VCs

[Guest]

I never said anything about lacking a brain... I just stated flying with the VC gives you the best perspective as if you were actually flying the plane and to me, is so realistic looking it is unbelievable. I get no enjoyment out of flying with a post card. If you are playing the game (keyword) flight sim to practice your real life techniques, then using the 2d panels is better for now, but only because of the refresh rate problems IMO.

[Guest abent]

I would probably stop using FS if it went VC only. I almost never us VC. No matter how well done they are, I find the look of the gauges and the general perspective to be undesireable IMHO. IF FS did go VC, but allowed a provision for 3rd party designers to add regular 2-d cockpits, that would be great since I rarely use FS default a/c anyway.Adam

[ahinterl 1]

Thank you all for the comments, very interesting. That all leads me to the following general conclusions:*) There seem to be two sorts of FS pilots: those who fly "visually" and those "on instruments".The difference between the two is that the "more visuals" group enjoys flights in simpler, smaller planes with more or less spartanic instrumentation. The goal is not to fly a CAT IIIc aproach by hand (!), but to "fly like the birds": free and with a good visibility outside, looking around and steering the aircraft more from the visuals than by the instruments (e.g. gliders, light aircraft like Katana etc.)The other group is-) either a mixture of the former and the "more instruments" group as they fly smaller planes like the "more visuals" group, but these planes are equipped with more advanced avionics (e.g. Flight1 Meridian, Dreamfleet A36)-) or "more on instruments", flying complex aircraft from DF727 up to RFP 727, PMDG737 et. al., where glass cockpits are heavily used and systems are thoroughly modelled.For the first group, readability of instruments is not that important as for the "more instruments" group where bigger instruments are better instruments because of the wealth of information shown on them. Even many analog gauges need to be crisp and sharp as crucial informations need to be read off them (e.g. EPR bug settings).*) For the members flying more visually, a VC adds to the game fun as they feel more free and more "real" moving through the virtual space.For those who like to program FMCs and watch the EICAS display or fiddle with the many "steam gauges", knobs and switches, the panel is the workplace, everything needs to be as big and crisp as possible. Looking outside is not done most of the time, when eyes are "on the instruments" only.This group is badly served with a VC: current computer operating speeds (processor, video adapter) are insufficient to draw gauges of such complex aircraft fluently enough.Something else that makes VCs a pain for them is the fact that panning around in a VC means to more or less zoom out to have a proper view of the surrounding environment. Since instruments need to be big and readable, zooming out is a very bad idea. The only way to have both good visibility and good instrument readability in a VC would be some kind of projector, since not even the biggest display on the market is big enough to fulfill these requirements.To end this: I could live with a VC IF fixed eyepoint positions could be recalled by the click of a key or some other device AND VC instruments are of the same quality as 2D instruments are today (the best example for VC technology in an advanced aircraft is Ariane's 737NG which has a VC only but is unflyable for a serious simmer if you don't pop up those 2D displays).So, I can only hope that either VC gauge technology and ressource management makes a big leap forward in the next FS version, or that 2D panels are kept for people like me.Andreas

[Dillon 2,197]

Herrie I never said I was surprised about anything other than the fact this thread for the most part has remained civil (for this long). I could have kept quiet but usually when things get ugly there are good points on both sides not accusations of what other people are thinking or what their motives are in liking a certain feature without having facts to back it up....

[Ray Proudfoot 8,963]

<>I'm afraid that comments like this really make my blood boil. It seems that some people who use only VC cockpits are determined to do away with 2D panels. Why? If Microsoft continues to provide 2D and 3D panels then you've got what you need. Why deny something to those who do not want so-called virtual cockpits? I've tried them and I just don't like them and I have a fast PC.You refer to the panel of the Spitfire as being the way forward. For Pete's sake that is a simplistic panel. It has about 4 or 5 gauges! Of course it's going to be easy to make it fluid in operation.My main opposition to VC panels is the size of the instruments. They're tiny - even on a 18" TFT. I'd need something like a 32" screen before they became readable and even then I do not want to have to use a hardware control to pan around the cockpit. How realistic is that?If you want reality buy some GoFlight gear so you're toggling real switches to turn something on - not using a mouse click. If you want reality with your panel buy a second or third PC and purchase Project Magenta software. Then and only then are you talking about something approaching reality.By all means continue to use your VC panels but don't deny 2D panels to those who prefer them. The two styles can quite happily live alongside one another.

