understand that it works, but "works" isn't always the benchmark of what's best.

 

That's the unfortunate side of the Apple operating model. I don't mean to start an A vs M argument here, as Apple has made some great strides (and you can't argue with their revenue stream), but it's not an easy developmental environment.

 

In the end, yes, it's unfortunate, but I wouldn't exactly call it unexpected. I find it unfortunate that my old car (a BMW Z3) performed poorly in the snow, but it wasn't exactly made to do that, so it wasn't unexpected.

 

I do see your frustration, however.

[squerble 300]

That's an incorrect assumption. FSX IS running under Win7x64 and is an ideal environment. Google "bootcamp" if you don't know about it. This was never about AvM.

[jcalder 25]

There's no sense in discussing it.

 

Yet you participate in every 2D panel topic. <_<

[scandinavian13 5,192]

That's an incorrect assumption. FSX IS running under Win7x64 and is an ideal environment. Google "bootcamp" if you don't know about it. This was never about AvM.

 

It's running under a guest Win7x64 environment, operating in the confines of the hardware on your Apple system. I know full well what bootcamp is, and I understand the concept of virtualization (server sitting right next to me is running VMWare Server, running CentOS as a guest to WinServer03).

 

Virtualization is a way to escape limitations on hardware for budget constraints, not to escape restrictions on how the hardware runs. Either way, you're using Win7 over OSX in some way shape or form. It's better to run it on its own dedicated system.

 

I know it's not AvM, and it never was. The reason I stated that is I didn't want anyone to take it there because I'd mentioned the two different companies.

 

Yet you participate in every 2D panel topic. <_<

 

Right. Should I not? It seems that ya'll don't get the point, so I might as well come in and play my broken record in hopes that it will eventually strike home.

 

 

The difference is I'm not starting them.

[jcalder 25]

You can participate in whatever you want, I just find it odd that someone who said there is no sense in discussing something continues to discuss the topic that apparently makes no sense.

 

If there's no sense in it, why not concentrate your efforts on something that makes sense?

 

:Confused:

 

Whether you start the topic or not, if you don't believe it should be discussed then you probably shouldn't be adding to the discussion...

 

Oh, and for the record Bootcamp on a Mac is not the same as VMware or a "virtual" operating system. It's more like a dual-boot windows system. Choose between XP and 7 on a PC for instance.

[squerble 300]

It's running under a guest Win7x64 environment, operating in the confines of the hardware on your Apple system. I know full well what bootcamp is, and I understand the concept of virtualization (server sitting right next to me is running VMWare Server, running CentOS as a guest to WinServer03).

 

Virtualization is a way to escape limitations on hardware for budget constraints, not to escape restrictions on how the hardware runs. Either way, you're using Win7 over OSX in some way shape or form. It's better to run it on its own dedicated system.

 

I'm afraid to say you don't know what Bootcamp is, otherwise you wouldn't have said that it was a guest operating system. It's far from a guest operating system. Nothing is virtualised. Windows is running natively on the hardware. No OS X at all. It is exactly the same concept as dual-booting Windows and Linux. You choose the operating system on boot, no virtualisation.

 

I would presume (since you seem familiar with VMWare) that you were thinking of VMWare Fusion (in which Windows applications can be run inside OS X). This is not what is in use here.