VCs

[Guest IanP]

Mike,I don't usually jump in one one specific thing that people say, but this one I will:"Flight Simulation is AN EXPENSIVE HOBBY."Sorry, but that's not true. Flight Simulation can be and expensive hobby if you want to to be, but is really a hobby that costs, right now on the UK High Street, about

[Guest]

"JP I hope you either get a better computer and give VC's a second look or just leave the hobby altogether" sounds quite negative to me...Effectively "either agree with me or get lost, but don't dare to speak up against me".

[Guest IanP]

Jeroen, Dillon, you can hate me all you like for saying this, but take the bickering elsewhere - I for one am sick of it.This thread is about cockpits in flight simulators and the best ways of displaying them to the user, not personal attacks aimed at anyone. More to the point I DO NOT CARE WHO STARTED IT!!!Thank you for your attention. :-)Ian P.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

That's an interesting point, but I think it's entirely possible to use it to suggest exactly the opposite thing you seem to be implying. It seems to me that the vast majority of buyers (the folks you suggest aren't spending more than the bare minimum on flightsimming) are very likely also not burdened by concerns about guage refresh rates and IFR capabilities and so forth and are in fact very much inclined to use the VCs for their implicit "wow" factor over traditional 2D panels. In other words, if MS is aiming the sim directly at the "majority" of users, then it might be possible to argue they should do away with 2D - or at least wouldn't be very much harmed by doing so... (I'm not saying they should though, just making the point).

[JP_Visser 3]

>Jeroen, here we go again... :-roll mind if i interrupt you for a brief moment?or do you really need to go?>Reading through the many posts here the only hostile attitude>has been from JP. what hostile attitude?i'm stating my opinions,nothing more.that you feel it's hostile,is entirely your problem.it also proves my point.AGAIN. >Everyone else has been generally friendly>about this subject (to my surprise).where have i been unfriendly,or untrue then?i've stated my opinion,and my experiences sofar.never knew that was something that would cause you toloose it like this. does that happen if you watch C-SPAN too?>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. JP doesn't feel like he experienced hostility.JP experienced hostility.a small,yet crucial difference.this is one of the many instances where i've been told i'mhostile,rude,stupid,or whatever.and why am i told all that?because i do not like vc's,and have the guts to tell that to people like you.>Is it right for him to take out on us>what others have done to him??? i am not "taking out" on YOU what others have done to me.i am stating my opinion and feelings on the subject,illustrated with some examples.i even say so in the DISCLAIMER at the bottom. >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???i myself have witnessed you attacking people,just like you attack me now,for stating their opinion,which happens to differ from yours.if desired,i'll gladly post a long list of links,i have plenty.>>If my comments look as though I'm belittling him, that wasn't>my intention. it wasn't? >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!"how come my opinions are crap,and my attitude is wrong?why isn't it your opinion that is crap,and your attitude that's wrong?the VC flying is used as a statussymbol,that's fine with me.check your own signature,for instance...that is an attitude i don't like.and,i have the freedom to do so,just as you have the freedom to ignore my feelings on said subject.> >or >>"also,the general feeling seems to be that someone flying>using the 2d panel only>is seriously handicapped or lacking a brain."indeed,and it is true,as you prove,again,that you think my attitude is wrong,i lack common sense,or whatever...you know,you are entitled to your opinion,just as i am entitled to my opinion.and my opinion is that:"the general feeling seems to be that someone flying using the 2d panel only is seriously handicapped or lacking a brain."nothing wrong with that,right?RIGHT?>>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 this isn't "mindless babble".it is WHAT I experience,time and time again,when i say i fly using 2d panels only.and yes,it annoys me.but no,it isn't your fault,or anyone else's.your reaction,however,in my view is unwanted babble.>Heck I'm trying to get in the real thing every>weekend... :-beerchugin other words: i am better,as i am trying to get in the real thing every weekend.well,good for you bud :) but err...no beerchug then eh.>>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,you infact do tell me to get lost,i only say i'll leave or hang on to an older fs version if the 2d panel disappears>>"and should they disappear,i'll go with them,or hang on to the>older versions of FS."see?>>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)... i am not holding facts against anyone...i'm stating my opinion and feelings on the subject.i'm very sorry that you seem to lack the ability to let other people have their own opinions.what i taste out of your mouth is that i should bow for the vc,and hail you as the saviour of this forum,or the vc.well,i will not do that,i'll keep my own opinion,and reactions like yours only help to make my opinion even stronger.on top of that,they provide a great reference for the future.thank you.tataJP.

