He's here too

 

If 3D on a 2D monitor was unrealistic, and therefore not certifiable, then most simulators out there wouldn't be certified.  3D on 2D is how most simulators depict the environment around the aircraft.

 

 

 

It's the gauges and instruments which must have a fixed location.

Redbird Simulators, as an example, use fixed location physical switches and fixed instrument displays on the monitor. 

The view of course, is 3D.

A virtual Instrument panel (while being a lot more elegant than 2D), has the problem that gauges and switches are never in the same physical location on the computer screen.

I presume the FAA idea is that the sim pilot should NOT have to search to find the control he/she needs at that instant - as in a real aircraft.

january

I was wondering how long it would be before January joined the conversation when the topic of 2D came up. Surpised there was no screen shot from him of the triple screen set up.

 

Jim Burke

Doesn't count Morten, you did not see that yourself, although I am sure Robert would take that ride any day.

He's here too

 

 

 

Morten, that is YOUR photo that YOU took, right?

 

 

I presume the FAA idea is that the sim pilot should NOT have to search to find the control he/she needs at that instant - as in a real aircraft.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Again - standardization and not an issue of realism or searching.  If you're "searching" using the VC, then you're not using it right.  VCs don't make gauges randomly jump into different orders.

 

Do you really want to rehash the same overused 2D vs 3D arguments completely off topic just to achieve some completely self-serving gratification?

 

 

 

So we've covered the "well the FAA doesn't certify sims with a VC-type environment," and "even with the faux 3D, it's on a 2D panel, so the VC is worthless."

That leaves:

"Well panel builders can't use a VC for panel building!!!"

"The VC isn't as realistic!!!"

"Real pilots don't like the VC!!!"

"Hardware to run VCs is too expensive!!!"

...and I'm drawing a blank on the rest.  There are responses to all of these points ad nauseum on the forum, though.  Move on...

Morten, that is YOUR photo that YOU took, right?

Just say yes Morten and say no more, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Just say yes Morten and say no more, wink, wink nudge, nudge.

 

Robert, that's called "aiding and abetting"... :Big Grin:

Morten, that is YOUR photo that YOU took, right?

 

Well technically I didn't take the photo either.  I was on the way home after a very long day of driving in the rain (taking my kid to see a university) when I spotted the car.  I quickly hand my phone to my wife and try to explain the urgency of getting this photo. She of course thinks I am nuts.....and telling her its "a fight sim thing" didn't exactly help.  Anyway she helped me out and took the photo for me.

Morten, that is YOUR photo that YOU took, right?

Ah... Now I got it. Sorry, brainfart, couldn't grasp what it was all about Yes, guilty, I took it, but not with a camera Will never happen again. Remove post if needed.

 

Cheers.

Ah... Now I got it. Sorry, brainfart, couldn't grasp what it was all about Yes, guilty, I took it, but not with a camera Will never happen again. Remove post if needed.

 

Done.

No, that's not Robert's, he owns a Ferrari...

 

 

 

This is not as great as seeing big foot or Elvis.......

No, that's not Robert's, he owns a Ferrari...

No no that's Austin from xplane...he'll tell you all about it

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

RSR does not drive a Buick haha. (he's actually got a Mini Cooper believe it or not)