>I can't believe all you guys responding to this are actaully>real world pilots... :-hmmm That's fact- and like the others who have replied I never use the VC.Dave

thanks VERY much guys for the replies! while i do like the 3D cockpit the 2D has the edge for me too, pretty much. i would like to say this though for you guys that are having problems with framerates using the 3D cockpit, you could try this for an experiment for better framerates, use all the default settings for hardware, scenery, etc and use whatever the default resolution is. mine is 800x600 and make sure your desktop is the same resolution. also use AA to smooth out the edges. it REALLY doesn't look bad at all! i promise AND it's the best setup for your machine to run FS9. anyway try that and see if your framerates don't pick up in VC and if it changes your mind post here again. by the way i keep my resolution at 800x600 with AA turned on in the vid card. everything runs super smooth 2d and 3D. i run it like that for good framerates and am tickled at how well it runs and how good it looks. i have an AMD 3000, a 128 meg video card and 512 megs of ram. i could run at a higher resolution but wouldn't get super smooth framerates with real world weather. i just wanted to pass this on to whoever might gain from it and you're be suprised at how good it does look. thanks again guy, you're a big help. william

I soloed in Jan. 1993 and have acquired the following since, my preference is 2D panels, far more realistic to fly with than virtual.AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTAIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGESAIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND Type RatingsA/B-737

Sounds like you are primarily practicing vfr procedures and pattern work. The 3d may be fine for you-but I'd certainly rather take a quick look to the left or 45 via the 2d than the panning of the 3d back and forth for entering a pattern.For practicing ifr-being able to easily tune a multitude of instruments, and smoothness-you'll never catch me near a 3d....and no matter how good the 3d cockpit-they look modelled vs. a 2d made from photographs.I don't like the panning not because of the ratebut because don't 't like having to scroll my head around-becomes very disorienting, and I rarely end up back at the same place I started-and it is much slower that a quick glance that I would give in the real aircraft.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hi.I would recommend to everyone, specially the RW pilots to get an aircraft with VC that has a good, readable, panel and assign the Pan view left/ right to your twist to look left right.The problem that I see with the majority of the VCs is that most of the designers are going for

Hi,fully agree with you. Not only 3d cockpit are the only chance to fly landindg patterns in a realistic way, but also for the rest of the flight the general feeling is much much closer to the real world than the 2d cockpit. You need to have a very powerful machine because they are very CPU and graphic demanding, and also not all VC are equally performing and nicely shaped. I personally fly the PMDG 737NG family, the Flight1 Cessna 310 and the Aeroworx B200 and I have never (say never) used 2d cockpits any more since I started flying these models. I also use Active Sky 2004, FSGenesis Sceneries, and all the major Addon airports for Europe and USA, and my average frame rate is around 30 fps, in some occasions falling around 15-20 while taxing into some very crowded major add on airport (in this case however the use of 2d cockpits would only improve the performance of 2-3 fps), with 100% traffic on (PAI traffic). I would also reccomend Active Camera to move inside the 3d environment, and I am now starting to test on my system the TrackIR tool ( a device which allows you to pan around the VC using your head movements: very promising although a little bit difficult to tune up properly.However, regardless any extra tool you may use, ...no doubt ...VC cockpit is definitely a different story..and you have no choice in my opinion if your are looking for a "as real as it gets" flight simming..Regards

>I soloed in Jan. 1993 and have acquired the following since,>my preference is 2D panels, far more realistic to fly with>than virtual.>>AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT>AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND >COMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES>AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND > >Type Ratings>A/B-737 >>>>>Drop over to the PMDG Forum if you haven't already. We have some other RA 737 Pilots that are active on that forum .

3D definately is more realistic, but I just prefer 2D with PMDG for example as frame is better there and everything is more handy. But with GA planes VC is certainly better!

just for the record i have no problem with the views in either 2D or 3D, it's just the 3D cockpit for some reason gives a better sense or feeling of sensation than the 2D when in flight. more sense of motion for lack of a better word. william

I'm not by any mean a real world pilot, but I'd like to throw my two cents.In my opinion is simply a matter of what you use to fly. Liners? 2D forever, I can hardly use a glass cockpit in 3d mode, let alone program the FMC, and it is very annoying having to pan from the overhead to the panel, then to the pedestal and so on. With 2d panels airliners, especially glass cockpits are much more useable.General Aviation? 3d, 3d and 3d. 2d panels simply don't have the same immersion factor. Personally I love to see the sun reflections on the gauges when I'm doing a circuit, watching the props spin, flaps moving and etc. Also in virtual cockpit mode I have a far superior "situational awareness" of where I am, how close the ground is and often there's much more visibility than with the high 2d panels.One important thing to remember is that the standard 1x zoom of Fs2004 gives a completely wrong perspective. I normally use .65x zoom for my flying.

2D pit only for me, unless my system can handle it. VC's look great, but they aren't usable due to the fact of:

It is not at all a matter of what you focus on or your visual standpoint when it comes to 3D vs 2D because neither can accurately display a pilot's eyepoint and perspective in a real aircraft. To say otherwise is plain incorrect. For me, after really trying out the 3D cockpit in ernest with the A320 PIC, I've come to enjoy it immensely for the simple emersion factor especially when the entire aircraft is modeled (i.e. PMDG 737-NG series and A320 PIC). The suspension of disbelief is total in the 3D cockpit. It is also far more realistic to "turn your head" to look at your instruments and controls than to bring them up in little windows in front of you. Additionally, the 3D cockpit has the potential for the designer to render every single instrument, knob, lever and button on the entire flight deck without having to flip through different "windows". Also, the 3D cockpit is far better for spotting your position when taxiing or flying legs around the airport for landing because you have 360 degrees of viewing with infinite eye positions like real life.Alas, the 3D cockpit instruments are very slow and of no use for any precision flying because they are way to choppy and lag behind the performance of the aircraft. Hand flying an ILS approach in 3D view is a lesson in futility. Also, since we only have one pilot in many aircraft built to be flown by two, reaching all the buttons and viewing the instruments can become quite hard when ATC starts barking commands and you are on final approach.SO, in the end, the 2D pit remains king until the 3D pit can mature. But if the 3D pits had the same gauge performance as the 2D pit I'd never look back and fly the 3D pit all the way.My 2 cents. :-)Mike T.

I love 3D but I don't fly 737's in real life. I like the 3D in the smaller planes because in VFR you don't need to scan instruments constantly. Just set your eyepoints to the hotkeys for active camera, and it's much more immersive. In real life I was taught to climb so that my hand vertical on the top of the panel should be about the horizon level for a good climb. I don't need the 2D panel for this, and I like being able to look around.IFR is a different story- You need pretty much nothing but instruments, so why even have an outside view (until landing- and even then a CAT III in the PMDG 737 doesn't require a window until taxiing off the runway).I couldn't imagine flying PS1 with a 3D cockpit, but I love it on the PMDG plane after takeoff when the workload gets lighter.On the other hand, I wouldn't fly the cub or 182 with a 2D cockpit, as it's kind of boring unless your practicing navigation in low-vis.

My preference is 2D. I'm just finishing up my instrument rating and have used the 2D panel to help me with that.Bruce.

I use 2D for IFR (which is what I usually fly) and 3D for VFR.