VCs

[Guest]

VCs are definately frame rate hoggers. Especially the jumbos. But theres nothing like flying the RFP 742, pmdg 737 series, df 727, etc in the VC. With a good computer it looks unbelievable! The closest thing I'll get to actually flying and with a 21" monitor it makes it even better. Id recommend getting the yoke, it gives you a great hat switch that you can use to move your viewpoint around. Now if I could only see the switches better when I zoom out to get a better perspective it would be perfect... Still looking for that plane; when I put together a new machine (havent played fs in a few months) the first thing I'm going to buy is the level d 767, can't wait!!!But like everything in life, you have to pay more money to get the most enjoyment. Thankfully there are more VC addicts such as myself who are pushing developers to create better and better VCs. Thanks everyone for your hard work!

[JP_Visser 3]

>But like everything in life, you have to pay more money to get>the most enjoyment. Thankfully there are more VC addicts such>as myself who are pushing developers to create better and>better VCs. Thanks everyone for your hard work!so,because i hate vc's,i'm not getting the same amount of enjoyment as those who like 'm?yeah right.i'm sorry,but i cannot agree with that.also,the general feeling seems to be that someone flying using the 2d panel onlyis seriously handicapped or lacking a brain.at least,that is how it feels reading this topic.once again: i'm not stupid,i do have a brain,my opinion just differs from yours,and there's nothing wrong in that.at least,that is what i think.i think,we'll have the battle between 2d and vc forever,or at least as long as they co-exist.i also know i'll never get used to flying in the vc,on my 17 inch monitor,it just doesn't look right.and the day i get my new gaming rig,i'll still not fly in the vc.i just don't like them.fair enough,isn't it? tataJP.

[NM5K 1]

>1. The biggest problem is that you'd need one hand more to pan>around and simulating head and eye movement:No real difference here...I use either the hat switch to pan, or the keyboard switches to switch views the same was as a 2d..>>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:The mouse is not used that often...>>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).I have this...But I use the old 2d method to look to the sidesoften too...Using that method, there is no difference from 2d.>>Using such, panning is usually slow, unprecise and needs an>additional level for coordinating the pan movement with the>others.The pan speed is easily changed in fs9.cfg....>>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".After a while, you get used to it...IE: I can look to the left,and pan back forward, and many times get it right in one shot...If you use the keys to turn view, it snaps back to where it was..>>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 use any of that yet...>>>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.It should be fairly close...>>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.Hummm. I don't really have this problem yet, but I'm not using any super duper complex VC panels yet...>>3. Compared with 2D panels, I find VCs ugly in most cases.Some are, sort of...But some look *very* good.. Zooming out, can make a lot of difference in the way it looks. >>4. I find computer hardware to be a big problem:Not me, and I'm not running anything special... And yes, my scenery settings are maxed out for the most part...>>a. To have a more realistic "feel" within VCs, one would need>a really big, very expensive display device.I do agree here...You do need a pretty big display, as if you *do* zoom out, which I think is fairly important to get the "look"right, the gauges end up being pretty small. You do need a bigdisplay. I use a 21 inch. >>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.Huhhh? I'm using a 2.4 P4....And I'm not having any trouble. >>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.Thats the way it's always been....They don't build sims with lowend systems in mind...A year after the sim is released, a highend machine will become a low end machine...>>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.Money for what?>>I'm pretty happy with the restrictions 2D panels impose, but>they're fast, functional and sometimes even pretty and "like>the real thing".I can say the same for VC's also....>>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.I disagree...I'm already running them on a "medium" machine...>>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.How do you come to this conclusion? If it cost near that much, I wouldn't be using them now, much less in the future...>>Either VCs or 2D panels have drawbacks, where I see more in>the VC world, mainly because I fly complex aircraft.Nothing is perfect. I guess much is what you are used to...I still run some aircraft with 2d panels, but thats cuz I have no 3d version...Actually, I still don't mind a 2d panel too much, *but*, I require it to look much like a VC panel.IE: side,back views, true pilots perspective as far as view, etc, etc..If I use a 2D panel, I want it to seem much the same asa VC panel, except that naturally, only the gauges on the front view actually work...>>Some opinions (don't want to start a VC vs. 2D panel here)?Overall, I think the VC's are the wave of the future. For the smallerprops, and choppers, I think they are the only way to go. I would even prefer most airliners to be VC, but I want a verydetailed VC panel in an airliner. If not, I'd use a detailed 2d, thatwas built to look VC....MK

