Just my two cents with this, but I'm a rw pilot, too, so here's my take: I fly ONLY the VC.In fact, I take out the 2D panel on every aircraft.Why? For me, it's about flying, not just information processing. When I learned to fly for real, I was told to keep my head on a swivel, looking outside (especially near airports), and to not get fixated on the cockpit instruments. My instructor must have been very pursuasive, because if I can't check what's going on outside the airplane on a fairly regular basis, I just don't feel safe. It paid off once, years ago, when crossing the small St.Jean control zone, southeast of Montreal, which has a few student controllers. ATC cleared me in direction and altitude. Listening over that frequency, out of the chatter I heard another aircraft at my altitude, going through the zone in the opposite direction. He reported his five mile fix at the same time I did. I was uneasy, and began scanning outside. Sure enough, I saw what could have been a landing light, virtually on the horizon, not moving left or right. I thought to myself, if that IS a plane, this means it's coming right at me, at my altitude. I initiated a turn, just to be sure - and he went right past me, strait and level. I don't think he even saw us, or was even looking, happy that ATC had cleared him and was responsible for separation. So, for me, flying is a three-dimensional skill, and the visual aspect is a big part, from cockpit layout to the external environment. In the cockpit and out, only the VC gives me the complete picture of flying an airplane.Mike F.

Hi, Geof.This statement:>I don't really use 3d at all-for me-a clear, smoother working 2d view-with a real bmp photo look out the side views is a more real experience than the 3d. I also don't like the slow jerky scrolling every time I need to look somewhere.<,cannot be further from the truth. It

No, actually you'd be surprised how easy it is to keep your head pretty still - probably easier than it is to keep a joystick in your hand perfectly centred. But also I'm sure you can set a small deadzone in the calibration to eliminate unwanted movements. The thing is that it responds to every movement of your head so if it starts to move one way a bit you automatically compensate by adjusting you're head a bit the other way - it just feels very natural actually from what I hear. It sounds odd when the process is described to you but apparently it actually feels pretty convincing and natural.

I again say-wow.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Good show Geoff :-) . And, again...Unbelievable!

Not a RL pilot either but some VCs are incredible to fly with like Flight 1's Cessnas, Aeroworx's King to name a few with smooth and fast performace. For airline types, I like to stick to 2D simply because it is much easier to control the various systems in the 2D enviorment than panning zooming in the VC...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

I prefer 3D virtual cockpits over 2D. Unless I'm practicing IFR and don't need to see outside. Otherwise the 3D cockpits are the way to go, at least for me. My machine handles complex virtual cockpits at 1600x1200x32 without any problems. My framerates are always above 30. I love to fly WW2 bombers in the virtual cockpits (like the Briefing Time B-25J and the B-24 and B-17 from Wings of Power add-on).

Geofa you got me saying 'WOW' as well considering your a real world pilot and prefer 2D panels...Everyone knows you have to scan the skies when flying, I can't understand a real world pilot preferring the restrictiveness of a 2D panel. We've had this discussion many times before so I'm not going to get into a long meaningless fight about this.I too hope Microsoft does away with the 2D panels because it makes no since anymore. You 2D supporters had a point a year ago that the VC's hadn't caught up to 2D panels visually. That's all changed now and the only case you have is the gauge refresh rate. That will become a none issue as well.Once the gauge issue is solved we can move on past this old technology...

That is not the case in IFR now is it? An example would be a 737 pilot who is looking at glass not outside, the times where outside viewing is important is on TO and landing and for some TCAS adv. MS should keep both options not do away with one simply because some have a prefernce for 3D only...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

Randy you can't tell me IFR pilots just sit in the plane for the whole flight and star at instruments. You should head over to Airliners.net and look at all the in-flight cockpit photos taken. Just because your IFR doesn't mean you don't take in the scenery around you. ATC no matter what altitude is constantly advising you of traffic here and there. So even at 30,000ft your looking out the window. I just can't see the reasoning behind 2D's anymore no matter what altitude...

Have you ever compared scanning out of a real aircraft cockpit, and scrolling in the VC? I'm with Geof on this one. Bruce.

Randy you can't tell me IFR pilots just sit in the plane for the whole flight and star at instruments Well I can tell you they would be scanning instruments and not looking out the window at FL290 in cloudy conditions! A good pilot always developes a good scanning of his instruments unlike VFR pilots in Cessnas on a sunny day over Tampa.Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

I'm beginning to wonder if more would try the VC if performance were better. If the framerates are bad, it's certainly going to cut down on usability and enjoyment, and no-one is going to fly in a VC if you're only getting 5 fps, while your 2D is in the 20's. The size of the monitor used is certainly going to effect things, too. I, too, have a computer that can handle just about anything the VC's can throw at it, and an excellent monitor - but if I didn't, and wanted to fly, I'd probably compromise and accept the 2D - but, I wouldn't 'feel' I was in an airplane.I'm happy to see that VC gauge refresh rates are getting better - the Wings of Power aircraft instruments are as smooth as any 2D, and RealAir's upcoming Spitfire promises the same. What a pleasure!Mike F.

I believe that the reason 2D should remain is because a large number of users *like* it better, simple as that. There are just as many folks who cannot stand VCs for whatever reason but I would not be so bold as to tell MS to get rid of them because I did not care for them. Having the 2D option certainly does not mess with performace so asking for their removal seems to be based upon a bias alone. One thing I have learned is OPTIONS are laways a good thing...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | NEC LCD 1980SXi 19" | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro |

>Have you ever compared scanning out of a real aircraft>cockpit, and scrolling in the VC? I'm with Geof on this one. >>>Bruce.>you mean it's nothing like this?http://members.shaw.ca/ZevSpace4/FS9_VC.wmv