VCs

[Trans_27 Pilot Chase 59]

now that we have that much solved.. :-kewl

[NM5K 1]

I've gotta say that I am using a 1.7 GHz Pentium M Dell D800 with 64 MB 4200 Go graphics and 1 G ram, and I have no problem running VC in IFR...I don't have any trouble running IFR on any of the VC panels...Even the stock lear 45...But like I said, I'm using a 21 inch monitor...I have no trouble reading anything I need to read...It sure has no impact whether I can fly IFR, vs using a 2d panel...To me, it's the same either way...Heck, I fly IFR everywhere I go, unless I'm just taking a quicky joyride...The gauge lag I get in VC is not enough toreally bother me that much...I'm using a P4 2.4....The only real effectit has here, is say if I have a real high rate of climb, and I get to the set altitude, the gauge lag will make it bust altitude by a slight amount..But I don't get that if I slow the rate of climb a bit beforeI reach that set altitude...I usually do anyway, if flying a jet, etc..My ROC is usually down a good bit by the time I'm at FL29-30,which is the usual appx altitude you will convert to mach speed, from indicated. MK

[robert young 2,897]

Hi All,I've been sitting back watching this thread for a while and it seems that all parties have thrown in their views.Let me clear up a few things: Ideally, a well built 3d panel is EXACTLY the same as a 2d panel, except you can move it, pan it, and see it from different zoom levels and angles. Essentially that is the ONLY difference.So if you declare that you ONLY like 2d panels, you are saying that you can only tolerate a FROZEN picture in front of you. Of course this is understandable because most people have never seen a 3d panel which is as good, focused, clear and usable as a 2d panel.We are trying to push the boundaries forward a bit. It is true that what we are doing is not yet the solution for complex panels, and our VC in the Spitfire is not yet quite perfect, but we believe that it is as good as any comparable 2d panel for this given aircraft, and it is only a matter of time when 2d panels WILL be obsolete for all aircraft.So I understand the 2d die hard enthusiasts, because you are so used to not very good quality in your VC's. HOWEVER, it IS perfectly possible to have relatively simple panels in 3d only. If you zoom in to the same level as a normal 2d panel and do not move the panel, then it can be just as clear as a conventional 2d panel. and we think we have shown that it can be in fact BETTER.So hang on a moment: When have you sat in a real aircraft with your neck in chains? When was the last time you sat in a car and had iron clamps to stop your head moving? When did you last walk along the street and keep your eyes absolutely fixed straight ahead? When you think about it, a 2d panel is the most UN-NATURAL thing you could view, but because we have all become used to 2d panels being reasonably in focus and 3d panels being blurred, flakey, pixelated, cartoonish, horrible images, we have also become fixated that ONLY 2d panels give a decent view.Yes, there is some way to go, and we haven't entirely cracked it yet for complex aircraft, but please do not be so set in your ways that you think ALL 2d panels are great and ALL 3d panels are bad. There are degrees of quality. There is one slight problem with 3d only panels like those on the Spitfire: On a less than well optimised system there can be a slight delay in calling textures when you have been in one view for a long time. But on my system and those of many others, the view changes are almost instant, and we get a 3d panel which is MORE in focus than most 2d panels.It is absolutely true that at the moment we cannot produce complex airliner panels which work like the Spitfire panels. But it WILL happen. All I ask is that you do not have a pre-conceived prejudice until you have seen the new method working, and also please do not stubbornly assume that 2d panels are the only solution for glass gauges for ever. There will be an answer to these problems soon enough.By the way, it is simply not true that the RealAir Spitfire has only "a few gauges". It has many gauges, and nearly every single control in the cockpit is clickable and controllable. In fact the Spit has a very busy panel indeed. The difference is that they are analogue gauges. Soon enough we will find a way of doing the same thing with other gauges, maybe with a bit of help from Microsoft, but it will come sooner than you think.Whatever you prefer for your flying, that is up to you. But please give new ideas a chance before you write them off. In less than five years time, 2d will be history, because the technology will be in place to overcome all the doubts currently in place. Remember. ALL 2d images are just frozen 3d images. Go with the flow and soon enough everyone will laugh at our reliance on "fixed" panels.Good Wishes to all,Rob Young = www.realairsimulations.com

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

What he said! LOL, :)I was doing some flying yesterday in a couple of my favorite GA planes and spent a bit of time using the 2D panels and really found it to be very "uninvolving" after having gotten so used to the VCs with active camera's head latency effects. I find the locked and bound nature of the 2D panels really removes much of the feeling that you are flying through air. Everything feels very rigid and constrained and theres not nearly the sense of momentum and motion I get from the VCs. I just find that a well-designed VC offers a much more convincing sense of the "fluidity of flight"...btw Rob, how's that SF260 upgrade looking? ;) (don't want to be a pain but I just soooooo can't wait.)

