777 2D Cockpit?

[mataus 1]

How many times do the guys at PMDG have to state that they are not doing it? Just like they are not doing FS9! The aim is to move forward, not to stay stuck in the past because some people don't like the decision that's been made. PMDG is a business, many seem to forget that, just like Microsoft did with the failed 'Flight' project.

[Tamer008 12]

I agree. I wouldn't pay too much mind to it, though. He seems to be on a 2D campaign based on this x-post from the NGX subforum, with a topic dedicated to the "fact" that 2D is far superior.

Do you have a clear crystal view of your PFD and other displays in VC even with proper zooming like the 2d panels, do you notice the sudden changes of aircraft orientatation when flying in VC and looking to displays which are far away of you unlike the point of view of pilot that have clear view of displays like the 2d ones unlike VC and that due to the fact that displays in VC in fsx cannot have the clear view like the 2d ones which like real ones. B)

[mataus 1]

Yes I have a crystal clear view of the PFD and other gauges, even when hand flying and navigating around the flight deck. Therefore no need for outdated unrealistic 2D panels.

[Tamer008 12]

Yes I have a crystal clear view of the PFD and other gauges, even when hand flying and navigating around the flight deck. Therefore no need for outdated unrealistic 2D panels.

ok upload this fancy crystal view and justify your reply?? :rolleyes: :lol: then i will upload a view of 2d and compare??

[mataus 1]

Well I have my own 2d that I can compare it to, so what would be the point? And if I didn't have a clear view then I would use the 2d, but like I stated, I don't. Your post isn't going to change anything, only your choice of what panel you use.

[Tamer008 12]

Well I have my own 2d that I can compare it to, so what would be the point? And if I didn't have a clear view then I would use the 2d, but like I stated, I don't. Your post isn't going to change anything, only your choice of what panel you use.

 

i didnt post in order to make 3d VC simmers to move to 2d panels becuase i personally fly in VC and rarely use 2d!! but i noticed that due to FSX limits the ultimate handling and experience simmer can get on PC by using 2d panels away from comparing 2d with real airplanes cocpit views!! i mean by using 2d panels all systems concepts can be understood and simulated more accurate and deliver more control on all buttons, again i always fly in VC but feel that 2d gives me more feeling of the flight characteristic than 3d vc although any person would say that since a cockpit is a 3d space so it should be modeld in 3d VC.......i mean aviation fans will only experience the real thing only by builting home cockpit and use FSX as background film, or to fly real full simulators...........

[mataus 1]

My choice of VC comes from flying for real, 2d just didnt offer the same realism. Yes hardware is important depending on add-ons. If your system struggles to run vc, then i can understand why people want 2d, but hardware has improved alot, so progression is only logical.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Do you have a clear crystal view of your PFD and other displays in VC even with proper zooming like the 2d panels, do you notice the sudden changes of aircraft orientatation when flying in VC

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. Your brain visually interprets change in orientation most effectively through parallax. This is why depth perception is a lot more effective with two eyes, than with one eye covered. While you can see some of this effect in the 2D, it is not as effective as the 3D, as you have no local (close-in) references as anchor points.

 

Also, if you suddenly got hit with a crosswind and the aircraft yawed, this would appear more obviously in the 2D view. While it's more obvious, it's not as realistic. Changes in orientation are visually subtle. When it comes to turbulence and the like, you feel it a lot more than you see it. Granted, you do see it, but with a 3D panel, you have a local reference to judge the total parallax.

 

Take a look here:

http://contour.com/stories/jyo-landing-09092012

 

Watch the video in full screen, covering the nose of the plane with your hand or a sheet of paper, and then watch it again without the cover. You'll see that it looks less drastic when you have the angles on the nose to compare with the changes in the distance. While, yes, I am getting beaten to [heck], being able to see the nose allows you to see I'm still actually on course to the runway. Without that reference, the change on the horizon may have lead me to over-correct when trying to compensate for the wind.

 

A lot of flying is about the subtleties of angles. If you can't judge those angles, it makes it that much more difficult. A 3D flight deck gives you that advantage by giving you local objects for parallax reference.

 

Wolfgang Langewiesche goes on and on about this in Stick and Rudder - good book. It's a bit antiquated, but I suggest everyone reads it.

