I hope PMDG will send whole 2d panels in history. We do not really need any panels or popup CDU and displays. You cannot pop up CDU in real aircraft.

 

No but in real life you have peripheral vision, in FSX you don't have that so its nice to pop up the CDU for a quick reference or edit. When flying Cessna's in the RW I don't need pop ups because I just move my eyes but in FSX some panel pop ups are nice.

Think that ryan has stated there will be no 2d pedestal in a sp

Yes I know, many months ago, but there had been a hint it was a possibility before Ryan stated it wouldn't happen.

Rob,

 

If I recall correctly you're a simulator tech/operator right? I finally had the chance to fly a level D NG sim myself a few weeks ago and it was *immediatately* apparent to me that 2D panels are bogus on the basis of how little of the cockpit you can actually see in your normal field of view while flying in the real thing. I found it extremely easy to get tunnel vision and not even notice things like warning lights blinking in the center of the main panel, stuff on the overhead etc. Even the VC view in the NGX shows far too wide a field for what you actually experience in the real cockpit. This is why head scan patterns exist in the real world and I think it's something most simmers never even think about.

 

Having gotten used to seeing so much of the cockpit at once in FSX actually led me to make a couple of pretty major mistakes while flying the sim simply because I didn't notice things in my field of vision that I'd normally have seen right away on a monitor at home.

I was flying full flight simulators as part of my job long before I ever used a PC flightsim, so I've had the opposite experience. When you fly a simulator you soon get used to scanning around to take things in. But it's easy to get overwhelmed the first couple of times you experience it and miss crucial things. You are correct about the real angle of view being narrow, but this isn't an argument against 2D panels as it applies to the VC too. The wider view is a necessary compromise for having a single monitor to display everything on because you can't look around as rapidly as you can in the real cockpit environment, and instead of using real knobs and switches you don't have to look directly at, you have to find clickspots.

 

In the full flight simulator it's easy to go from looking outside flying to changing a setting on the MCP and back to flying again, though in real life you wouldn't even do that, the PNF would do it for you. In FSX you have to slew to the MCP, find the mouse clickspot, dial in the change, adjust it because you overshot, then look forward again. It all takes much longer, by which time your flightpath might be a bit off. So a pop-up or a wider panel view helps immensly. In the VC you need to be zoomed out to get a wide enough view and this means you not only need to pan but also zoom in to get a readable display and big enough clickspots. EZCA helps a lot, but it isn't perfect.

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.

 

+1. The VC view moves/hides certain important buttons especially during descent. It's also tricky to rotate the knobs when the plane is turning b/c I don't use any FS gear - i.e., standard keyboard and mouse only ;) Also, the 747-8i VC does not have the TA/GA button or the takeoff gradient enabled.

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.

 

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.

Not if it's only a few weeks work on top of the time spent on VC textures. The amount of extra time taken does matter in deciding whether it's viable or not. It's not just a quesiton of if it costs anything more it shouldn't be done. Still, it's a moot point as PMDG aren't likely to tell us how long the 2D takes to produce.

 

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).

That's not a good analogy to producing a product. But I'm sure 2D fans wouldn't mind waiting a few weeks after a "VC only" product launch before an update including 2D panels could be downloaded. No need for VC fans to wait a moment longer in that case.

 

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?

Nonsense, apart from the main panel, the 2D panels are about the same perspective as the recorded camera positions in the VC. And no I couldn't knock up my own 777 2D panels because I won't have the code to link it to the gauges.

 

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).

Tapping A or shift A repeatedly to get the view is too slow and annoying. Easy to miss what you want and have to cycle round again. But if there was a short cut direct to each VC camera position then you'd be on to something. If PMDG could come up with a way to directly link to these views with a dedicated hot key or VC clickspot then you could do away with 2D panels and the VC would be all that would be needed. I think you would probably still need CDU, MCP and nav tuning head popups as overlays though.

 

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.

