>If you don't use something at all what's that implying??? >>You may not have said 'take the 3D cockpit away' but I did say>that about the 2D panel and I'm standing on it... We need to>figure out how to solve the problem that's causing so many of>you to stick with old technology and resolve those issues so>we all can move forward together... > >:-cool I reiterate - it isn't a problem just a preference. No matter how good the VC ( and there are some good ones out there)I, for one, prefer the 2D.What's more I can be quite happy about you prefering the VC without seeing it as a problem!Dave

O.K. one more thing... :-roll Dave, it takes more development time and cost to continually have both options. As designing add-ons get more complex in the future having both is going to become a little unreasonable (a choice is going to have to be made). This issue will become much like designing add-ons for both FS2k2 and FS2k4 is now...

Your right Geofa and I'm standing on mine...Read my reply to Dave below...

There isn't a "problem"-perhaps that is where the problem lies.I don't use the heavy aircraft at all either-that doesn't imply they should be taken away. I also don't use the spot view. That also doesn't imply it should be taken away either. Anyone concluding so is taking quite a jump imho.If someone asked which do you use more-Ga aircraft or big jets?-if I answered truthfully that I fly Ga exclusively and don't touch jets does that imply that jets should be removed from the sim?Your quote:"I too hope Microsoft does away with the 2D panels because it makes no since anymore"is quite a bit different.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Based on this thread, I seriously doubt that the development of both 2d and 3d panels will be deemed "unreasonable" by MS in the near future....Just a guess, of course. --jeff

I agree with this...much like I prefer women with big breast' instead of small, it's just a preference.:+

A double post for you too Geofa:It takes more development time and cost to continually have both options. As designing add-ons get more complex in the future having both is going to become a little unreasonable (a choice is going to have to be made). This issue will become much like designing add-ons for both FS2k2 and FS2k4 is now...Man, I'm supposed to be flying right now....:-hah

Hi Dillon,This has certainly been an interesting thread, and I certainly find your comments, well, perhaps I'll leave that part out of this for now.I don't know what your FS development experience, or what your real world flying experience is, but I've been developing for FS for 5 years now, and have been flying for 30 years.I design both 2D panels and work with modelers to design 3D virtual cockpits.I fly real planes.I like both 2D and 3D panels in FS. They both serve a valid purpose. In some cases I find 2D more "realistic" and at other times 3D.What you seem not to realize is that when developers design a panel, they START with the 2D panel graphics, and guess what, this graphic often, either in parts or whole, becomes the texture for the VC panel.For example: The VC panel texture for our forthcoming ATR is identical to the graphic for the main 2D panels. It is the same graphic. For the 2D panel, all I add is some side wall, etc. to blend it all in- not much work there. I did the same with the Cardinals, and the C-310, and I'm doing the same with the A36 Bonanza and Piper Dakota I am working on. Again, the 2D panel is used to texture the VC panel. We HAVE to do the 2D work regardless. Textures were, are, and always will be 2D in nature.Thus, we start with 2D, then apply it to 3D models. So, where's all this extra labor? Apparently you may not be aware of exactly how the design process takes place. Textures are 2D, and get applied to a 3D model. We have to do 2D regardless, so does MS, they just do it differently, as their 2D panels often entail great compromise in design. The panels I design do not, so it is easy for me to take the 2D panel graphic and apply it to the 3D VC panel as a texture.I see nothing "unreasonable", or overly labor-intensive to continue to do separate 2D panels, as we have to do them either way. I would like to think I know the labor involved in this, and having the 2D panels means less than 1% extra labor.How about the gauges? Well, the gauge graphics are 2D, and guess where they come from? You guessed it! For the most part, we use the same gauges in the 2D panel as in the VC panel.There is no need for a "choice" to ever be made, it really is not a labor / cost issue. We have to do the 2D labor regardlessI'm for keeping them both, and I suspect MS agrees with this (have been on several FS betas) and otherwise I do not agree with much of what you are saying, Dillon. You have your opinion, but as a real pilot and FS developer, it should be readily apparent that I do not agree with it, and I am certain that you do not agree with mine.Folks, use what you enjoy using, what works for you, and let NO ONE tell you that what you use is better or worse, or antiquated, or less realistic, or has to be eventually done away with, or whatever. Long live 2D, and may we also see continued strides with 3D! :-)Now, how many more months before another thread like this surfaces? ;-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Thank you Lou for that informative post. I think it's always interesting to hear about the work that goes into development of a fs plane....just as an aside, I think your(dreamfleet) panels are the best in the business. :)

Hi Geof.Maybe this will help you to understand the difference between the two modes. It seems to me that you think that if you can display all that information, regardless of how small, where it is placed or how to get to it, (open another window), makes no difference.The ASI and DG are actual resolution of the instruments in a 1024x1024 panel of a quasi 182RG that I made in Gmax about a year ago. Better resolution / readability can be achieved, at the expanse of performance of course. With this panel / aircraft and my system, and my settings, I get about 17-20 at KLAX, when airport in full view.All these instruments are MS standard, except the ASI where I extended the green line for the C182RG Turbo. I use this aircraft with multiple panels for the 172RG, 182 with CH, etc, for training purposes. I hope that helps you understand some of the things that are of benefit in VC.It goes without saying, I hope, that you can select just about any portion of the panel, any size, and more realistic pan. With a speech control program like

Hi, Lou.It's important to remark that what you are saying it's just your opinion, and that is how you do things.NO, you do not have to have a 2D model for a VC model. I built one, see pics above, not much of an artistic value, but the best when it comes to training, over a year ago, WITH OUT the 2D. I added the Radios later to use in a two monitor setup.I do not have a problem with people using 2D, but the fact is that 3D/VC is better all around, if only the designers would learn what is important and how to build them.I will say again, I find most of the 2D models useless, when it comes to training and overall realistic perception. TV

>If we say nothing in defense of this feature, people like>Geofa, Randy, and others will end up having the option taken>away due to lack of support.:-bang >>I can't let that happen without speaking out....>>>:-samurai What are you talking about? Maybe you should RE-READ my posts. I have been CLEAR that both 3D and 2D should REMAIN not taken away like some other zelous VC gurus around these parts have been preaching to the masses..Here is what I said on page 6 of this thread...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... I think my own words speak my position clear enough?----------------------------------------------------------------------- TV, I will just say I am glad that your opinion does not have any bearing on what WE will have only what you choose to use and Lou's opinion holds much more weight IMO not to mention his graphics ;-DBest Wishes,Randy J. SmithBest 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 |

800x600... that would be a big step backward... most cockpits look an awful lot better at higher resolutions (and with AA enabled).I fly at 1280x1024x32 and would not go back..

I just have to jump in here... the cockpit you are showing could just as easily be defined as a 2d cockpit, using the same bitmap and gauge layout. Pardon me for saying so, but most recent titles have much better virtual cockpits than what you are trying to promote...Why not accept Lou's experience and allow developers to release titles with 2d and 3d cockpits and have all their users happy, instead of just 50% of them? BTW, for what it is worth, I use both 2d and 3d cockpits, depending on the stage of the flight...

Hi, Randy.More weigh is not necessarily what you want in flying, especially when it