NGX's 2d OR 3d gives the ultimate handling experience?

[mganz121 159]

 

Shameless promotion but this is what I mean with Ezdok and 3d

 

 

 

Excellent video, thanks for sharing

 

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

I feel that TrackIR doesn't work well if there are multiple screens in use.

 

I have separate screens for Squawkbox 4, AS2012 and Google Maps. With TrackIR I found that looking at other screens caused my cockpit view to get very messy.

 

But I certainly wouldn't be without my beloved EZCA - it makes such a dramatic improvement when flying 3D.

 

PS Excellent video, Alex!

[wims80 121]

The problem is reaching out and grabbing flight controls like the MCP. The camera jumps around a bunch. In real life one could just grab any knob on the MCP blindfolded. In the VC you have to fumble around with the mouse trying to find the exact clickspot. Not exactly what I would call realistic, but hey, at least it looks realistic

[Tamer008 12]

The problem is reaching out and grabbing flight controls like the MCP. The camera jumps around a bunch. In real life one could just grab any knob on the MCP blindfolded. In the VC you have to fumble around with the mouse trying to find the exact clickspot. Not exactly what I would call realistic, but hey, at least it looks realistic

exactly what i mean...............the concept of handling buttons in 3d space ( virtual cockpit) by viewing it on 2d display creates the limitation of maintainig a CLEAR VIEW and a REACHABLE BUTTONS like real cockpits or full simulators so that flying aircrafts within FSX is MORE DIFFICULT than flying the real planes :excl: :excl: :excl:

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I disagree fully with the negatives being associated with the 3D. It's really not that difficult, and there is very little view distortion as long as you're not inducing it yourself. Using zoom factors of less than one creates a fisheye effect. A lot of people assume that you should zoom below 1.00 so that you can see insane amounts of the displays, but that's simply not the case. You only look at a few things at a time within your core view focus in real life. Outside of that, you'll end up moving your eyes or head to shift your focus to it. While staring at your monitor, look at the bottom right corner. Did you move your eyes? Yep. That's a hat movement in the sim. Granted, you can lessen the total amount of hat movements by zooming out to 0.90-0.80, but again, you're making a compromise.

 

The compromises of a 3D representation of a 3D environment is a lot less than the compromises of a 2D representation of a 3D surface (regardless of it being presented on a 2D surface). If any of you were to actually take a plane up in the air, you'd quickly see that flying visually is very much a perspective thing. In the 3D space, your eye is picking up cues from how the horizon sits above the panel, but in order to do this, it's also taking reference cues from things like the mag compass, the distance between the glareshield and the windscreen, among others.

 

2D ignores all of that.

 

So, yes, it may seem more realistic if you've never done it outside of the sim, but it really isn't. You're welcome to restart the debate over and over in an attempt to justify your crutch, but in the end it's not as realistic as you'd like to claim.

 

As I always say:

If 2D representations of 3D environments are more accurate than 3D representations of 3D environments (despite being displayed on 2D panels), explain the massive success of CAD software, and games being presented in 3D.

 

Further, for those of you who are claiming "that's how it's really like," how much time have you spent up there (in any plane, really) to make such a statement, anyway?

 

The camera jumps around a bunch. In real life one could just grab any knob on the MCP blindfolded.

 

Not true. If the camera jumps around in the sim, there's an associated motion (turbulence, a turn and so on). In the real aircraft, you'd have to compensate with your arm just as you have to compensate with the mouse in the sim. The difference is that you haven't adjusted to it yet. In the end, bumps are bumps, and even though I've flown this plane for going on 9 years, you'll see I was still bracing my hand against the panel because I was getting rocked by turbulence:

 

Even though I could probably work the whole panel blindfolded on smooth flights, or stationary while on the ground, the bumps will still make it difficult. The sim is only slightly different in that you can't feel the buttons and knobs.

 

One simply uses the pfd for final approach and then visual at around 100-200ft....That's what they do in real life folks,

 

You find me someone who flies a line who agrees with you and I'll believe you. Right from the start of flight training, they harp on you to keep your eyes outside when flying in visual conditions. The only reason they should be inside is for a regular, cursory check of things, checking to make sure everything is within limits, and matches the picture outside. If you're shooting an instrument approach, you'll likely have your eyes inside until a lot later, but not 100-200 feet. That's just really poor form.

[Tamer008 12]

to all folks,NGX VC is a truely FPS eater even with the latest hardware that is overclocked to their maximums and that is true when adding weather engines, complex sceneries, traffic and airports services .........etc so the simmer should not ignore the benefits of having 2d panels so one can get up to 70% performance and fluidility unlike the stutter and freezes of VC, in addition flying with 2d panels give you more control, stability and concentration on flying without waste your time in zooming , changing views and returning for the optimal position for landings and approaches.......

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Also not true. Where are you getting your stats? The 3D is very well optimized. Of course, it'll take a hit on performance, but you're not going to see a 70% jump in FPS when using 2D versus 3D.