In the real aircraft you lean in toward the pedestal or overhead naturally, so you get a more square on view. The VC eyepoint swivels about a point in space, a pilot's eyes don't do that, your head turns and tilts, your body leans. Whenever I've sat in an airliner simulator pilot's seat I've never had the feeling I'm looking at the overhead from the side, but in FSX you do. You can improve things by moving the eyepoint a few inches aft, this seems justified as it does appear to be too far forward relative to window frames, etc. Everything looks better, angles aren't so extreme, but if you try and use the HGS you find you can only see about half the display in the glass so you are forced to use the default eyepoint.

 

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 VC is still a 2D display on a flat screen, it isn't 3D. Also in FSX you have to zoom out quite far and you start to get fisheye distortion. It isn't resistance to change as VC's have been around a long time. It's that some people find operating a desktop sim from 2D panels easier. The increased realism of a VC seems obvious at first thought as it's a model of real life, but as I said the perception of viewing an image of a VC as opposed to actually being in the real thing makes it less realistic.

 

I can't easily explain the perception issue but I'll try an analogy on you. When you walk down the street the world seems perfectly stabilised as you move and look around, as smooth as a steadicam shot, despite the fact your head is moving up and down as you walk. If you film this same walk with a hand-held camera and watch it back on a monitor it would appear to be jerking around a lot. Your brain processes the image and smooths out the bumps based on inputs from your balance organs and also what it expects to see. But when you watch the image it can't do the same thing so you see all the bumps. Similarly when you view the 2D image of a 3D VC it's not the same as what you perceive sitting in the real cockpit even though the 3D VC model might be perfect.

 

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

No, there were no extra 2D panels after release. The 2D panels promise goes way back to when the J41 came out as VC only, so it's hard to find, you'll have to take my word for it. There was some dismay that the J41 had no 2D. Customers asked whether future PMDG products would lack 2D panels and RSR (I think) answered by saying that the turboprop range were not the same level as jet airliner products and that future such PMDG products would continue to have 2D panels. I took that to mean at least the next one (i.e. the NGX).

+1. The VC view moves/hides certain important buttons especially during descent. It's also tricky to rotate the knobs when the plane is turning b/c I don't use any FS gear - i.e., standard keyboard and mouse only ;) Also, the 747-8i VC does not have the TA/GA button or the takeoff gradient enabled.

 

Trying to fly a commercial airliner with a keyboard and mouse is.........

Trying to fly a commercial airliner with a keyboard and mouse is.........

 

I know ... I know, hence am happy that I can still enjoy FSX/PMDG whilst sharing the computer with a family and young kids. The only catch is the majority (if not all) of my landings use ILS approaches ...

 

I have been Googling to view 2D images of NGX, but found none until I read this thread. I am eager to get PMDG 777, but if it doesn't allow for flying with a keyboard and mouse ...

It's just too awkward to move the eye, zoom in, read a gauge, flick a switch in the VC when said switch needs to be flicked in less than a second or two....while trying to hand fly a landing / takeoff.

 

And this is different than finding a click spot in the 2d and than bringing the panel up to view it than dragging the panel to one side so it doesnt block you view ahead, or other panels that are behind the pop up panel.

Not if it's only a few weeks work on top of the time spent on VC textures. The amount of extra time taken does matter in deciding whether it's viable or not. It's not just a quesiton of if it costs anything more it shouldn't be done. Still, it's a moot point as PMDG aren't likely to tell us how long the 2D takes to produce.

 

I'm really not sure how to take this seriously. I don't mean that in a mean way, but there seems to be a very fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of econ. Weeks are extra time. That extra time is going to be time paid to employees (or stolen from future projects). A single minute costs extra. Weeks definitely cost more. I don't see how you are missing that. Do you do your job for free? Rather, would you offer to do it for free because certain customers wanted something?

 

Beyond that, in the discussion of econ, there's a concept called opportunity cost, which I've alluded to a few times now. Opportunity cost is the cost of forgoing a certain project/product/service in place of another. In this situation, the opportunity cost would be the cost of forgoing progress on the next project to work on the current one.

