Me too, I use 2D for IFR and the VC for VFR flying and also during most of the cruise portion of a flight in the 737 for example.

thanks very much for ALL your responces! william

Much more interested in functionality than how pretty they are. It is nice to be able to pan around and see the candy, but that is not what one should be concentrating on anyway when looking for other birds, a point on the ground etc. Scanning the gauges with concentration on what they are supposed to be telling the pilot is even more critical.Therefore, seldom use 3D.For those who were attached years ago to cubs, Cessna, Luscomb, Aeronica tail draggers and the like, 3D may not mean much. Panels were not much to look at anyway. However, in the FltSim complex planes with automation, FMC's moving maps, GPS and all the other features, this even means less to me in terms of getting the most out of the panel from a functional standpoint. I will go 99%+ of the time with 2D.RTH 1585368CFI

>would like to hear what you real world pilots think about>using virtual 3D cockpits instead of the 2D cockpits,>gererally speaking ofcourse. i'm aware of the cockpit detail>not being as good sometimes but i'm not to concerned about>that. i posted something along these lines a week or so ago>but now would like real pilots opinions. thanks! williamDisclaimer- I sim-fly GA aircraft 98% of the time.For VFR flights, ALWAYS the VC, but I display the radio stack in a 2D window on a second monitor.For IFR flights, ALWAYS the 2D. Nothing to look at outside anyway.The lower gauge refresh in the VC doesn't bother me at all. If the slower gauge refresh bothers you while VFR in the VC, you're looking at the gauges too long. Get your eyes outside like they belong. This is the single biggest bad habit beginning pilots pick up when they use the sim in conjunction with real-life training, a fixation on the instrument panel.It seems to me that many of the flightsim models, both payware and freeware, are handicapped by a poor default eyepoint position in the VC. It's easy enough to fix, if you have the patience to edit the cfg files, but I think it really has prevented a lot of people from embracing the VC.Dan

I only use the VC during climb, cruise & descent for a more wannabe-pilot feel. For takeoff and final approach I like the 2D because it shows the displays more clearly and I want to see thrust settings & ILS data easily. I do however shrink the 2d window to ocuppy less than half the screen so I can see nicely during the approach!I agree with what some of you mentioned...a *good* VC does give an immersive experience but they still cant (IMO) show instrument displays clearly. And panning around the cockpit will only be appealing to me once they start shipping Virtual Reality visors with PCs.Its just funny to see some freeware 2D cockpits using hybrids! Last night I downloaded an MD-11 panel but the left, right, rear-left, & rear-right views are bitmaps of a 737's cockpit (u cant miss those eyebrow cockpit windows!..*DOH*!):)

Like the rest of the crowd i am a 2D man.That may change a little with my new X800XT but i doubt it.Darren

One problem that's still not solved is that a real cockpit is many times bigger than your monitor you're displaying it onto. So readability is a huge issue here. You simply can't display ,especially glass-cockpits, with the resolution and size needed on a 19-21' monitor. Period. I don't know the physical resolution of airplane display units, but they are certainly high. Probably higher than the resolution you are using on your monitor to display not only one display but the entire cockpit.The achievable realism stands and falls with the available display technology. Sitting at a desk and looking at a monitor can't get you near the "real"feeling.I don't use 3d cockpits. Yes,the immersion is better but the instruments are so laggy and unreadable on my fairly slow machine that they remain unusable. Unless you fly VFR, where instruments aren't needed (except of oil pressure) VC's can't match 2d cockpits, still.One question for people using TrackIR. How can you control your field of view with turning your head when the monitor stays in front of you? Looking to the left I see a wall no matter what. :)regards,Claudio

>One question for people using TrackIR. How can you control>your field of view with turning your head when the monitor>stays in front of you? Looking to the left I see a wall no>matter what. :)>>regards,>ClaudioTrackIR, interesting point.I tried it at a computer store but really felt terrible because you have to turn your head around while keeping the eyes on the screen...a complete nonsense in my opinion, however there's people that couldn't live without it so it has to be me.

We need one of these to use with the VChttp://www.vrealities.com/cy-visor.jpg

Re: TrackIR, I don't have it, but I know several guys who do and from what I understand, you set it up and calibrate it so that you don't actually have to turn your head very far to get the on screen image to pan. Everyone I know of who has it says that after the initial period needed to get accustomed, it works extremely well. As far as VC vs 2D, I don't quite get this perspective some of you guys seem to have that it's an either or decision. I use both on a regular basis. They both have limitations and strongpoints and I don't see why we need to choose one OR the other. The 2D panels are easier to read and easier to use from a purely functional, button-pushing perspective, but theres no getting around the fact that they look like what they are - bitmaps slapped onto the scenery. VCs are without any doubt more immersive and convincing allowing you to really feel like you are inside a moving vehicle, but they are harder to use from a functional perspective. As far as readability goes, some VCs are better than others. The VC in say the RealAir sf260 is literally difficult to distinguish from the 2D panel. It's super crisp and very easy to read. In fact, most of the payware planes I have have very readable VCs. Some VCs are also more demanding in terms of system performance than others. I generally don't like using VCs in the big planes becuase they usually hammer the framerates hard. But in small GA planes, I spend a lot of time in the VC and find it far more convincing - especially if you have Active Camera which really brings them to life afaic. Should note though I'm not a real pilot so this is just my 2 cents. :)

Hi, everyone.I

"misinformed by any of the above, specially by some of the posts from the RW Pilots.""It is my hope that MS does away with 2D in the next version, it probably will not happen, to force everyone to learn and do things right""For any real pilots, or any aspiring pilots, that want to get maximum benefit from this sim., USE THE VC mode only"All I can say is-wow.......http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Avcomware...I think that most of us said WE don't use it(VC) - doesn't mean to say we don't want others to use it if they like. By the same token - please allow us 2D users the same courtesy.Like Geofa said .......Wow!!Dave

>Re: TrackIR, I don't have it, but I know several guys who do>and from what I understand, you set it up and calibrate it so>that you don't actually have to turn your head very far to get>the on screen image to pan. Everyone I know of who has itBut won't you have a problem with keeping your head still to avoid undesired panning? I mean if even small movement with the head pans the display. Will there not be alot of jerky panning by unavoidable moving the head slightly?

To which I can only add....Unbelievable!