[LAdamson 240]

>so,because i hate vc's,i'm not getting the same amount of>enjoyment as those who like 'm?>yeah right.>i'm sorry,but i cannot agree with that.>also,the general feeling seems to be that someone flying using>the 2d panel only>is seriously handicapped or lacking a brain.>at least,that is how it feels reading this topic.>once again: i'm not stupid,i do have a brain,>my opinion just differs from yours,and there's nothing wrong>in that.>at least,that is what i think.>>i think,we'll have the battle between 2d and vc forever,>or at least as long as they co-exist.>i also know i'll never get used to flying in the vc,on my 17>inch >monitor,it just doesn't look right.>and the day i get my new gaming rig,i'll still not fly in the>vc.>i just don't like them.>fair enough,isn't it?> You're certainly not alone! :DThere is an retired British Air Force pilot who regularly post's at Flight Sim Com. who also won't touch VC's. He flew as a member of an jet aerobatic team as well. He won't touch the VC only Spit!Yet, there is also another retired warbird pilot, who post's here and at Flight Sim com, who really enjoy's the Spitfire's VC. And as I said, VC's are excellent for some airplanes I sim fly, but I still prefer 2D for larger commercial type cockpit's, or with a mix in something the size of a Citation X.L.Adamson

[NM5K 1]

And as I said, VC's are excellent for some airplanes I sim fly, but I still prefer 2D for larger commercial type cockpit's, or with a mix in something the size of a Citation X.I can see using the 2d for the big iron. Mainly cuz it's moreinstrument/display oriented, and you get a clearer view of the display in 2d. Many times on the big jets, if you are zoomed out to get a realistic perspective, it's hard to readthe small graphics on the displays. Also the flight director, etc,are not quite as clear. There is some distortion in the view of gauges when VC, and also some degradation of color, and brightness. So I still have many 2d jet panels. IE: I like flying the freeware 737-200 panel that out. But it's got side views, etc, and overalllooks pretty realistic. There is only one minor catch...To me, I thinkthe forward view should be a bit farther back, but , what the hey...That might have been the only good picture he had, etc...It's almost like you are sitting a bit right of the yoke, with yourface about 2 ft from the panel...It's the realistic perspectivethat attracts me to the VC's. Now with the props, I think the VC's are best, hands down.The cessna, mooney, king air, and baron, etc, all have good VC's for a default panel. Once you fly them for a while, with allthe zooms, seat, etc, set up right, you will be spoiled...It'sjust like sitting in the real thing. You get a better view of the ground to the sides on landing, you see the realistic prop blur, sunlight reflecting off knobs, shadows, etc, etc...When I go back to the 2d, it's kinda like....fisher price...:(I like the mooney in VC...You see the hood, and the prop blur looks very realistic the way it changes the "strobe" effect asyou vary RPM. Viewing an approach with that more realistic perspectiveis what I think sets the VC apart...The baron is good VC also..You can see the ground in the space between the left window, and the left engine, and it makes landing very realistic looking, not to mention it aids having a good landing, being able to see a bit of that side view. Anyway, I guess enuff long wind for now...I can see both sides..For some jets, 2d is probably better. For now...I don't really expect that to last too awful long though... MK

[mcwdainow 0]

I think what I could say has already been said, but for what its worth.. VCs all the way :-) For me, in FS2004 VCs perform better than 2D panels.. and I'm running a GF2 MX400 64mb!(new computer on its way soon though) The frame rates are easily usable.Like an above posters signature, if doesn't have a vc then shes going nowhere.

[Guest bobsk8]

I never used the VC on any plane I had including the PMDG 737, until I got the Real Air Scout and later the SF-260. The more I flew these planes, the more I used the VC and the less I used the 2D Panels. A week ago I got Track IR Pro which I hated until I discovered the F8 key or precision Mode. Now that I have that add on, I fly the VC on the SF-260 and Scout and also my Aerosoft Beaver, just about 100% of the time. Occasionally I will go back to 2D for some IFR functions, but I think VC is here to stay and it seems the VC's will get better and better, since Real Air raised the bar.