 

Here's the main point in summary, in case it was missed:

Time is money. Even if there's no money directly linked to the time, there is a cost of delaying future projects to accomplish it. Even with a monetary offset (in this case, the 2D users paying for the cost), it's often not worth holding resources back.

 

That's not a good analogy to producing a product. But I'm sure 2D fans wouldn't mind waiting a few weeks after a "VC only" product launch before an update including 2D panels could be downloaded. No need for VC fans to wait a moment longer in that case.

 

It was a great example of opportunity cost, but your bias (and lack of understanding of econ) won't let you see that.

 

I'm sure the 2D fans wouldn't mind waiting, but the cost to even a small part of the development team (the airplane) to wait around trying to produce something (the late passengers) is too high. The development team could be off adding to the new product which will be selling a lot better than a 2D panel pack.

 

Nonsense, apart from the main panel, the 2D panels are about the same perspective as the recorded camera positions in the VC. And no I couldn't knock up my own 777 2D panels because I won't have the code to link it to the gauges.

 

You kinda answered your own question there. Earlier you were saying all you essentially needed to do was screencap the VC and make some images with it for a panel. Now you're telling me it needs code, too? 2D versions of the gauges would need to be developed on top of that I'm guessing. See where this is going? A lot more time, which costs the team a lot more. They could be adding to another venture that would be more profitable (the next project).

 

Tapping A or shift A repeatedly to get the view is too slow and annoying. Easy to miss what you want and have to cycle round again. But if there was a short cut direct to each VC camera position then you'd be on to something. If PMDG could come up with a way to directly link to these views with a dedicated hot key or VC clickspot then you could do away with 2D panels and the VC would be all that would be needed. I think you would probably still need CDU, MCP and nav tuning head popups as overlays though.

 

You mentioned using shift A, so I'm not sure why you later mentioned cycling back around again. Worthy point on the VC view jumps. RealAir did this with their Duke and Lancair and it makes it easier, but only slightly. I've never used the MCP in a 2D mode in the 737, and I'm not sure why you'd need a 2D rendering of it. CDU is about the only thing

 

In the real aircraft you lean in toward the pedestal or overhead naturally, so you get a more square on view. The VC eyepoint swivels about a point in space, a pilot's eyes don't do that, your head turns and tilts, your body leans. Whenever I've sat in an airliner simulator pilot's seat I've never had the feeling I'm looking at the overhead from the side, but in FSX you do. You can improve things by moving the eyepoint a few inches aft, this seems justified as it does appear to be too far forward relative to window frames, etc. Everything looks better, angles aren't so extreme, but if you try and use the HGS you find you can only see about half the display in the glass so you are forced to use the default eyepoint.

 

True. There are two VC viewpoints that do exactly this. What I was getting at is that you'd get used to it if you just bothered to try. In a plane or in a car, if I need to hit a button, I very rarely square myself on it. I glance to get a bearing for my hand, and do my work.

 

The VC is still a 2D display on a flat screen, it isn't 3D. Also in FSX you have to zoom out quite far and you start to get fisheye distortion. It isn't resistance to change as VC's have been around a long time. It's that some people find operating a desktop sim from 2D panels easier. The increased realism of a VC seems obvious at first thought as it's a model of real life, but as I said the perception of viewing an image of a VC as opposed to actually being in the real thing makes it less realistic.

 

Not this argument again...

The VC is a dynamic 3D rendering of 3D space. 2D is a static 2D rendering of 3D space. Actually, you know what. I've had this argument so many times that I'll just start quoting my old posts:

 

When you create a 2D panel, you have to make sacrifices. Things end up out of position, re-sized, in a completely wrong position, distorted, among other things, just to make it fit onto the panel. There's also a fundamental disconnect in operating a 2D panel with a 3D environment beyond it. A Cessna panel is one thing: about the only piece that would introduce a third dimension is the glareshield, yoke, and throttles. An airliner is a completely different ballgame. How do you negotiate the transition from the main panel to the pedestal? What about the MCP? Answer: Compromise. You sacrifice the integrity of how the cockpit looks and performs - angles get distorted to make 3D into 2D. Buttons get moved in order to include them on a particular 2D panel instead of another, and so on. In the end, the 3D panels - especially with the better developers out there - allow an approximation of what the 2D panels would be through the clever use of VC Views, while still allowing panning, zooming and avoiding distortion.

