777 2D Cockpit?

[kevinh 409]

There's nothing realistic about using 2d panels if you have to click about every click spot to start from cold and dark, and taxing in 3d is so much easier than using 2d.

No less realistic than navigating around the VC by selecting EZCA cameras, using A and <shift> A or using popups of the panel displays so you can actually read them and make MCP selections.

 

We should steer this debate away from realism arguments as both VC and 2D involve compromises (in the basic single monitor configuration). So it comes down to personal preferences and the panel setup individual users find more comfortable and immersive. Neither side should proclaim "their" preference is better for everybody.

 

I don't think the time it takes to create a 2D main panel is uneconomic, but it is one more thing which has to be completed and so can delay release. However, I think it's something that should always be offered in a high end airliner flightdeck simulation. If not at initial release then as a later patch.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Dont tell me I am wrong you do not know what I see and how I interpert what I see, I am interested in only the flight instruments not a bunch of usless cockpit clutter. For you to compare whate I see to 3Dgames shows you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

You are correct. I don't know how you interpret what you see, however, I do know you have eyes that function in the same way mine to. Hardware is hardware, and having studied psychology and physiology in depth, I rather do know what I'm talking about. So, if you'd like to have discussions to that end, I'd be happy to:

 

The thing that has you upset is that you're defending your own perceptions based on your perception that I'm saying they're not correct. This is not the case. I'm addressing the opinion that 2D is more realistic than 3D being put off as a fact.

 

"I choose 2D because I perfer 2D as it gives me the most relistic view." [sic]

 

While you may have not meant it to be put off as a fact, I'd argue a good number of people would read it that way because of the lack of "in my opinion," or "I feel that," or other personal indicators. Additionally, there are several others here who would make the same claim as a fact.

 

How you interpret the sight picture of the sim, and how you prefer your "cockpit" to be laid out is purely opinion and personal preference. Similarly, how real the sim feels to you is also an interpretation I can't tell you how to feel. Those items have been coded into your brain both consciously and unconsciously from prior experiences. If you've never spent a significant amount on an aircraft's flight deck, the clutter would seem irritating or unnecessary, however, to someone who's been up there, those "clutter" items to you have been coded as potential items of information, or items of familiarity and are desired in the sim as well.

 

My statement that a 2D representation of a 3D environment is not as realistic as a 3D representation of a 3D environment is based in fact, however. It's like recording a recording, or photocopying a photocopy. There is an associated degradation of quality, or originality.

 

So, you're welcome to believe that 2D is more realistic, and that belief is something that is yours and nobody can take it away from you. The fact of the matter, though, is that 3D representations of 3D environments are more realistic.

 

My only message is be careful with the distinction between fact and opinion:

2D feels more realistic to you - Opinion/perception

3D is more realistic - Fact

 

I do not have a clue as to what I'm talking about - Opinion/accusation

I have indicated that I do know what I'm talking about - Fact

[kevinh 409]

My only message is be careful with the distinction between fact and opinion:

2D feels more realistic to you - Opinion/perception

3D is more realistic - Fact

This is the kind of statement which only inflames the argument. Both are opinion and perception, neither is fact.

 

My statement that a 2D representation of a 3D environment is not as realistic as a 3D representation of a 3D environment is based in fact, however. It's like recording a recording, or photocopying a photocopy. There is an associated degradation of quality, or originality.

Kyle, the VC you see on your monitor is a 2D representation of a 3D environment.

[Tamer008 12]

Ok guys.......I will post these resolutions and hope it will be the END of this useless discussion...so thumb up instead of adding another comment that will not change anything............

 

I think PMDG should consider these points seriously and i am sure it will make all simmers satisfactory with it :

1) First suggestion: PMDG can make an 3D VC model and a FULL 2d representation of VC cockpit as an expansion pack at EXTRA CHARGE.

2/ second suggestion: PMDG can make an 3D VC model ONLY and ANOTHER version with ONLY 2D model without including th 3d VC ( 2d representation only) and price these two independent model separately according to man hours each model has taken.( maybe the 2d will be more expensive than 3d, PMDG has the decision here!).

3) Third ( less likely) : PMDG can make an 3D VC model and a FULL 2d representation of VC which is the same approach that has been done with NGX.

Dont forget to LIKE.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

This is the kind of statement which only inflames the argument. Both are opinion and perception, neither is fact.

 

Do you live in a 2D world? No, you don't. A 3D representation (to include faux 3D - or 3D rendering on a 2D surface) is more realistic than a 2D image on a 2D surface, especially if that 2D image is superimposed on a 3D environment.

 

It only serves to inflame the argument for those who refuse to accept reality.

 

We had this argument years and years ago:

 

 

Some based their findings on fact:

-Things disappear over the horizon gradually

-You can see the shape of the earth disc on the moon in phases

-The sun is lower as you travel north

 

...and some based their "findings" on what they believed. They refused to accept it and refrained from travel through the seas for fear they'd fall off the world.

 

Their loss.

 

Similarly:

Some based their arguments on fact:

-3D representations of 3D environments are more realistic the fewer they are transferred through to 2D

-The human eye and the brain's interpretation of that information function fundamentally similarly across people

-One person's perception of reality may differ, but the brain is most at home in environments that match reality. An example of this is motion sickness - a disconnect between the brain and image results in a negative effect. That's not to say a 2D panel will make you nauseous, rather it's to say that the brain subconsciously tries to make sense of what it sees based on known reality (see the next point - despite being a simple collection of lines and shades, the brain tries to address it as a physically-possible object).

