777 2D Cockpit?

[MHyypia 1]

I may be wrong, but I don't think anything definitive has been said about the 2D panels on the 777. During NGX development, I'm sure PMDG mentioned that it would be the last one, but since then, in the Aerosoft conference it almost sounded like Rob was backtracking on that a little, although still saying there wouldn't be a full 2D cockpit. Since then I don't think it has been officially mentioned, but as I said, I could be wrong.

 

Personally having to use 2D cockpit even partially is the one thing that is putting me off flying FSL Concorde, so I am quite happy with the direction PMDG is taking. I just hope FSL's Airbus won't require 2D as well.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

The issue isn't really one of personal preference in the end.

 

First, I agree with the idea that a preference for the VC or 2D in and of itself is definitely a personal preference.

 

In the end, though, the final business decision is not at all related to personal preference. My roommate would absolutely die for a Jeep with a diesel engine (from the factory). If you read Jeep forums all around, there's a similar sentiment so there's a "market," if you will. The issue is one of dollars and cents, though. Would Jeep stand to make a profit off of said market? Probably not. Though there are merits in diesel, it's not generally something people seek in cars aimed at the general public (in America, at least).

 

Similarly, the VC versus 2D decision comes from the idea (that's been explained about a hundred-plus times now) of dollars and cents. If a company is out there to make a profit (the normal goal of companies), the highest profit comes when you have a better profit margin. If market research says a product of "PMDG detail" will sell best at $70, then it'll sell best at $70 for the vast majority of people (with or without the 2D, based on the current market). A certain portion will not buy because of the lack of 2D panels, but adding the 2D panels in requires extra work, which means more man hours in order to capitalize on a smaller market portion, given that same $70 price point. So, is it worth it to capitalize on that group of people? That's up to the money side of things, and that's a decision for the business itself based mostly on dollar values invested versus returned.

 

Econ 101, guys.

 

I like shooting with my old OM-1 camera from time to time, but so few people use regular film now that it's getting hard for the film companies to make a profit on said film. While I would certainly buy the film, my market opinion has less weight because fewer people are using it, and instead converting to digital. If no profit can come from producing the film, then they'll stop (as many have). Some close up altogether, or some drop the film production and instead continue to produce photo paper.

 

In this case, 2D is bringing less of a profit (despite a market for it existing) and 3D is becoming the norm. As a business decision, some companies are dropping the 2D in favor of the 3D because there is a larger market for it now. It's the same as the FS9 versus FSX issue. Businesses move with markets. The matter isn't about the individual opinions of people; it's about the prevailing opinion of the market.

 

You're all entitled to your opinions. So is the business. Theirs is to spend more time and effort on capitalizing on profitable ventures.

 

 

 

2D is "old" technology, just like film. Don't get upset about it. It's simply a fact. I don't get upset when someone calls me a dinosaur with my OM-1. I'll just point to my hip (where my D60 rests) and say "I get nostalgic sometimes and it still takes great shots - nothing wrong with that," and we all have a laugh. The affordability to the market as a whole for hardware that can run FSX acceptably has increased (costs have gone down so that it's affordable for more people), and that is a fact.

 

Your opinion on whether or not you like it is, as stated, an opinion. Nobody can take that from you. It's yours, and you're welcome to keep it. The opinion of others that you're antiquated in that belief is likewise an opinion, and they're welcome to it. Neither side should get upset about it.

[Jazz 1,046]

The issue isn't really one of personal preference in the end.

 

First, I agree with the idea that a preference for the VC or 2D in and of itself is definitely a personal preference.

 

In the end, though, the final business decision is not at all related to personal preference. My roommate would absolutely die for a Jeep with a diesel engine (from the factory). If you read Jeep forums all around, there's a similar sentiment so there's a "market," if you will. The issue is one of dollars and cents, though. Would Jeep stand to make a profit off of said market? Probably not. Though there are merits in diesel, it's not generally something people seek in cars aimed at the general public (in America, at least).

 

Similarly, the VC versus 2D decision comes from the idea (that's been explained about a hundred-plus times now) of dollars and cents. If a company is out there to make a profit (the normal goal of companies), the highest profit comes when you have a better profit margin. If market research says a product of "PMDG detail" will sell best at $70, then it'll sell best at $70 for the vast majority of people (with or without the 2D, based on the current market). A certain portion will not buy because of the lack of 2D panels, but adding the 2D panels in requires extra work, which means more man hours in order to capitalize on a smaller market portion, given that same $70 price point. So, is it worth it to capitalize on that group of people? That's up to the money side of things, and that's a decision for the business itself based mostly on dollar values invested versus returned.

 

Econ 101, guys.