 

End point, as stated before, is that there are more sacrifices in trying to remove a dimension than there are to use the native dimensions. A real flight deck is in 3D. FSX renders in 3D. The output being on a 2D screen doesn't matter. While it ends up being displayed on a 2D surface there is still depth that a 2D rendering cannot achieve. Again, if you'd like to use your former points, please explain the successes of CAD and other 3D rendering software, in addition to the transition of games from 2D sidescrollers to 3D sandboxes.

 

The reason is that 3D renderings more accurately capture the natural perceptions of human vision.

 

I can't easily explain the perception issue but I'll try an analogy on you. When you walk down the street the world seems perfectly stabilised as you move and look around, as smooth as a steadicam shot, despite the fact your head is moving up and down as you walk. If you film this same walk with a hand-held camera and watch it back on a monitor it would appear to be jerking around a lot. Your brain processes the image and smooths out the bumps based on inputs from your balance organs and also what it expects to see. But when you watch the image it can't do the same thing so you see all the bumps. Similarly when you view the 2D image of a 3D VC it's not the same as what you perceive sitting in the real cockpit even though the 3D VC model might be perfect.

 

Decent analogy, but the film would be jerking because someone is trying to hold it too tightly. The images from our eyeballs are not really dampened by our brain that much. If you've ever sat through some really rough turbulence, or driven on a really bumpy road, you'd see it very clearly - actually, by clearly, I mean poorly. When you walk, your mind isn't filtering out what's going on, it's correlating what you're seeing and what you're doing. This is one of the fundamental aspects of motion sickness. While motion sickness is most often caused by feeling not associated with a visually perceived motion, it can also occur with the inverse. While sitting stationary, watching even a perfect recreation of what your eyes saw while sitting stationary would look inaccurate because you're not moving with it.

 

No, there were no extra 2D panels after release. The 2D panels promise goes way back to when the J41 came out as VC only, so it's hard to find, you'll have to take my word for it. There was some dismay that the J41 had no 2D. Customers asked whether future PMDG products would lack 2D panels and RSR (I think) answered by saying that the turboprop range were not the same level as jet airliner products and that future such PMDG products would continue to have 2D panels. I took that to mean at least the next one (i.e. the NGX).

 

For some reason, I don't think the radio panel and a few others wasn't in the release, but I've never used the 2D in the NGX, so I could've just missed the fact that it was there. I'd like to see that quote of the developer saying there would continue to be 2D panels, though. I can find several saying a full set of 2D panels. Specifically:

http://forum.avsim.n...g/#entry2049475

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).

Not pre-FSX since many FSX models have no or very low quality 3D views. But yes, it is a second class view system. It was a such a vast improvement over what came before it, that it obsoleted the original displays we had up to and including FS2002. And in turn it has been obsoleted itself. Probably the best 2D panel ever released in FSX was on the MD-11. A model that had probably the best 3D cockpit of its time. In time (hopefully) we will get proper stereoscopic displays which will make our current 3D cockpits look quaint and old fashioned. But given that they will require an order of magnitude more processing power (and a whole new flight platform) we probaly shouldn't expect them within the next ten years.

And this is different than finding a click spot in the 2d and than bringing the panel up to view it than dragging the panel to one side so it doesnt block you view ahead, or other panels that are behind the pop up panel.