 

[...] and looking to displays which are far away of you unlike the point of view of pilot that have clear view of displays like the 2d ones unlike VC and that due to the fact that displays in VC in fsx cannot have the clear view like the 2d ones which like real ones. B)

 

I'll post some unedited screenshots later to show you exactly what I see. I don't need to zoom, and the 2D actually shows up as less crisp than the 3D. It's probably more to do with your settings not being correct than the actual aircraft.

[Tamer008 12]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Your brain visually interprets change in orientation most effectively through parallax. This is why depth perception is a lot more effective with two eyes, than with one eye covered. While you can see some of this effect in the 2D, it is not as effective as the 3D, as you have no local (close-in) references as anchor points.

 

Also, if you suddenly got hit with a crosswind and the aircraft yawed, this would appear more obviously in the 2D view. While it's more obvious, it's not as realistic. Changes in orientation are visually subtle. When it comes to turbulence and the like, you feel it a lot more than you see it. Granted, you do see it, but with a 3D panel, you have a local reference to judge the total parallax.

 

Take a look here:

http://contour.com/s...anding-09092012

 

Watch the video in full screen, covering the nose of the plane with your hand or a sheet of paper, and then watch it again without the cover. You'll see that it looks less drastic when you have the angles on the nose to compare with the changes in the distance. While, yes, I am getting beaten to [heck], being able to see the nose allows you to see I'm still actually on course to the runway. Without that reference, the change on the horizon may have lead me to over-correct when trying to compensate for the wind.

 

A lot of flying is about the subtleties of angles. If you can't judge those angles, it makes it that much more difficult. A 3D flight deck gives you that advantage by giving you local objects for parallax reference.

 

Wolfgang Langewiesche goes on and on about this in Stick and Rudder - good book. It's a bit antiquated, but I suggest everyone reads it.

 

 

 

I'll post some unedited screenshots later to show you exactly what I see. I don't need to zoom, and the 2D actually shows up as less crisp than the 3D. It's probably more to do with your settings not being correct than the actual aircraft.

thank you for useful information, english is my second language so i didnt get most of your post but i understand that you mean that you need a reference like the nose of plane or the upper edge of the aircraft to know what corrections are needed due to winds and shifts....i totally agree with you that 3d give you the feeling of all effects on aircraft unlike 2d, but my point was in an unreal flying ( fsx) 2d give you more flexibilty to handle IFR more than 3d that assist you better in visual approach for example, i have a clear view of PFD and ND in my NGX VC but the 2d panel are more clear and comfortable to look at.........

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Okay. I see your point now. I don't necessarily agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

English may not be your first language, but you did pick up the main point, so it's good enough :wink:

[pride545 30]

That's 2 topics that he has started that Tamer has started this argument in.b Stop feeding his complaining!!!

[Tamer008 12]

That's 2 topics that he has started that Tamer has started this argument in.b Stop feeding his complaining!!!

you dont have the rights to disturbe this disccusion........any topic is for useful and scientific information for simulation world so if you dont like it dont post unrespectful comments.......always try to be positive and give good advice :excl: :mad:

[crazy voyager 13]

Posted 23 August 2012 - 01:48 AM

 

View Postscandinavian13, on 22 August 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

On VATSIM, too many people take almost up until their initial altitude to call after departure (and then get whiny that you didn't clear them higher before the plane leveled off 3 seconds after their call). I'm imagining most of the issue is people not placing the departure frequency in the standby side.

 

Sometimes I don't get a frequency change until my leveloff altitude anyway, but that's another story (and one of my vatsim pet peeves)

 

 

Not always due to controller being inefficent though, my last two flights out of EGLL I have been at 6k for a few minutes while clearing the stacks, this is normal if there are inbounds from that direction. Also an SS departure at FL70 may keep you at 6k a bit longer if you go to BPK on easterlies, or if you're going out via DVR a BIG inbound to LL will keep you low for longer.

 

It is not always apparent why you are kept low after departure but if it isn't obvious there may be something the controller knows that you don't, also it's sometimes a lot easier for us (especially working larger sectors) to level separate which means I may rather keep you low an extra 3 minutes than start giving off headings, simply because it reduce my workload. I know it burns your virtual fuel but by the end of the day, it is virtual fuel.

 

I'm not saying it's not sometimes due to controller inefficency, but things are not always as obvious a they seem (something I think some RW pilots may have missed as well if I'm honest...).

[pilot_tofly 10]

No 2D cockpit? Even the NGX had a 2D cockpit (or something similar to it). I like the VC, but sometimes it just completely eats up my frame rates.

[kamaz74 81]

I don't necessarily agree 100%, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

There is a god!!!