VCs

[ahinterl 1]

With some concern I see an increase in interest to make a transition from 2D to 3D (VC) only panels.Though I totally agree that VCs add tremendously to the "being there" feeling, I have my doubts that they can be properly used on y computer.And, I wonder how the "VC freaks" use them today.Beforehand I need to say that I have some VC only planes as well (e.g. Ariane's 737NG), and I fly them from time to time. But I mostly use 2D panels, because I see the following drawbacks in using VCs (the following are my subjective impressions):1. The biggest problem is that you'd need one hand more to pan around and simulating head and eye movement:one hand is on the joystick/yoke, the second moves the mouse (the only thing to interact with the computer), so there's only two options left:a. one uses something like a coolie hat or another device mounted on either device one already holds in the hands (joystick/yoke or mouse).Using such, panning is usually slow, unprecise and needs an additional level for coordinating the pan movement with the others.In addition, I personally find it very hard to keep some "positional awareness" using such methods: in real life, you always know when your head points forward, in the VC with e.g. a coolie aht it's almost impossible to tell when the forward position is reached. So, much time is spent with the panning and trying to find a "good position".b. one uses a completely independent device; the available body parts usable for this are very limited (I can only think of legs/feet and head/eyes), so to have precise control one would probably choose the head and something like TrackIR.I don't know how sophisticated such devices are, and if they allow to "take a rest" from staring at the screen and look elsewhere. And, I don't know if they allow me to have some freedom in movement to fly "relaxed": I can move my head to another position and still face the monitor, I suppose TrackIR to interpret my small head movements as position changes and an unwanted change of the view angle would occur.And, I guess because of hard- and software latencies, ther would be a noticeable lag when it comes to fast movements. In real life, I can turn my head and simultanously my eyes to get what I want into view. That takes fractions of a second in many cases, something I suppose to be impossible with todays hardware. And, the simultanous movement of both head and eyes cannot be simulated at all with such devices.2. The more complex an airplane gets, the more the gauges begin to stutter, up to the point where they're completely useless (e.g. Ariane 737NG) and need to be replaced by 2D pop ups.3. Compared with 2D panels, I find VCs ugly in most cases.4. I find computer hardware to be a big problem:a. To have a more realistic "feel" within VCs, one would need a really big, very expensive display device.b. The enormous task to get the 3D world inside and outside of the virtual cockpit displayed demands high end computer components, and I doubt even these are capable enough (let's wait for 64bit FS and multi processor machines). All in all extremely expensive.And the more advanced FS gets (the next version is just around the corner) the more problematic this situation gets because of the additional features of new versions which add to the already existing demands.That said, I have my doubts wheter the relatively small (at least for me) benefits of having a more real VC justify to spend huge amounts of money only to run an entertainment software title.I'm pretty happy with the restrictions 2D panels impose, but they're fast, functional and sometimes even pretty and "like the real thing".In my opinion, there's still a very, very long way to go until simulations can make the jump to 3D without having to spend money amounts as high as the price of a brand new family van.The price to run FS then would be hundreds of times the price of FS alone, and at least I for my part am not in a position to afford this.Either VCs or 2D panels have drawbacks, where I see more in the VC world, mainly because I fly complex aircraft.Some opinions (don't want to start a VC vs. 2D panel here)?Andreas

[Guest GabrielR]

Yes, Even though I am a complete VC Freak I understand your point... Well Kind of....I fly ALL my limited hangar of AC only from the VC, even the Complex Airliners (PMDG 737s)...I see that the 2d-VC transition resistance from some 2D Freaks is more a myth than reality.... here are my 4 Simple reasons, why an ACs in FS should be starting to go VC only:1. VC Panning: (Being there feeling) In respoonse to your Number 1 problem, the need to pan around the VC....The 2D is Just an Snapshot of the front view of a VC, so if you want a only 2d View, just use the CFG and program a view Point on the VC that you feel confortable with and do not move it... IN any case also in 2d you kind of pan around. So the extra hand is also needed there.2. Performance: I fly my limited hangar on VC with a good computer as today's standards, get good performance even in Airport environments with all my Sliders set to max. Performance in 2D in my machine is not that different from performance in VC for most Addons.3. Perspective: The view of the runway with a 2D has a huge perspective flaw, just a couple of Add ons (PMDG included) have addresssed that. VC is better in that department.4. RealAir's Spitfire: That's is a living proof why 2D are a thing of the past... Realair has overcome what up until now has been a problem of the VC: The refresh rate of the instruments. (Even though I still think is a Design problem, more than a FS limitation - See How Realair's SF260 VC gauges are very smooth) a non dificult work around for developers who can not implement the new Realair technology is the 2D Popups of the instruments (PMDG and Aeroworx)

[LAdamson 240]

