Coming very late to this thread. I can only see one post which refers to a preference for VC's with a LIGHT AIRCRAFT. Hurrah!!Surely this is the point! It so much depends which type of aircraft you are flying, and what the purpose of the flight is (PAX transport, sightseeing, aerobatics or training). The type of flight is rather important in deciding whether to use 2d or 3d.And that's quite apart from the inherent quality of the VC on the aircraft you are flying.You'd be mad not to use a 3d panel in a Pitts Special, especially if the view was good in 3d, and you might be missing quite a lot if you permanently flew a large airliner in only 3d. Rob Young

Hi, Bert.No problem. I agree with:>Pardon me for saying so, but most recent titles have much better virtual cockpits

It's not that difficult to "LAYOUT" the panel in FS Panel Studio which I notice Flight1 is using these days. So a 2D panel of course is the 1st way to go. But it is not NECESSARY, just easier to get up and working. The gauge programming behind the layout is a different story. I'm a real world pilot as well as developed my own useful things using FS Panel Studio as well as well as others. And for the record I use 3D all the way as long as everything is built to be used in the VC otherwise the 2D panel has to be used.Carmine http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/Images/wave.gif

No I think you missunderstand me, I ONLY use the virtual cockpit for Flight 1's 172 but for the PMDG 737 I stay in 2 D because managing the systems on this bird is much easier that way. So no I am not against VCs whatsoever, what I am against are people saying that MS should get rid of 2D panels all together. If one does not like 2D panels simply do not use them. It does not hurt anyone who does not use them does it? I don't fly around Japan but do not desire to have it removed from FS...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 am not a real world pilot, in fact I used to be a submariner. How far off base is that...LOL! I used to only use 3d, and really enjoyed it. Then I started to fly an A/C that I really liked that only had a 2d panel. I modified my computer desk so I could mount a second 17" monitor at a 30 degree angle underneath my main 19". I modify the panel bitmaps to make a second top panel that is basically the top portion of the panel, and the window frame and part of the overhead. Then I can undock the main panel with the instruments and have it on my lower monitor like a dashboard. This is the best of both worlds. You can't undock a VC, so using multi monitors would not be possible if 2d were not included. To me this would be regressive, not progressive.Bill

I had a quite a long answer to your post-then the computer burped...So I guess a cliffs note version...Your pictures just confirm why I prefer 2d. To be honest-the 3d cockpit you show like many of the 3d cockpits has the look of one of a 3d virtual shoot em up game my son plays (I think my Debonair 3d cockpit is pretty good-but I also don't use it for the same reason). The cowl which we use for perspective looks like a crude cad polygon from the fs1 days, the instruments are foreshortened in a distorted way, and you see no more in your viewpoint even on a 21" screen than a conventional 2d panel-though with a fuzziness. For that price you do get the ability to pan and find instruments in their geographic correct location. I prefer to see instruments and a cockpit that looks real and reflect what I see in reality-at the expense of changing fixed viewpoints.I find that a 2d cockpit shot from my eye's perspective, of my real aircraft, with instruments made from photo's of my real instruments-with correct eye perspective , a much more useful and realistic way to go. Lets face it-much of flight simming is what we fill in with imagination-and when the whole setup looks like a hasbro toy from the start it doesn't go very far in this area-at least for me. Staring at the stock fs gauges don't help for reality either-something I have been very unsatistied for years with.I have no doubt the setup you have is fast as you claim. But I am not willing to shell out more money for a 21" inch monitor when my 19" is perfectly good, and a 182 really has no usefullness for me since I spend very little time in them. The vast majority of 3d cockpits that are available are certainly not fast-the time lag on the instruments makes them not functional for ifr practice-not to mention very often many of the instrumentation is non working in some crucial areas. I am glad you find it useful-and I am also glad my choice is also available.Compare the vc you show above to my Debonair below (taken in slew mode-I was in a hurry) along with a real shot from my eyesight in flight. I know which one I would rather spend some considerable time looking at, working with, and which at least for me comes a lot closer to reality.Find me a 3d Baron that has the function , look , and speed of what I submitted above-and I'll be the first to jump ship. Until then-I'll stay with 2d.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/95663.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/95664.jpg