 

It is totally different...I have most pop up 2D panels mapped to buttons on the Saitek yoke except fire control, lower main, etc...so no need to move my viewpoint / eyes to the area I need to get to (which is my biggest beef with VC). For example, from the main forward 2D, I can pop up the radio stack with one mapped button click on the yoke, click a switch, and be back on the main forward panel looking out the front window within 1-2 seconds or less. I have the pop up radio stack moved to the right half of the screen so I always maintain forward vision while the pop up panel is displayed. Consider this next time ATC tells you to tune to tower on short final for a late clearance while you are hand flying. In 3D you have to first move your eyes down to the pedestal (so you are not looking forward anymore, very dangerous on short final - yes I realise the PNF would do this, but again, I am in my boxers in the basement), zoom in on the tuner, change the frequency, move your eyes back out the front window...it is way faster with a pop up from the main forward 2D and you don't give up the view out the window to look at the tuner setting. On the main forward 2D panel itself, I am able to click / switch buttons with a mouse click, no need to zoom in or re-size. I have the pop ups set to not impede my direct forward vision out the window except for the overhead panel which I rarely need in critical phase of flight.

 

I understand the perspective is not 'real' in a 2D main forward panel view, the VC gives a wider view of the panels and more periferal (which I could argue is equally unrealistic - it is also hard to read instruments without zooming in, also unrealistic). In my view, the end game is the ability to quickly and clearly read a gague or display without having to zoom in, flip a switch without having to scroll my view to the required panel - all the while maintaining my eyes looking out the front window. I could go on about the merits and pitfalls of 2D vs. 3D, end of the day it is all about user preference and it is always nice as an end-user to have OPTIONS to use a 2D or 3D environment.

 

Rob.

It is totally different...I have most pop up 2D panels mapped to buttons on the Saitek yoke except fire control, lower main, etc...so no need to move my viewpoint / eyes to the area I need to get to (which is my biggest beef with VC). For example, from the main forward 2D, I can pop up the radio stack with one mapped button click on the yoke, click a switch, and be back on the main forward panel looking out the front window within 1-2 seconds or less. I have the pop up radio stack moved to the right half of the screen so I always maintain forward vision while the pop up panel is displayed. Consider this next time ATC tells you to tune to tower on short final for a late clearance while you are hand flying. In 3D you have to first move your eyes down to the pedestal (so you are not looking forward anymore, very dangerous on short final - yes I realise the PNF would do this, but again, I am in my boxers in the basement), zoom in on the tuner, change the frequency, move your eyes back out the front window...it is way faster with a pop up from the main forward 2D and you don't give up the view out the window to look at the tuner setting. On the main forward 2D panel itself, I am able to click / switch buttons with a mouse click, no need to zoom in or re-size. I have the pop ups set to not impede my direct forward vision out the window except for the overhead panel which I rarely need in critical phase of flight.

 

I understand the perspective is not 'real' in a 2D main forward panel view, the VC gives a wider view of the panels and more periferal (which I could argue is equally unrealistic - it is also hard to read instruments without zooming in, also unrealistic). In my view, the end game is the ability to quickly and clearly read a gague or display without having to zoom in, flip a switch without having to scroll my view to the required panel - all the while maintaining my eyes looking out the front window. I could go on about the merits and pitfalls of 2D vs. 3D, end of the day it is all about user preference and it is always nice as an end-user to have OPTIONS to use a 2D or 3D environment.

 

Rob.

 

This argument will continue on forever i was like you hated 3d views etc, only used 2d views all the time. But since i purchased the js4100 which now has converted me to using vc now. I can see in the future that users will say what is a 2d panel never heard of it, or seen one. But hey times are changing fast we got to move with the times and dont get left behind

Consider this next time ATC tells you to tune to tower on short final for a late clearance while you are hand flying.

...Unable...

 

The rule is: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - in that order.

I'm not a pilot so can't say for certain. But I doubt very much that in a real plane the captain keeps his head straight forward and the cockpit spins around and up and down to line up with what he wants to see.

 

I'm sure the 777 will be great either way, but there are arguments to be made either way. I happen to love the way they did the NGX. I would be fine with just the 2d captains view and overhead.

But i doubt very much that in a real plane there a click spots on his fwd panel to bring up other panels, and i be happy if they did it like the js4100 panel set up