-Objects that cannot exist in a 3D reality may exist in 2D:

 

-There is an observable transition of technology and depiction from 2D to faux 3D depiction (we're no longer playing the original Mario-type games in favor of Call of Duty, Flight Sim and so on - 2D to faux 3D)

-The last point is observable in market dominance of, and therefore a human preference for faux 3D over 2D

 

...and some based their "findings" on what they believed. They refused to accept it and refrained from the more realistic experience, because it was different, and what they were used to.

 

Their loss, but hey...ignorance is bliss! As long as I can claim that I'm better off, despite the facts, I'll be okay.

 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called cognitive dissonance.

"When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all. Rationalization (making excuses) is often involved in reducing anxiety about conflicting cognitions."

 

 

Kyle, the VC you see on your monitor is a 2D representation of a 3D environment.

 

Correct, but faux 3D on a 2D monitor is still more closer to a representation of reality than 2D on a 2D monitor. There's no escaping that fact. I never said 3D was perfectly realistic. I said 3D is more realistic than 2D.

[pete_auau 1,163]

No less realistic than navigating around the VC by selecting EZCA cameras, using A and <shift> A or using popups of the panel displays so you can actually read them and make MCP selections.

 

We should steer this debate away from realism arguments as both VC and 2D involve compromises (in the basic single monitor configuration). So it comes down to personal preferences and the panel setup individual users find more comfortable and immersive. Neither side should proclaim "their" preference is better for everybody.

 

I don't think the time it takes to create a 2D main panel is uneconomic, but it is one more thing which has to be completed and so can delay release. However, I think it's something that should always be offered in a high end airliner flightdeck simulation. If not at initial release then as a later patch.

 

I havnt got ezca so cant comment on that part of the sim, you be better off asking some one else who has. All i was reffering is that its alot easier to taxi and start from cold and dark than finding and clicking each pop up or assigning keys to bring up the panels etc. As you said to one and to each own on how they want to fly

[tupolev280 21]

wow... Personally I'm very happy PMDG will only develope 3D VC versions, 2D is just a waste...Not realistic at all... So boring for flights. The work for the 2D panel will probably go for making better features out of this product.

 

I have a crappy laptop, but I'm being able to run very good VC versions, for example the iFly 737 and the Koryo Il-62. Probably a bit demanding for computers.

[Tamer008 12]

wow... Personally I'm very happy PMDG will only develope 3D VC versions, 2D is just a waste...Not realistic at all... So boring for flights. The work for the 2D panel will probably go for making better features out of this product.

 

I have a crappy laptop, but I'm being able to run very good VC versions, for example the iFly 737 and the Koryo Il-62. Probably a bit demanding for computers.

A crappy laptop with PMDG VC..........#####???????? :t0148: :p0816:

[ohsirus 241]

Yes another 2D versus 3D thread!!! My way is better than your way!!! BlahBlah

 

IBTL

[FLEX1978 373]

I had chicken for dinner.. Fact

 

Anyway.. Everyone's entitled to there opinion although I have to admit I don't understand the pure 2D crowd. Have you ever wondered why every high end driving simulator and high end fighter jet simulator is VC only? Just taking a guess here that it's because the VC provides a much more realistic environment.

 

Btw, that horse is looking pretty bad right now...

[tupolev280 21]

A crappy laptop with PMDG VC..........#####???????? :t0148: :p0816:

 

In other words, slow nvidia 310M processor with intel 3 processor. But as stated above they run iFly 737 and the Koryo Ilyushin-62 virtual cockpits. PMDG I do not know as I run FSX.

 

FSX framerates are low, which is why I call my machine for "crappy" )

[EGLL77W 1,508]

Btw, that horse is looking pretty bad right now...

 

And I thought I was the only one worried :-(

[GregL 26]

Use what you wish, if it has 2D, use 2D, if it doesn't, don't.

 

Remember, life is 3D ;-)

[tupolev280 21]

My last statements about VC only for 777 were quite rubbish. I have explained in the other thread.

 

I do not want to start a war, even if you dislike my comment, please do not take it personally as it probably isn't for you then.

 

A very valid point would be that the PMDG 777 won't feel "complete" without all it's features including 2D. An amazing plane with virtual cockpit, a virtual cabin and an amazing exterior which probably top notch sounds. This is excellent, but without the 2D you will feel that you are "missing" something. And this will happen often, when you change views there will be simply nothing where the 2d panel is supposed to be, and I'm sure a lot of customers would feel "cheated" if does not have a 2D panel. Even if you are a VC flyer, preflight, shutdown and such things go much quicker in 2D. That's the way I do it as I'm used to planes who do not have full VC.

 

The decision is up to PMDG. I hope at least for one time the companies can cut the fancy "market targeting majority" and make something for us all? Even if a 2D panel is released later, it's better than nothing.

 

I am not trying to bash anyone, I am just giving a peacefull suggestion.

 

Regards

[g_precentralis 191]

As I said, its not about realism at all, its about money, FSX cannot display how real cockpit looks like, not in 2d panel, not in VC, thats the only fact. All other is just a perception. Simply you cannot fit few cubic meters at few inches of any display, the whole world is scaled down, fisheye effects, frame rate problems... there are million flaws that it is ridiculous to argue what is more real 2d panel or VC.