[ahinterl 1]

I partly agree. I see VCs are especially great for relatively small aircraft.I fiddles with Ariane's VC in the 737NG last weekend, and while it's great at short final, it's cumbersome during flight.The problem is that sometimes I need to manipulate several switches and knobs qhickly which are on very different locations and far from each other.And here starts where the VC gets tough on me: the time I need to look for this and that knob/switch is too long compared with the simple opening of a sub-panel in 2D mode.I could solve this with Active Camera, agreed.But then comes the troubles I have with the gauges: during hand-flown maneuvers with big calibres like the 737-900, it's vital to have fluid, big and crisp displays at hand. That's where my maneuvers depend on, not the nice look outside.Letting aside the fact that currently, it seems that either VC gauges are stutttering like #### by default, or that nobody yet implemented that secret and misterious gauge which is as fluid as in a 2D panel (PMDG seems to got the trick with their 747).In the Ariane, this problem can be solved by using 2D pop-ups, which of course destroy much of the VC feeling.Using the VC alone, I have stuttering and unusable gauges.Even if the gauges were fluid and crisp, they'd be probably way to small for my taste to be fully usable.And in the event I'd need to turn a knob on the overhead, I'd fiddle around with the coolie hat to get my view from straight forward to the overhead and back, trying to find an optimal viewing position again, a very difficult thing with only a coolie hat and the pan function.So, Active Camera for me seems to be the only viable alternative for using a VC in the Airliners I own.And, I hope the secret to fluid 2D gauges will be unveiled some day in the near future...After all, I still find manipulating the controls (knobs, switches etc.) in a VC is slower and demands more attention than in a 2D panel where everything goes quickly.Active Camera in that sense only imitates a 2D panel by letting me define fixed view positions where portions of my VC look like 2D panels. A mix of both worlds, with the advantage that I can pan around without the need to switch from 2D to VC view mode.Andreas

[edetroit 933]

"So hang on a moment: When have you sat in a real aircraft with your neck in chains? When was the last time you sat in a car and had iron clamps to stop your head moving? When did you last walk along the street and keep your eyes absolutely fixed straight ahead? When you think about it, a 2d panel is the most UN-NATURAL thing you could view, but because we have all become used to 2d panels being reasonably in focus and 3d panels being blurred, "I cannot agree at all.When one turns ones head from forward to left in real life ..it is a snap view. We do not slowly pan across to the left.. :)I do like VC's btw and love Real Air Simulations! ;)regardsEd

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/113706.jpgAMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 128Mb DDR Nvidia 6600GT PCI Express, Audigy 2 ZS

[Guest paulstall]

Yes, if you take notice, it's the eyes that snap to view.Anyone can pan their head around, but, notice what the eyes do (unless ya glue your eyes to your head:-lol ).Paul S.

[ahinterl 1]

That's exactly the crux with VCs! Now we're getting closer to the real culprits of VCs.It's simply the way how eye and head movements are simulated - way too bad to be of much use in a complex cockpit! Useful only for small aircraft which doesn't rely on instruments (or where even a stamp sized, blurry and stuttering artificial horizon is more than sufficient - not the kind of aircraft I happen to use in FS).Again, only Active Camera comes to my mind which allows to simulate 2D views in the VC. Leaves the problem of the stuttering gauges and the need to turn the virtual head here and there just to flip a couple of switches...Andreas

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I don't "slowly pan across" in the VCs either. :)As has been noted many many times in this thread - VCs don't work as well (yet) in the bigger more complex planes. And using VCs is greatly improved by Active Camera - not just for setting up locked views, but for mouse panning as well...

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Well, I don't fly but I do drive, and I know when I'm driving my head isn't locked forward while my eyes scan around the dash when I for instance go to turn up the volume on the stereo... :) I glance down - and a significant part of the glance involves turning my head in the appropriate direction. Nobody said VCs are a perfect representation of working in a cockpit environment - just that they are a step in the right direction towards that end. The ideal thing of course would be for all of us to have full cockpit sims built in our basements but I'm not sure that's a reasonable option just yet...