[Mike T 208]

>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 use my yoke, throttles and a mouse. I've never had a problem because there is no need to keep looking around the cockpit the whole time. Simply use the mouse to "look" at the necessary instruments and click all the while you can be flying with the yoke. This is made even easier with the autopilot on where it is all a no brainer.>Using such, panning is usually slow, unprecise and needs an>additional level for coordinating the pan movement with the>others.Couldn't be further from the truth. On my rig all VC panning is smooth and precise. Whether it is the A320PIC, ERJ PIC, Citation X, PMDG 737 or LDS 767, framerates are never lower than 22fps and smoooooth.>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".You lost me on this one. How could you NOT know where your head is pointed? If you are looking out the window you are pointed forward. If you are looking at your headrest then you are pointed back. If you are looking at a window with a handle in arms reach you are looking left and if you see a throttle quadrant, a first officers chair and another window then methinks you are looking right? In just in case you were dipping into the minis from the forward galley and are TOTALLY confused then simply hit the keypad "5" key and bang, you are facing front again. As far as "spending too much time panning trying to find a good position." my answer is simply...stop doing that.>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.TrackIR is not necessary by a long shot. For me, since the monitor doesn't move with your head then moving your head around but keeping your eyes fixed forward is no different than moving the mouse around and keeping your eyes fixed on the monitor. TrackIR is no more precise than a good mouse. Methinks you should think about getting a good mouse for better tracking. Try the Microsoft Optical Elite for Bluetooth...I highly recommend it.>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.Thats why I like my mouse. Moving my head around instead of just my eyes and THEN my head for big movements (mouse) would get me dizzy and I would crash.>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.What hardware / software latencies? In FS2004 when I move the mouse, the movement is instantly translated to the monitor and my perspective moves. This is because the electrical impulses sending a signal to the mouse port move at the speed of light and is instantly read by FS2004. I see no noticable latancy if there is any at all! There should be no noticable lag, and if there is it seems like your processor is too slow. Do you see the same latency when using the mouse on your desktop??? >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.Wow! I'd hate for that to happen!>3. Compared with 2D panels, I find VCs ugly in most cases.I hate those ugly crisp photorealistic VCs too such as is found on the LDS 767 or PMDG 737 or ERJ or Citation X! I much prefer the photorealistic paper cutouts plastered in front of your face one on top of the other! >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.I agree. To have a totally realistic "feel" you would need to build a scale flight deck. Short of that, lets supposed you were stuck on a real 767. In the VC you know that the EVAC panel is located above your head (look up), second row in and to the right and above of the Hydraulics panel. In a 2D it is at about eye level blocking your view of the foward windows. I think that given the two choice, which gives a more realistic "feel"?>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.My only suggestion here is to keep the 3D world OUTSIDE of the virtual cockpit. And I must say that on my 1024-bit 10 processor Cray super computer, with 1000 pedabits of organic squid brain neuron memory I am able to run the VC without a problem. I highly suggest you get one!!!>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.Well I dunno. I once had Lunar Lander on my Commodore VIC-20 and that worked just fine but truth be told, I like the complexity of FS2004 a little bit better. I once also had a 1978 Oldsmobile Omega but I somehow belive my BMW 745Li, although a tad bit more complex, is a GOOD thing. Embrace complexity!!! However, I do have an old copy of Sublogic ATP laying around on 5 1/4" floppies that I would be happy to give you if the horrific problems and new demands of FS2006 will be too traumatic!>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.We are the one named Locutus. We are the Borg, resistance is futile!>I'm pretty happy with the restrictions 2D panels impose, but>they're fast, functional and sometimes even pretty and "like>the real thing".You HAVE at least poked your head into a real flight deck, no? Boeing and Airbus have taken to spreading out the cockpit instruments so you don't have them all in your face at once layered one on top of the other! 2D cockpits are as "like the real thing" as much as a Pontiac Trans Am painted red is anything like a Red Ferrari! >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.You may be right, we are a very, very long way off, I figure at least 6 months until FS2006 comes out! So, my friend it looks like you will have to bite the bullet and forego that new family van and get a new computer. Dell has em starting at $500, but I am not sure what kind of family van you would have gotten for that price; don't put the family in it 'cause there is no way that would be safe!>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.Hundreds the price of FS Alone? Lemme see, $49 buckeroos for MSFS x 100's lets say around $30,000 for a new computer capable of running the VC? Well, today's your lucky day my friend, I, Mike T, am sypathetic to your plight therefore I will sell you my computer for only $15,000. >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, I'm just ribbin' ya dude, BOTH have their drawbacks, neither is perfect but I think that all need to be aware of the following. Flight Simulation is AN EXPENSIVE HOBBY. Flight simulator is A COMPLEX PIECE OF SOFTWARE that makes more demands on your computer than most other software ever will. As the hobby gets more technically complex so are the demands on your PC, that's the tradeoff. We all want more realism, but we want it on the PC we have today and then we blame Microsoft for releasing a stuttering, unusable mess (FS2000 not withstanding!). Likewise, sans the bunch of good old boys and gals, here at Avsim who know the difference between having a 2D and 3D cockpit, the rest of the MSFS casual users could care LESS. With over 8,000,000 people who have used MSFS at one time or another, why would Microsoft care if even 3,000 users storm off into the sunset because they got rid of the 3D cockpit? The fact is those 3,000 would complain here in this forum and later on in the day complain the whole time they are using their new copy of FS10! A year later, no one would care.Even though MSFS is a mere entertainment title, it is a big boy's toy (or little boy's toy who has access to a big boy's money!) A great many of us here have our current rigs mainly due to MSFS requiring us to constantly upgrade and build or buy new ones. Trust me I was more than happy with my P4 2.8 with 512 MB of RAM but unfortunately MSFS was not; so out comes the wallet (and the wife's wrath) and here we go again. The the real arguments against the VC are few. The only true and valid argument is that the gauge refresh rate lags behind that of the 2D counterpart and THAT is a large issue now. Is the VC unusuable, not by a long shot. However, many purists demand smooth fluid gauges as found in the real thing and no one can fault them an inch. Its all a tradeoff.The same goes for the virtual cabin. I LOVE EM!!! Why not have the entire aircraft modeled if that is possible? ####, if they want to model the entire inside of an airport terminal and crew room, I say go for it. You could start MSFS in the crew room, walk through the terminal to the gate, down the jetway, into the virtual cabin and into the virtual cockpit! I'd quit my job!!!!So it appears we are only scratching the surface of what is available in FS2004 nevermind what FS2006 will hold. The only question if YOU are equipped to handled those features? For me, the total immersion factor found the the VC is palpable and I cannot (read: will not) go back to the 2D popup panels which I have found to now detract from the suspension of disbelief.Warm regards,Mike T.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I think you've missed one of the pertenent points in my post. I said "once all VCs perform like the RealAir Spitfire". We aren't there yet, but once we do reach the stage where all VCs perform the way that one does, then 2D panels become redundant. Why bother doing the work on a 2D panel when the VC can be made to work exactly like the 2D panels if thats what you want to do? You can set the eye point, you can set predefined viewpoints that are the same as the side views in the 2D panels, virtually everything can be made to work just like a 2D panel. Like I said, we aren't there yet and likely won't be for at least another version of the sim, but I have no doubt that the day will come sooner or later. RealAir is about to do it again with the upgrade for the SF260. Then we'll get to experience those fantastic Spitfire guages in a more broadly appealing GA plane and I can't wait...