 

I like shooting with my old OM-1 camera from time to time, but so few people use regular film now that it's getting hard for the film companies to make a profit on said film. While I would certainly buy the film, my market opinion has less weight because fewer people are using it, and instead converting to digital. If no profit can come from producing the film, then they'll stop (as many have). Some close up altogether, or some drop the film production and instead continue to produce photo paper.

 

In this case, 2D is bringing less of a profit (despite a market for it existing) and 3D is becoming the norm. As a business decision, some companies are dropping the 2D in favor of the 3D because there is a larger market for it now. It's the same as the FS9 versus FSX issue. Businesses move with markets. The matter isn't about the individual opinions of people; it's about the prevailing opinion of the market.

 

You're all entitled to your opinions. So is the business. Theirs is to spend more time and effort on capitalizing on profitable ventures.

 

 

 

2D is "old" technology, just like film. Don't get upset about it. It's simply a fact. I don't get upset when someone calls me a dinosaur with my OM-1. I'll just point to my hip (where my D60 rests) and say "I get nostalgic sometimes and it still takes great shots - nothing wrong with that," and we all have a laugh. The affordability to the market as a whole for hardware that can run FSX acceptably has increased (costs have gone down so that it's affordable for more people), and that is a fact.

 

Your opinion on whether or not you like it is, as stated, an opinion. Nobody can take that from you. It's yours, and you're welcome to keep it. The opinion of others that you're antiquated in that belief is likewise an opinion, and they're welcome to it. Neither side should get upset about it.

 

Well said Kyle

[kevinh 409]

Can't help conclude that was directed at me.

 

I at no point said it was a thing of the past.

 

I agree that there is room for both. It really makes no difference to me if the 2d panel is there and if it makes life better for those with slightly slower systems I am all for it. My post was more one out of curiosity as stated at the end. I just wonder what the preference towards 2d is when one has a powerful machine. For me vc is better but that is nothing but my preference.

 

I also I feel did not show a lack of respect for anyones point of view. Just interested that is all.

 

 

Regards

You said an improved VC was a one of the best developments of FSX and new technology helped you to enjoy it. 2D was for people with lower end systems. That portrays 2D as a second class view system and from the past (pre FSX).

 

As for the lack of respect, I certainly didn't mean you. I meant contributors to 2D threads in general, once they degenerate into a 2D v VC battle. VC enthusiasts tend to be dismissive of the reasons why some people prefer 2D panels.

[kevinh 409]

Similarly, the VC versus 2D decision comes from the idea (that's been explained about a hundred-plus times now) of dollars and cents. If a company is out there to make a profit (the normal goal of companies), the highest profit comes when you have a better profit margin. If market research says a product of "PMDG detail" will sell best at $70, then it'll sell best at $70 for the vast majority of people (with or without the 2D, based on the current market). A certain portion will not buy because of the lack of 2D panels, but adding the 2D panels in requires extra work, which means more man hours in order to capitalize on a smaller market portion, given that same $70 price point. So, is it worth it to capitalize on that group of people? That's up to the money side of things, and that's a decision for the business itself based mostly on dollar values invested versus returned.

Economics is not the point. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that the 2D panels cost significantly more to develop. Only the main panel needs to be specially produced. Other 2D views can be rendered from the VC, surely? VC or 2D is about what suits you as the user. With the NGX I'm now happy to fly in the VC because it's of very high quality. But that started because I was forced to do so as there was no 2D pedestal and I ended up getting used to it. But I had to buy EZCA to make it usable. Most other addons I have the VC is either not fully functional or not usable in all flight phases and so I prefer to use 2D. In my opinion 2D feels more like the real flightdeck than the VC does. I've tried to explain why this is a couple of times and failed miserably. It's all about perception. Basically if you sit in a real cockpit you perceive things differently than you do viewing a 2D image of a virtual cockpit.

 

I felt very let down by PMDG because they promised a full 2D panel for the NGX and didn't deliver it. With the 777 they have made their position clear and I accept that on the assumption that the VC will be at least as good as the NGX.

[Jazz 1,046]

2D was for people with lower end systems. That portrays 2D as a second class view system and from the past (pre FSX).

 

Don't put words in my mouth please. I can see it is useful with a lower end systems and I did not say it it was a second class system. I certainly did not say it was for lower end systems specifically. If thats how you interpreted it I am sorry but not what was meant. However I think it is fair to say it is now yesterdays tech. My queery was specific in inquest regarding those with higher end specs and why they prefered it. With some aircraft I find myself using the 2d from time to time. Mainly when click spots seem to have been set by a drunkard.

 

The portrayal of 2d as a second class view system is your projection and not mine. I merely said it is not my preference.

 

Anyhow I will no longer comment on this as it is counter productive and unnecessary. And I am certainly not about to enter and argument with a fellow BAV pilot.

 

Wish I had not mentioned it now.

