I think that the crucial point is that realistic means different things to different people. To some it is everything in the right place with all the buttons, to others it is the visuals, to others it is panning, to others it is clarity. For me it is pretty much that 2D pits are just more user friendly. Sure if you take a really well designed 3D and a poor 2D then the 3D wins. But with all things being equal the 2D wins for me.Another personal opinion is that VFR in FS is a purely notional concept in so far as VFR is when you are not flying in cloud (IMC)...which in reality it isn't. VFR is a navigation techinque and a collection of regulations that would be tedium ad nauseum to recreate in FS. Therefore for me, VFR is so far from realistic (my version of it), that it is a pointless exercise and so 3D wouldn't get a look-in anyway.

After staying out of this for a day or two - I'd like to make a couple of comments.First the question was originally asked of RW pilots as to which panel was their preference.Very noticeable the majority ( of which I was one ) answered 2D in a fairly peaceful and tolerant manner- allowing that others might prefer the other option (VC). It does seem to me from the posts that followed on that the VC " lobby" (for lack of a better name ) appear to be far less tolerant of others' opinions using all sorts of different arguments to make their case. I just wonder why this should be so and also - in view of the fact that the original question was directed to RW pilots- how many or what proprtion of the "avid " VC supporters are RW pilots?Secondly - the waffle about MS doing away with this option or that option because of development costs etc . You might as well say that in the next FS ( If/when) they probably won't bother to include all the minor airfields/strips etc as hardly anyone uses them- hardly likely!Remember that those of us here(AVSIM forums ) are just a few thousands out of the many many who have bought and used FS(in any incarnation - possibly millions? I don't know the figures)We know that MS do read these (and other) forums and I'm sure the opininions and complaints posted here do influence their thinking to some when developing the next version - but their main aim must be to make FS as attractive as possible to as many as possible. With that in mind they MUST offer as many options as possible.Dave

Those who don't use the VC should goto settingsdisplay and set the VC instrument quality to low. This improves FPS for most aircraft, sometimes by quite a lot.David

I've always been dissatisfied with the 2D views, compared to RW flying. The fixed views have no quick vertical adjustment (or didn't -- I haven't checked since FS7). You can't look down & see that VFR landmark which (if you're flying accurately) is passing right under the airplane. If you're flying tight VFR patterns, you can't see the end of the runway. You can't just look down and daydream (lookit my shadow zooming along so fast!) during cruise, the way I could in TRA (the real airplane). The 2d views were obviously useable, a lot of pilots (including me) have flown lots of hours, lots of approaches, lots of VFR patterns, lots of landings & takeoffs, using the 2D views. But it doesn't seem enough like real flying to me. I've always been looking for more. Ever since the first (very primitive) VC came out in FS5, I've been eagerly awaiting improvements. I'll upgrade equipment as necessary if I cannot obtain acceptable frames in 3D. I'd rather have terrific flexibility in viewing with merely acceptable frames, than so-so views with terrific frames.Now, with FS9 and ActiveCamera, I can have the best of both worlds. I fly in 3D and never change, unless the weather is so bumpy (ActiveCamera head latency) that I can't set a knob without doing so. I stay in the VC and have the most realistic and satisfying experience possible to me in FS.Many folks probably don't realize that, when they're in 2d and 'snap' to an outside view with the NumPad, they've gone to the virtual cockpit, if the model has one.Oh, yeh: Commercial Pilot, ASMEL, IA, 4000+ TT, 2500 ME Turbine, 1200+ instruction given (CFI lapsed decades ago). 22 years flying King Airs, Citations, & Lears for solo pilot operations. Chief pilot, bottle washer, privy cleaner, vacuum operator, caterer, ramp agent, everything, LOL.

You might try the shift-enter and shift-backspace combinations :-)Works like a charm!

If those are the buttons that move the lanscape up and down completely independent of the panel, then no thanks. I find that to be both confusing and completely destructive to my willing suspension of disbelief. :)

And I thought the arguments on the Half-Life 2 message boards got heated! Granted this one has much less profanity and fewer spelling errors. This topic is discussed every few months?? You'd think then that as sophisticated a bunch that flight simmers are, they'd have better memories. :( I've only been on these boards about a month, so I guess I missed the last one.Anyway, I don't really approve of this idealogical "VC a really excited user" behavior. (you can't argue against the fact that it is the VC fans who are acting more like a pro-2D statement is a remark against their parentage.) However, in spite of this I agree with a lot of the "anti-2D" points brought up.First of all I'm not anti-anything, at least as far as FS goes. In answer to the original question on the thread, as I stated previously, I use 2D for IFR and 3D for VFR. However, I find the concept of the VC much more realistic than the 2D panel. I hope that someday the 2D panel does go the way of LORAN. In the mean time however, reading guages on most VCs is not nearly as clear or smooth as the 2D panel. And I don't care whose fault this is or why; that's the way it is.Someday, when all VCs are just as sharp and smooth as a 2D panel, then there will be no more 2D panels, and nobody will complain, because none of their functionality or readability will be compromised.Until that day, neither the 2D panel nor the VC are going anywhere. The 2D panel is probably going to be here until ALL VCs are as sharp and smooth as it, and every potential buyer of MSFS has the hardware to use it without a significant performance hit. Given the extremely wide range of people who buy MSFS, it's going to be a while. The VC has been in just about every flight simulator ever made since Falcon 3.0 back in 1991, and it's only become better and more popular since then, so it's not going anywhere either.No matter what developer reads these boards, they're not going to take away either feature, because it's just not practical to do so from a sales or a functionality standpoint (yet), regardless of how many people have a certain opinion or who is the most vocal about it.One more thing. The more closed-minded you are in expressing your point of view (i.e. treating this subject as if taking one side or there other makes the difference of where you end up in the afterlife), the less credibility you will have with the people reading your post, regardless of whether they agree with your take on the subject.

Hi BillThanks again for taking the time to reply. I hope the RN get their act together and that the relevant contractors / inspectors learn from this. I would guess that the issue of insulation degredation is similar to the problems facing older aircraft, with sheathing become brittle and flaking away. That, coupled with the electrolytic effects of seawater, must be a major headache on board older ships.RegardsRottenlungs

>Are all you guys pilots or what???Yup, 130 hoursAside from the Maule M7-260, I never use virtual cockpits as they tend to be too blurry and consume my fps. I find that I can still pan and view everything around me in the 2D cockpit that I would be able to see in the 3D. All the same blind spots are in those 8 view angles giving me the full 360