[Guest vas_yan]

I will fly airliners from the VC when at least the VSI gauge catches up with its 2D counterpart. Otherwise it's next to impossible to fly a takeoff or an approach, the thing is just to slow for that. Unless we are talking about fully automatic flight, i.e. autolands etc.Regards,

[Guest tooohip]

100% VC here!

[3Green 80]

I only simulate IFR, thus I only use the 2D panel. If the airplane has a VC, I remove it. That said, if I'm just #### around flying VFR, a very well done VC is nice to be in. But not for IFR. The instrument refresh rate, image quality is just not their yet. Maybe some day it will, but for now, I'm a IFR /approach nut, so I live in the 2D cockpit.

[Guest tooohip]

I fly VFR and IFR in the VC!100% VC Baby!Speak for yourself on your refresh rates, mine are great ;-)

[Dillon 2,197]

JP what the heck is your problem??? :-boom If you don't like VC's then fine but to come in here and act the way your acting is idiotic to say the least. You come across as someone who is envious more so than anything else. I can see no other way to explain your attitude. No one here has attacked you and personally I feel offended by some of your comments insinuations against others intentions here...Everyone has a preference as to what they like and don't like. Your free to feel the way you do just like the rest of us are free to feel the way we do. No one needs a bully coming around here jealous because they can't join in the fun. It's a fact VC's are better in many ways than 2D panels. I'm not going to get into that argument again but I will say this, respect people's opinions... You have no respect for others and if you did you would state your view, back it up with facts, and be done with it.JP I hope you either get a better computer and give VC's a second look or just leave the hobby altogether. If you can't respect others and embrace the many different outlooks in the community then maybe you shouldn't be around. I've been guilty at times myself of being one sighted so it's not an uncommon fault but it's something that has to be worked on. Lose the attitude and enjoy the hobby... :-roll L.Adamson as long as you've been around I can't believe your supporting the crap that's coming from JP (even if you do support his stance on 2D panels)... :-hmmm

[Guest]

I don't see him having a problem at all. In fact he states quite clearly that he experiences hostility from people who don't agree with him that VCs aren't the godsend they're made out to be and your comment pretty much confirms that opinion.Instead of stating your reasons for liking VCs you belittle him for not liking them...Nowhere does he say you're not allowed to like them, yet you scold him for disliking them and even tell him to get lost, a clear attempt to control the general opinion about VCs and suppress anyone who doesn't think like you do.

[Dillon 2,197]

Jeroen, here we go again... :-roll Reading through the many posts here the only hostile attitude has been from JP. Everyone else has been generally friendly about this subject (to my surprise). If JP feels he's experienced hostility on other threads concerning VC's that doesn't give him the right to attack people here who have done nothing to him so far. Is it right for him to take out on us what others have done to him??? I've experienced the same treatment from people including you. Me and you rarely see eye to eye but do I go attack someone else for my experiences with you???If my comments look as though I'm belittling him, that wasn't my intention. I don't like his attitude plane and simple. He has offered nothing constructive to the conversation here. I as well as many others like VC's and I'll give you good reason for it. Not say crap like, "in my view,flying vc only is some sort of status symbol.."look,my pc is faster as yours,i can fly vc only!" or "also,the general feeling seems to be that someone flying using the 2d panel onlyis seriously handicapped or lacking a brain."This is mindless babble or should I say crap. No one told JP any of this, he's fabricating this mess in his head. I personally don't feel I'm better than anyone because I fly using a VC. Heck I'm trying to get in the real thing every weekend... :-beerchug Jeroen:"yet you scold him for disliking them and even tell him to get lost"I'm not telling him to get lost, he said it himself I just reaffirmed his own words,"and should they disappear,i'll go with them,or hang on to the older versions of FS."I can't believe people like you and L.Adamson are trying to defend and/or stand behind this kind of behavior... You've taken much less from me and others in the past... Now should I hold that fact against everyone here and act anal (I think not)...

[Guest Herrie]

Dillon,if I may throw in another thought. JP may be the only one that was negative, but you yourself already stated before JP jumped in: "Threads like this always get ugly". And then you are surprised it does and even more, you draw attention to it. You do not need to! Just sit on your hands and concentrate on the positive input that is here too. Herrie