 

Regards

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Economics is not the point. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that the 2D panels cost significantly more to develop.

 

It really is. Seriously.

Here's the argument, and it's really as simple as this:

Developing a plane requires the model, the dynamics, the coding for the systems, the virtual cockpit model and 2D panels. Each one of those tasks takes time, which will be called M (model), P (dynamics/physics), C (coding/systems), V (virtual cockpit) and D (2D panel).

 

The sum of the project T = M+P+C+V+D

 

So, if zero time is spent on D, D may be left out of the equation, meaning less time is spent on the project. This means less cost, or at the very least, more profit from less work.

 

T-D = M+P+C+V

 

Using baseless numbers:

 

T = 50+40+90+60+40 = Time cost of 280

 

Eliminating the 2D is T = 50+40+90+60 = Time cost of 240

 

Two ways to increase profit margin:

Decrease cost/expense and/or increase sales (by raising price, or selling more). The most controllable aspect is decreasing cost. By using less time to develop a product for the same cost, I've increased my profit margin.

 

Other 2D views can be rendered from the VC, surely?

 

Not that simple.

 

But I had to buy EZCA to make it usable.

 

I use it just fine with a hat switch.

 

 

Most other addons I have the VC is either not fully functional or not usable in all flight phases and so I prefer to use 2D. In my opinion 2D feels more like the real flightdeck than the VC does. I've tried to explain why this is a couple of times and failed miserably. It's all about perception. Basically if you sit in a real cockpit you perceive things differently than you do viewing a 2D image of a virtual cockpit.

 

I really don't believe that at all. The Cessna panel is completely flat in real life (with the exception of the glareshield), so you'd imagine a 2D panel would be just fine. It's not. I feel that those in support of the 2D really only use the "realism" card to justify being resistant to change.

 

I felt very let down by PMDG because they promised a full 2D panel for the NGX and didn't deliver it.

 

Funny. I recall quite the opposite: pop ups and that's it. What you said strikes me as odd because as early as the MD-11 they set the expectation that 2D was being phased out.

[captainsazzman 83]

So we are sure on this? We will still get the fmc pop ups etc?

 

 

 

 

Hahaha I guess so! Im just glad I got a new laptop: i5 3210M (2.5-3.10 Ghz), 6GB RAM, 1TB hard drive

 

 

Anyway I dont think its too bad (not just cuz of my new rig) cause we can always add 3rd party 2D cockpits. For example there was one everyone used for the CS777 demo called "JB panels' 777 cokcpit" with terrain display and all the right stuff. the tricky part though will be to get it to work with the rest of the 777 simulation which I guess someone in the forums will eventually find out (im just guessin here).

 

 

I just cant wait for the 777 and as I will be living in the UK ill be doin those BA flights instead of watching them fly overhead all day. I know you are just as impatient ACE

[joolsd 10]

After being a hardcore two 2 cockpit fan, the NGX has turn me into a 3D cockpit pilot. I never thought it would happen but there it is.

[kevinh 409]

It really is. Seriously.

Here's the argument, and it's really as simple as this:

Developing a plane requires the model, the dynamics, the coding for the systems, the virtual cockpit model and 2D panels. Each one of those tasks takes time, which will be called M (model), P (dynamics/physics), C (coding/systems), V (virtual cockpit) and D (2D panel).

 

The sum of the project T = M+P+C+V+D

 

So, if zero time is spent on D, D may be left out of the equation, meaning less time is spent on the project. This means less cost, or at the very least, more profit from less work.

 

T-D = M+P+C+V

 

Using baseless numbers:

 

T = 50+40+90+60+40 = Time cost of 280

 

Eliminating the 2D is T = 50+40+90+60 = Time cost of 240

 

Two ways to increase profit margin:

Decrease cost/expense and/or increase sales (by raising price, or selling more). The most controllable aspect is decreasing cost. By using less time to develop a product for the same cost, I've increased my profit margin.

All of which verbage comes down to how much D is in relation to the total development cost. In your made up example D is 14% of the project, which I agree would be significant. Somehow I doubt it is that much in practice. Especially given that the NGX took several people three years or more to develop.

 

Anyway, some people here have said they would be preparded to pay for a full 2D panel set as an optional expansion. That way the developer would have nothing to lose. And of course sales of the 2D would be useful data to determine future demand for such a thing.

 

Not that simple.

Why not? In fact if you look at the NGX 2D panels, apart from the main panel, they look just like renders of the VC. Even if produced from scratch such artwork is surely not months in the making.

 

I use it just fine with a hat switch.

Really? You can slew around the cockpit fast enough with the hat switch? You're happy looking at the overhead apparently from the side? Pull the other one, Kyle. Mouse+SPACEBAR is fast enough but also you need a way to program the camera views to make the VC really usable. Cycling through A and shift A is also tedious. EZCA gives you that possibility.

