Hi guys,While doing some test flights for my upcoming review of the Conquest, I got to thinking (I hate it when that happens - nothing good ever comes out of that :-)).... Anyway, I'm curious which style of 2-D panel the majority of simmers prefer:1 - An Ultra-realistic reproduction of the panel from the real aircraft at the expense of making some gauges difficult to read or having to hide important instruments and switches in pop-up panels.2 - A more Sim-practical panel that places the majority of the gauges and controls necessary for flight on one panel at the expense of having the panel look more "cartoonish" and less realistic.3- A scrolling mega-panel where off-screen instruments and controls can be scrolled into view like the old FLY! panels.4- Some other approach I haven't mentioned.I'm sure the VC fanatics will jump in here and claim that Virtual cockpits provide the best of both worlds - and while that may be true to an extent, for my own reasons, I'd like to restrict this thread to 2-D panels only.So what do you think? Any debate on this subject would be welcome.Thanks,Marc

1.I prefer 2D flights with my ol' system anyway and VC's are slow with the view system.. often also hard to click all the buttons.I couldn't get anything out of the flight without lots of features stuffed in the panel.

I like FLY! II panels personally.

I'd prefer that they look as realistic as possible with pop-ups as needed.Regards,Jim

>1 - An Ultra-realistic reproduction of the panel from the real>aircraft at the expense of making some gauges difficult to>read or having to hide important instruments and switches in>pop-up panels.>>2 - A more Sim-practical panel that places the majority of the>gauges and controls necessary for flight on one panel at the>expense of having the panel look more "cartoonish" and less>realistic.It is interesting to note that both (1) and (2) are available in Flight1's Merdian.Michael J.

I definitely like the FLYII fly-in panels, much betterthan any other layout IMHO. }(

I personally prefer the realistic approach for 2D panels myself. However, I also prefer that the effort be made to make them as useable as possible. I'm not crazy about panels that have a couple of dozen tiny guages crammed onto the primary panel. I'd rather the guages be displayed slightly larger for readability and if that means I have to click a hotspot to bring the guages to the right into view then so be it. I don't mind pop-up panels at all...

I like 2D sim-specific panels with a dose of reality. I think the big issue for us simmers is of course screen-size. Someone with a 21" CRT or 17" laptop is gonna be able to display a lot more stuff. Ive got a little Sony Vaio laptop with a 15" screen so I have to compromise.... If I had a massive screen or mulit-monitors then Id go all out on realism!So I luv it when the panel designers cater to little screens...simple things help...like an intergrated GPS (no need for pop-up GPS) & throttle quadrant...Thanx to all the freeware panel programmers out there!!! :)

I prefer 'sim practical'.Realism is not usefull if you have trouble reading the gauges which is why I don't like most VC's. Popup windows in a VC defeats the purpose totally IMO. Though I have been able to customize a few VC's replacing some VC gauges with more readable gauges sized larger to and positioned better be more practical. Not realistic maybe, but easier and more fun to fly with IMO.Regards.Ernie.

ThrottleUp said that he likes a "dose of realism." I suppose that I like a dash of realism and I vote for 2. As I board an airliner and walk past an open flightdeck door, I like to look inside and think, "Hey, that looks like the instrument panel that I use for this bird in FS9." I know that if I stood there for any length of time, I'd see many differences because I usually don't use ultarealistic panels. I prefer functionality.I want as many functions as possible on the main panel, while keeping the gauges readable. I like icons to click to bring up subpanels. I want lots of things to do; I want systems to inititialize (fuel pump and electrical system switches, press-to-test buttons, GPU/APU, etc.) but the systems do not need to be perfectly modeled to satisfy me.Just a dash of realism. R-

and to some extent (3) is available as well!!Hope this helps!

I'd love to see an FS9 aircraft with a FLY! type scrolling panel. I didn't even know it was possible to do that. David

>>I'd love to see an FS9 aircraft with a FLY! type scrolling>panel. I didn't even know it was possible to do that. >And for some reason, the FLY panels always seem to have crisper well defined lines, while MSFS might have more readable gauges. Havn't figured that one out!But, I too prefer the FLY scrolling method. Especially the way it changed the outside perspective view when moving the panel with the mouse (or technically repositioning your seat).L.Adamson

Ditto on the Fly type panels. I hate the pop ups and except for the SF260, the V/C panels just don't do anything for me.

I don't really mind the popups as I display them on a secnd monitor and prefer them to a panel crammed with small barely readable instruments, or missing instruments. The FLY! scrolling panel however allows realistic placement of more and larger gauges, etc.David