At times I really like VC's, but prefer 2D panels for aircraft such as a complex commercial airliner.Yet, as a pilot, and one who is "stuck" on clear canopies, and high performance general aviation airplanes such as the RV6A kitplane that I built.................I found that the RealAir Marchetti SF260 is my favorite simulated airplane of all time, especially with it's virtual cockpit. This is what seems and "feels" like the real thing to me! I get a heightend sense of yaw which is nearly impossible with 2D, a lowered panel that doesn't obstruct my forward vision as often happens with 2D, and a much better sense of peripheral vision that adds to the sense of speed when required.I use shift Z for airspeed and altitude readouts, along with every button and switch possible on my Saitek X-45 joystick and throttle combination to keep my hand from "mousing" around the cockpit, to help keep proceedures flowing in real time.The RealAir Spitfire has to be the most fun, I've ever had with simulated landings. I'm always on the rudder, with hand on the throttle for minute altitude adjustments while attempting to maintain runway centerline, and getting the plane to loose airspeed, stall just inches above the runway without bouncing. This is where the VC is everything, because your "clues" all come from peripheral vision to the sides of the cockpit. A straight 2D would simply take all the fun out of this! Of course my thoughts will be entirely different from one who prefers operating complex airplanes with many instruments and navigation systems. For this, I prefer 2D also, as I think 2D still looks better and is more functional than a crowded VC cockpit.BTW--- I picked up a Garmin 296 color hand-held moving map GPS with terrain and terrain warning features for the RV. Also ordering part of a two-axis A/P this week which will fly routes programmed into the GPS. I may like GA, but not simple hand flying the whole time! :D L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

Here I'm typing, and then got into a conversation on my office phone, before sending. But notice that we mentioned the same two simulated airplanes! Must mean something!!! :D L.Adamson

[Bruce 0]

talking of VCs, have you seen Bill Lyons' latest incarnation? it has no 2D panel and the VC extends outside the plane so it encompasses the whole plane, the beauty of it is that it's all dynamic; not only can you operate the controls inside the cockpit including opening the doors by "grabbing" the handles, you can do it from outside along with opening the engine coers and swinging the prop.

[Dillon 2,197]

Threads like this always get ugly so I'm going to stay out of this if I can. (-: Here's why I love the direction Microsoft has taken us,As you can see I'm as you say a 'VC Freak' (see signature below) as I to feel it adds to the realism of the cockpit more so than the 2D panel could ever do. Multitasking using the VC can be viewed the same as the workload in a real aircraft. You never just site there and look straight ahead for the whole flight... In a real bird you have to look up to turn on your APU and look down to turn on your TCAS. The 2D panel doesn't give you a clear perspective as to where switches and controls are actually located in a real flight deck. You can't just click on the engineer

[Guest GabrielR]

Yes, that resumes it all for me, the ability to see more of what really happens in my AC and the surroundings, from the VC, see how the propdisc changes its speed as I climb and adjust the RPMs, or how the sun reflects slowly on the surface on the wings as I maneuver a small AC around an Airfield... That really makes the difference for me... As for the extrahand to pan around... I use the hat switch on my joystick, that way I have my left hand to operate the rest of the controls...I hope to see some new graphics in the next versions of MS... That will be a boost for us VCFs (VC Freaks), the pixel Shading on a sunny day inside a canopy cockpit or the reflexions of the airport lights on my 737 flight deck will be a blast, and we wont be missing the old trusty 2D view anymore.

[Clipper Ocean Spray 189]

I'm putting my vote in for both the "mini-panel" view and the "no panel" views!While the VC and 2D get all the glory, I still encounter flight situations where a mini-panel or no panel view are just what the doctor ordered.This is my fear with each new version of FS -- somewhere at MS HQ, a FS project manager asks, who needs the mini-panel and no panel options? Nobody talks about them anymore! Why did we ever have those panel options to begin with? Let's just get rid of them. :-( ;-)

[Guest freff]

>b. one uses a completely independent device; the available>body parts usable for this are very limited (I can only think>of legs/feet and head/eyes), so to have precise control one>would probably choose the head and something like TrackIR.>>I don't know how sophisticated such devices are, and if they>allow to "take a rest" from staring at the screen and look>elsewhere. And, I don't know if they allow me to have some>freedom in movement to fly "relaxed": I can move my head to>another position and still face the monitor, I suppose TrackIR>to interpret my small head movements as position changes and>an unwanted change of the view angle would occur.>>And, I guess because of hard- and software latencies, ther>would be a noticeable lag when it comes to fast movements. In>real life, I can turn my head and simultanously my eyes to get>what I want into view. That takes fractions of a second in>many cases, something I suppose to be impossible with todays>hardware. And, the simultanous movement of both head and eyes>cannot be simulated at all with such devices.Yes TRACKIR is the solution for using VC's effectively. I picked one up several weeks ago. It took me a few hours getting used to the immersive "feel there" which caused me some slight motion sickness. However, with that now no longer a factor, I doubt I will ever fly again using 2D panels. The responsiveness and control of the track-ir is excellent. It is very fast or you can dull/smooth it down by pressing F8. I usually use this feature on approach but have it in rapid mode at all other times. It amazes me that using TrackIR seems to have no effect on frame rates either. I have even used TrackIR while connected via VATSIM with the new SB3 client to watch traffic arriving and departing. I used the VC and zoom'd the display up as far as 64X to zoom and and see the smoothness of those aircraft movements. I had no problem using track IR to find or visually track airborne aircraft 5 or 10 miles out. The accuracy and speed is excellent. Also as for your question about taking a break or such. Yes you can press F9, and it will temporarily stop tracking. I have found this to be a very handy feature. FYI, I am using the Track-IR 3 Pro model with vector expansion. Couldn't be happier with the money spent on it. Regards.