 

I really don't believe that at all. The Cessna panel is completely flat in real life (with the exception of the glareshield), so you'd imagine a 2D panel would be just fine. It's not. I feel that those in support of the 2D really only use the "realism" card to justify being resistant to change.

I told you it was hard to explain, but it's true. It's not all to do with panels being flat either, though that is part of it. Nor am I resistant to change. As I said I got used to the change with the NGX but I still fly 2D with other addons. Don't try and tell me how I perceive things.

 

Funny. I recall quite the opposite: pop ups and that's it. What you said strikes me as odd because as early as the MD-11 they set the expectation that 2D was being phased out.

The NGX is not just pop-ups though. It's full 2D, but minus the pedestal. And PMDG did promise a full 2D for the NGX. Even after launch there was brief mention of maybe adding a 2D pedestal in an SP.

[ajpongress 467]

From heaven,

 

Please stop beating my corpse.

 

Signed,

Horse

[scandinavian13 5,192]

All of which verbage comes down to how much D is in relation to the total development cost. In your made up example D is 14% of the project, which I agree would be significant.

 

Doesn't matter what percentage. It costs more than not developing them at all. If that cost exceeds the amount they are likely to bring back in, then there's no point.

 

Anyway, some people here have said they would be preparded to pay for a full 2D panel set as an optional expansion. That way the developer would have nothing to lose.

 

Nothing except the resources tied up from moving on to the next project. It makes sense until you begin looking into the larger picture. Developers held back to develop the 2D wouldn't be able to move on to the next project.

 

Just like the airlines:

Do you hold that plane for a couple passengers who got delayed on the inbound connection, or do you go without them? Holding the plane makes a couple customers happy at the expense of everyone onboard, and all of the passengers who need that plane for the flights down line (especially if the plane is scheduled on short turns).

 

Why not? In fact if you look at the NGX 2D panels, apart from the main panel, they look just like renders of the VC. Even if produced from scratch such artwork is surely not months in the making.

 

They really aren't. Knobs are in different spots and there are massive perspective differences. If it's really so easy, you could easily make your own 2D panels when the T7 comes out, could you not?

 

Really? You can slew around the cockpit fast enough with the hat switch?

 

If I can't see it by using the hat switch I tap 'A' a few times on the keyboard and I get a full overhead view just like a 2D (at no extra dev cost, mind you, than the few min it takes to add a VC view in the config).

 

You're happy looking at the overhead apparently from the side? Pull the other one, Kyle. Mouse+SPACEBAR is fast enough but also you need a way to program the camera views to make the VC really usable. Cycling through A and shift A is also tedious. EZCA gives you that possibility.

 

In fact, I am. You'd have to lean back and to the side or get used to flipping switches from the odd angle in the real aircraft, too. Everything has a learning curve and muscle memory piece to it. Nothing escapes that. Looking at the switches from the odd angle is something you can very quickly get used to.

 

 

I told you it was hard to explain, but it's true. It's not all to do with panels being flat either, though that is part of it. Nor am I resistant to change. As I said I got used to the change with the NGX but I still fly 2D with other addons. Don't try and tell me how I perceive things.

 

I'm not telling you how to perceive things. I stated my opinion that those who try to use the same excuse are using it more because they want to justify their resistance to change.

 

If 2D views were truly better representative of 3D environments, then how do you explain the massive demand for 3D modeling programs? What about the transition from 2D scrollers to 3D sandboxes?

 

2D has never been and will never be a more realistic approximation of 3D space than 3D renderings.

 

The NGX is not just pop-ups though. It's full 2D, but minus the pedestal. And PMDG did promise a full 2D for the NGX. Even after launch there was brief mention of maybe adding a 2D pedestal in an SP.

 

I'll believe you when you show me the post. Didn't the extra 2D panels come after the original RTM version?

[speedyTC 195]

From heaven,

 

Please stop beating my corpse.

 

Signed,

Horse

:LMAO:

[WYfox22 31]

Oh, my.... surprised this hasn't been locked yet, heh. I am one for 2D panels, not a fan of using VC. But the reality is that I will have to just deal with it. I'm going to buy EZDoc and learn how to set up the views I want. Just part of life, change is constant.

[Tamadeez 7]

I only use 2D cockpit for departure and arrival. This is where pilot work load is highest and i need all the important controls and displays in my sight. It's not a step foward to remove something that helps people operate these complex system simulators. Sure its ideal for the sake of 'realism' to pan or look around a 3D virtual cockpit, but there are numerous reasons and occassions where this isn't appropriate.

 

Lets no forget this is a simulator viewed through a screen which inherits numerous handicaps on the simmer.