[JP_Visser 3]

>Jeroen, Dillon, you can hate me all you like for saying this,>but take the bickering elsewhere - I for one am sick of it.>>This thread is about cockpits in flight simulators and the>best ways of displaying them to the user, not personal attacks>aimed at anyone. More to the point I DO NOT CARE WHO>STARTED IT!!!>>Thank you for your attention. :-)>>Ian P.my humble apologies sir,just missed your post.i have just posted my answer,buti'll refrain from answering any other posts,for your viewing pleasure :)enjoy ;)tataJP.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

Well, I don't fly the Spitfire and don't think I ever will. As I said that is a very simplistic panel and we're light years away from producing an equivalent VC panel for something like a Boeing or Airbus. Screen sizes are the limiting factor with VCs. Everything is just too small to read easily.If at some point in the future we have what appears to be a 2D panel that refreshes the gauges as quickly as the current 2D panel, and is as sharp as a current 2D panel, is as large as a 2D panel and in all other respects works, looks and feels exactly as a 2D panel does now then by all means I'll use it whether it's called a VC panel or a Bob Hope panel.I fly only large jet aircraft and for some of these such as the PSS Concorde the Flight Engineer's virtual panel is nowhere near resembling the 2D equivalent. I think it will take longer than one version to get virtual panel reality. Perhaps in three versions time.For you GA fans VC panels are closer but for passenger jets there is still a very long way to go before we get close to what a good 2D panel can achieve.

[Guest IanP]

To which the counterpoint is that you'd be amazed how many "low end" FS users (like the five or six guys who have been pointed at me at work) don't even know that "s" changed views! (Yes, I have been asked how to get the outside view shown on the box, but that was with FS2002...)I'm not basing my figures off the top of my head, I'm going from personal experience of introducing people to the features of FS and the add-on market (both freeware and payware) and the experience of others. FS is a very, very, widely used piece of software, but many people don't change any settings other than the aircraft they fly from the front screen.Your point, though, is accepted. People will and do look for eye candy and the VC does eye candy very well.Like I said in my post somewhere a long way up there ^, my experience says stick with both options and let people choose which one they want to use. :-)Cheers,Ian P.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

>To which the counterpoint is that you'd be amazed how many>"low end" FS users (like the five or six guys who have been>pointed at me at work) don't even know that "s" changed views!>(Yes, I have been asked how to get the outside view shown on>the box, but that was with FS2002...)>>Ian P.yes, but again those folks would be just as happy (or perhaps happier) were they presented with the VC view right off the bat instead of the 2D view. It's only us hardcore guys that even bother arguing these issues. :)But certainly, theres still lots of reasons for keeping 2D panels around. I have nothing against them really (several planes that I really like alot have no VC at all). I just think that as technology improves, VCs are going to get better and better, and 2D is going to become less and less necessary. It's when folks start arguing from the extreme ends of the spectrum ("I hater VCs - they don't work and I refuse to use them!" or "VCs or nothing for me!") that things start to get messy...

[Guest IanP]

Again, I agree to a point (I'm getting good at that... ;-)) but a lot of people - especially beginners - still find the 2d easier to use when they *do* start playing with systems and different aircraft...Only us hardcore guys that argue it? Definately. Only us that care? Hmm... I don't have sufficient evidence one way or the other to say.> It's when folks start arguing from the extreme ends of the>spectrum ("I hater VCs - they don't work and I refuse to use>them!" or "VCs or nothing for me!") that things start to get>messy...Hear! Hear! (Here, Here? Whatever! :-hah)I'll quit flooding the thread now, I've said my piece and shall sit back and read others' opinions on the subject for a while.Later folks. :-)Ian P.

[Guest pollard]

"..I'd be very surprised if mouse panning and head latency effects in the VCs are not an included feature of FS10..."That would be nice...And here's hoping that FS10 is also coded to store all of the pertinent data, settings, textures etc, in memory (after initial loading) for the duration of the flight so we don't have to endure these awful loading times. My set-up might not be the fastest in the world but it's certainly not archaic. This is a real '3D downer' for me and my biggest hang-up in FS. When this is solved I'll be much happier with the 3D situation and some old addon favourites, I've banished to CD, might actually see the light of day again!Thanks for your input.Sir John:-sword

[Mike T 208]

Ian:I disagree:At the end of the day, 30 Pounds Sterling gets you a game and a joystick, NOT a hobby. The hobby part comes from the investment in time, resources, passion and energy to make it a hobby.It is that passion by the FS Hobbyists that spawns the 3D vs 2D debate. The person just picking up a copy of FS2004 from the Walmart (Marks and Spencer in your case :-) )bargin bin could give a rats behind about 3D or 2D cockpits.At the end of the day, Micrsoft will go for the WOW factor as they always do and methinks that Bargin Bin Bob is gonna like the 3D cockpit a WHOOOOOOLE lot more!:-)Regards,Mike T.

[MarkW 1,493]

I find that sometimes VC are fantastic, at other times I cannot use them. The biggest issue for me is that when you zoom out in the VC (from Normal to 75% or 50%) in order to get things in the VC into view you end up zooming the outside scenery so far away that you cannot see the runway. VC at 100% on the LDS 767 and you only see part of a few instruments, not ideal for landing. If you could operate the zoom of the VC independent of the outside scenery then it work work much better. Guage refresh rate is also an issue as well as guage clarity and lighting.Mark.

[LAdamson 240]

> If you could operate the>zoom of the VC independent of the outside scenery then it work>work much better. Guage refresh rate is also an issue as>well as guage clarity and lighting.>Ctrl/Enter & Ctrl/Backspace will change the VC zoom independent of the scenery.L.Adamson

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Ctrl/Enter & Ctrl/Backspace will change the VC zoom independent of the scenery."Be careful in the sense that these commands change the eyepoint, not the zoom, so if you pan left or right to check for traffic, you may have your view blocked by the cabin interior if shifted far enough back.-John