[Geofa 108]

"and a significant part of the glance involves turning my head in the appropriate direction"Actually, in instrument flying you try to reduce head movement due to the Coriolis illusion-the most overwhelming of all illusions in flight. My preference is the instant view of the 2d-the way you would shift your eyes to a different place in the cockpit. How about the size and view of the instruments?-I find with 3d I spend more time zooming in and out and scrolling back and forth than flying the plane.I have pan to cam-it makes the scrolling much easier-but still is quirky.Another thing that isn't mentioned is the inside views-I prefer when I look out the right window for instance to see a view made from a real photo rather than something that looks like a hasbro toy. It adds to the reality of fooling the mind you are really there-at least for me.I don't find the scrolling realistic-but neither did I like the scrolling cockpits of Fly-but there were lots that did. One isn't right over another-it is a preference...I think it is great that many prefer 3d. I also think it is great many like me prefer 2d. I don't fly jets at all-doesn't make the people that do wrong....Isn't that what makes FS so great and lasting-the ability to make it work just the way you want to!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I like photo real side views too, but to me they actually sometimes serve to take me out of the sim rather than be more convincing. They look out of place - too real and perfect when compared to the scenery going by behind them. And once again they are stuck - theres no sense of the plane being an object seperate from my body. I should point out that I've never said I like ugly poorly designed VCs. :) The really good VCs look very nice in all directions and hardly cartoonish at all imho...as far as IFR and panning goes, I try to limit panning as much as possible in the VC as well. I pan to an area of the panel, then momentarily disable mouse-panning and adjust whatever I need to in that broad area. Also worth noting that being in the VC doesn't disable hot-keys. :)

[LAdamson 240]

>"So hang on a moment: When have you sat in a real aircraft>with your neck in chains? When was the last time you sat in a>car and had iron clamps to stop your head moving? When did you>last walk along the street and keep your eyes absolutely fixed>straight ahead? When you think about it, a 2d panel is the>most UN-NATURAL thing you could view, but because we have all>become used to 2d panels being reasonably in focus and 3d>panels being blurred, ">>I cannot agree at all.>>When one turns ones head from forward to left in real life>..it is a snap view. We do not slowly pan across to the left..>:)>>I do like VC's btw and love Real Air Simulations! ;)>Real life certainly isn't contained to just a snap view either. Anytime this question comes up, I do at least have an actual sliding canopy cockpit within 50' of this computer to sit in and look for comparison sakes. My cockpit/canopy is very close to the size of the Marchetti SF260. Just as in real life, I can move my head and eyes from one side to the other, as an example, to keep the runway in view when in the pattern. If I were in flight heading down a steep canyon with peaks to each side, the panning canopy view seems much more realistic than snap views. A panned V/C view, especially with open or canopy cockpits, provides much more "feeling" of a panaramic view experience, rather than being confined to eight way snap shots. IMO, some VC's greatly add to the simulated landing experience because of a heightened sense of yaw and speed. VC's easily widen the peripheral vision field which is the key to seeing and sensing yaw movements.If I'm to simulate aerobatics, then it's a combination of snap views and VC. I need snaps to quickly look across the wing for attitude adjustments with the horizon. And on the other hand, the VC makes it easier to recapture the reverse heading while heading downhill from a hammerhead. And FWIW, my "panning" isn't exactly what I'd call slow. I always hit the space key, if I need to get centered real fast.I also confess, that I prefer canopy VC's which eliminate those awful looking door post's on each side. Somehow, they just take something from the experience, and for what ever reason, a 2D corner post just seems to look better. Our real life eyes, just seem to somehow peer around that door post much better than our monitor! :DInstrument flight ---- 2D, until VC's look the same, which might be sooner than not.Landing ---- Absolutely nothing beats the RealAir Spitfire VC for the "total" effect. The Marchetti SF260 comes in second.......but then I've always favored canopies!L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>>So, Active Camera for me seems to be the only viable>alternative for using a VC in the Airliners I own.How about this head-mounted Tracker or whatever it is so called?? Isn't it a solution to quickly reaching desired place in the VC?Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

:)http://www.dmflightsim.co.uk/hs121_trident_vc.htm