The bottom line is: William just wanted to know what REAL pilots thought about 2D vs. 3D, nothing more. Some real pilots answered him, and opinions will differ. There really is no right or wrong answer to his question. Some real pilots prefer 2D, others 3D, and some, like me, prefer both under certain conditions!I know, there are are those who want to hear from real pilots, as a definitive statement: "The virtual cockpit is more realistic".Ain't gonna happen, don't look for it.As to FSPS, I started using it with the ATR to place gauges, because we have so many different panel windows to place gauges on this makes it easier. However, it is not used in the actual design process, at least not by me, and I can tell you that also applies to Flight One. It just makes it easy for us to place the gauges.BTW, it is a great program, but my design work starts off in Photoshop, and I still do work in Notepad when it comes to the panel.cfg. In fact, the panel.cfg starts off in Notepad, but that's just my way of doing it.You might want to view this thread (long one too), where I posted some 2D and 3D photos of the ATR cockpit. Note that a very experienced FS user mistook a photo of the VC for the 2D panel!Indeed, the textures / graphics used are the same between 2D and 3D!http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...p?TID=8941&PN=1Again, the bottom line: William asked this question of real pilots.Some preferred the VC, some preferred the 2D and some preffered both.All answers are correct!Use what works best for you, and do not worry if someone says it is not "realistic", that is just their opinion, even if they are a real pilot.Or, as many a flight instructor will say: "Just fly the plane!"Below is an early draft of my Piper Dakota's panel for FS. Take off the left and right side "walls", and there is the texture for the VC's panel. Actually the glare shield will be a separate texture.Crop this graphic, and there is the left and right 2D panels. I still need to add the visible cowling and the center post.As to the gauges, yes, 2D graphics also, and they will be "cut" from this very same graphic to create the gauges. All is 100% photographic in nature, and this graphic was created from dozens of separate photos. While this photo is greatly reduced in resolution, the original is 3500 x 1800 in size.Again, just fly the plane, and use whatever panel works for you. 2D/ 3D; they are both "realistic".Have a good time flying, enjoy! :-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/95688.jpg

Some great points Lou and no one this side of the FS development team can argue with your credentials... In the end Microsoft will make this decision for all of us. So any speculation on any of our parts is a mute point... If I didn't know any better I'd say you've had it out for me every since our little episode concerning the Cessna 152 2D panel... You can take the knife out of my gut now.... :-doh

Hi BillI must say what a diverse crowd frequent these forums. I bet there aren`t too many submariners on these pages! I`ve always thought that there was something analagous about flight and diving - they both have three dimensions to get lost in!If I might be so cheeky, did you work in military or commercial submarines? My father is a civvy contractor working on the software aboard RN subs.Cheers Rottenlungs

Nice job as usual Lou!! Now if we can just get that view to move around in 3D space we'd be all set.Carmine http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/Images/wave.gif

Hi Rottenlungs,I served in a Canadian Navy Oberon class submarine, which by the way was built in the UK. Because our Armed Forces are integrated, I also served on a few Air Force Bases, hence my love of flying. Also, being at the One Man Control(OMC) of an Oberon submarine is a lot like flying an aircraft, only with no window to look out of.Bill

VC cockpits are what really sold me on flightsim...it's what makes simming that much more realistic...

Hi Aca_Dia.>In fact frequently the flight sim people have to unlearn habits they picked up with using flight sim.

Hi BillThanks for your reply. If I recall correctly, the recent tragic accident was on an O class boat being delivered to the Canadian Navy. There has been much speculation that the boats were released by the RN in substandard condition. If this is true then it is a shameful chapter in the history of the British Navy. My thoughts are with those people affected - I can think of nothing more terrifying than the thought of fire on a sub. Thanks againRottenlungs.

Hi Rottenlungs,The recent fire was on an Upholder class boat. They were renamed Victoria class after they were purchased by the Canadian Navy. Our Oberons were decommissioned. There is a lot of controversy on their condition when they were received from the RN. They sat idle for quite a few years before they were sold to Canada, which is not good, so no matter how well the RN restored them, there still will be problems related to this. A fire on a submarine is deadly and is a submariners worst fear. I have been through a few of them. Fortunately we were able to put them out fairly quickly.Bill