 

I can run a stable 30 FPS or better in the VC, even with more detailed scenery on a gaming laptop with upper-mid range hardware, standard clocking.

 

Don't smear something just because you don't like it.

[Tamer008 12]

Also not true. Where are you getting your stats? The 3D is very well optimized. Of course, it'll take a hit on performance, but you're not going to see a 70% jump in FPS when using 2D versus 3D.

 

I can run a stable 30 FPS or better in the VC, even with more detailed scenery on a gaming laptop with upper-mid range hardware, standard clocking.

 

Don't smear something just because you don't like it.

 

ok try to fly with 2d panel and see what FPS do you see ( start FSX without FPS limiter)?? with NGX vc i have between 25 and 30 FPS in normal situations but under 22 fps with complex views( scenery+ dense weather)!! but with 2d i got 60 to 80 fps all the time so what do you think??????????and do you think that 30 FPS are good.........if you want smooth experience you should have 60 FPS on any 3d application you use and that what your eyes can see not slow 30 fps!!!!!!!!!! iam not against 3d of VC and really hope that one someday can fly VC on a new simulator that support 60 fps with one of PMDG products and not be dissappointed with old tech of FSX!! i defenitly want to fly in VC like real one but the tech has not come to the serious concept of it!!

[Smasher77th 13]

ok try to fly with 2d panel and see what FPS do you see ( start FSX without FPS limiter)?? with NGX vc i have between 25 and 30 FPS in normal situations but under 22 fps with complex views( scenery+ dense weather)!! but with 2d i got 60 to 80 fps all the time so what do you think??????????and do you think that 30 FPS are good.........if you want smooth experience you should have 60 FPS on any 3d application you use and that what your eyes can see not slow 30 fps!!!!!!!!!! iam not against 3d of VC and really hope that one someday can fly VC on a new simulator that support 60 fps with one of PMDG products and not be dissappointed with old tech of FSX!! i defenitly want to fly in VC like real one but the tech has not come to the serious concept of it!!

 

You seem to think that the experts who suggest setting your fsx fps to 30fps max don't know what they're doing. I use the vc all the time and my fps is limited to 30. I get 30-35 on good days and 25-30 on bad weather. And believe it or not, 25 fps is enough to shoot any kind of approach, no matter how difficult. You'll even do very well with 20 fps. I'd rather have 20 fps VC than 100 fps 2d (if you have the patience to set it up well, or ask the help of someone who knows how, you won't be saying the things you're saying here)

[Tamer008 12]

You seem to think that the experts who suggest setting your fsx fps to 30fps max don't know what they're doing. I use the vc all the time and my fps is limited to 30. I get 30-35 on good days and 25-30 on bad weather. And believe it or not, 25 fps is enough to shoot any kind of approach, no matter how difficult. You'll even do very well with 20 fps. I'd rather have 20 fps VC than 100 fps 2d (if you have the patience to set it up well, or ask the help of someone who knows how, you won't be saying the things you're saying here)

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...........and for the experts you mentioned they suggested 30 fps because it is actually the max output of buggy code of FSX so they have no other choice)!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

but the tech has not come to the serious concept of it!!

 

It really has, but it's up to the end user to configure their computer properly. Have you optimized your FSX.cfg? What about your graphics card settings?

 

Hardware has been able to run FSX fluidly for quite a few years now. This wasn't the case when FSX first came out, but it is now.

[Tamer008 12]

It really has, but it's up to the end user to configure their computer properly. Have you optimized your FSX.cfg? What about your graphics card settings?

 

Hardware has been able to run FSX fluidly for quite a few years now. This wasn't the case when FSX first came out, but it is now.

 

 

i have my cfg file tweaked by venetubo......i have very good hardware that can run FSX smoothly but when add-on installed the troubles begin so that i feel that FSX was built to be used with defualt aircrafts and light add-ons , but complex ones like ngx hit the FPS alot and i hope prepar3d will fix this and one can have a sim with more eye candy graphics abd fluid exp with complex add-ons like NGX.........

[pride545 30]

Not the 2d-3d crap again!! Enough is enough!! Learn new things and move on. Everyone is going to VC panels on their aircraft with 2d popups. You might as well join the crowd or get off the bus!

[Tamer008 12]

Not the 2d-3d crap again!! Enough is enough!! Learn new things and move on. Everyone is going to VC panels on their aircraft with 2d popups. You might as well join the crowd or get off the bus!

I hope you learn the skills of talking to people and respect their opinions, go back to the stupid school that learnt you how to establish a proper tactful discussion :angry: B)

[EGLL77W 1,508]

Not true. If the camera jumps around in the sim, there's an associated motion (turbulence, a turn and so on). In the real aircraft, you'd have to compensate with your arm just as you have to compensate with the mouse in the sim. The difference is that you haven't adjusted to it yet. In the end, bumps are bumps, and even though I've flown this plane for going on 9 years, you'll see I was still bracing my hand against the panel because I was getting rocked by turbulence:

 

Yep I agree, in turbulent air I can have a hard time doing a simple task of changing frequency in the PA28.