[JP_Visser 3]

i still hate vc's.guess i should get another hobby then.especially comments like "....when in a real plane,i have to look up to start the apu,and look down to..."i hate to be the bearer of bad news,but,err...IT'S NOT REAL.and it never will be.furthermore,i find gizmo's like a virtual cabin a waste of resources,as i deem a vc to be a waste of resources too.the thing that i find most intriguing is:the only vc offering reasonable performance cq refreshrates is supposedly the one in the Realair spitfire...but how many instruments does a spitfire have?or a SF 260,or the new lyons creation?and what supercomputers do people run to have the opportunity to like vc's?in my view,flying vc only is some sort of status symbol.."look,my pc is faster as yours,i can fly vc only!"well,good for you :)i'm perfectly happy with my 2d panels,and should they disappear,i'll go with them,or hang on to the older versions of FS.now,to those of you that love the vc...good for you,but really,not everybody thinks they are the best thing since sliced bread.also,not everybody has the PC that is needed to cope with all the vc strain.that alone should be reason enough to keep the 2d panels alive for a number of years.tataJP.disclaimer:even though i am mentally handicapped according to the DSM-IV,that alone does not mean i'm stupid.it only means my opinion differs greatly from yours.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

well, the world doesn't stop for people with slow PCs y'know. I'm afraid whether you like it or not, VCs are the wave of the future. I guess those folks who can't adapt will as you say just have to stick with the old versions. The simple fact is that once all VCs perform the way the RealAir Spitfire does (and believe the hype, it's all 100% true), there will be no need whatsoever for a 2D panel - since if you insist on having a 2D panel all you need to do is lock the VC to the forward view and voila - you have a 2D panel. Having said that though, I am certainly not running anything close to a "bleeding edge" gaming rig here and I have no problem at all flying from the VC of several of my favorite planes (the RA Spit and SF260, the Bill Lyons planes, lots of others). Now we definitely haven't reached the stage yet where VC's are easy to use in the bigger more involved planes and I still do a lot of flying with the 2D panel in those - but the day will come no doubt about it. But to brush off the notion that a VC gives a better feel of being in a real plane by pointing out that "it's not a real plane" seems a tad odd to me. I mean by that reasoning I guess we might as well not strive for realistic flight models or scenery or weather or AI either. None of it is "real" after all...

[LAdamson 240]

> Having said that>though, I am certainly not running anything close to a>"bleeding edge" gaming rig here and I have no problem at all>flying from the VC of several of my favorite planes (the RA>Spit and SF260, the Bill Lyons planes, lots of others). I'm running my VC's with a "blazing fast", three year old Athlon 1900XP/Geforce3Ti500!!! With many airplanes, the VC's actually perform with better fps than the 2D panel. Of course re-fresh rates of the gauges are slower, except for the X-Plane gauge smoothness of the "Spitfire".It was either a CPU upgrade or the new Garmin 296 color moving map GPS with terrain and terrain warning features for the kitplane. The GPS won! This week................it's still a CPU upgrade, or an auto-pilot for the kitplane. Looks like the kitplane is winning again! :D L.Adamson

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Falcon 4.0 has both a 3D cockpit and a 2D pannable cockpit and it's very frame rate friendly on my Pentium 3 533 MGZ with ATI 32 meg video. VCs come in handy when flying a visual pattern. In my opinion judging the flare seems different, maybe harder. With pannable/scrollable 2D you can see every guage in the cockpit as it appears. Yes, you can look up to the upper panel with the ability to "snap back" to a view of the primary flight instruments and out the windsheild. If you lock your view you have a 2D panel? First time I heard that one. Then there are the Goflight users. I'm not one of them but the fortuanate few who have consoles and multiple monitors don't need VCs very much. I wish there was a view in 2D between front and 90 degrees. The plane I enjoy most in FS9 is the Maria Noriega Piaggio Avanti. The radio panel is not a popup and the GPS and fuel management windows always pop up at the same spot where they do not interfere with flight operations.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[LAdamson 240]

Included pic, is the Spitfire 3D locked to a 2D --- I suppose.Another disadvantage of most 2D panels, is that the instruments do not work in 2D bitmap images of the 45 and 90+ degree angles of the cockpit.

[Guest Jimbofly]

If you get the chance get yourself a copy of IL2 Forgotten Battles. There is no 2D cockpit in sight (since early 2002 with original IL2) and every PC combat pilot swears by them.Excellent on framerates as well.If you haven't got a copy of the RealAir Spitfire, I recommend you get it. Chances are it will change your mind about VCs.