[Guest vas_yan]

First, I have a 939 3500+ A64, 1 Gig Ram and a 6600GT. Would that be enough to allow me to see VCs in all their glory, or should I take out the chequebook for that Cray?Alas, it could have triple the power and still VC gauges would refresh slowly in most planes with more than a couple VC entries in the panel.cfg. Why you ask? Because this is a limitation of the current software, not of my computer. So...Those who propagate the abolition of 2D, I advise that you instead push developpers, and Microsoft, for a better VC technology. Let me say this again...FPS don't suffer, only the gauge refresh rate!Also I have a question to those who have gone 100% VC...Can you fly a full flight with any add on airliner on an online environment (Vatsim, Ivao etc)(Those who auto land all the time, kindly refrain from responding...)?Regards,

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

um, have you flown RealAir's Spitfire? The guages refresh as smoothly as ANY 2D panel. They refresh at the same rate as your framerate. Once again, I said "when all VCs are like the Spitfire."BTW, this constant suggestion that nobody can possibly fly VCs on current hardware is utter rubbish. I'm running a P4 - 1.8ghz system with a 128meg Geforce4Ti4200 and 768megs of PC2100 (ie slow) ram and I get excellent performance in many VCs. Quite a few even have decent guage refresh rates...

[Mike T 208]

Andreas:I am a serious simmer. How serious? Before a flight I check the United Airlines schedule to see which flight they have for the 767 (LDS). I choose a flight and then wait until the real time of departure. I do a full preflight: dep/dest METAR, dep/dest NOTAMS, check for the published FAA route and do a full fuel and load plan. I then boot up MSFS 1 hour before flight time (actual time crew must be on board) set up the flight deck and load fuel. Do preflight check by the BOOK and then wait 45 minutes for the boarding process. On an average flight from KIAD - SAEZ at 11 hours I am in front of the computer the whole time in the VC. I will then hand fly the approach as applicable.With that said, I am more than satisified with the VC. It could have faster refresh rates but it does not EVER prevent me from performing a perfect landing every time, especially since I can transfer to visual approach once I have the runway in sight and have no need to always fly a CAT IIIc with my head down...which I do less than 5% of the time, as in real life.Actually, most of the time on my long flights I am looking out the window thinking how beautiful everything is. I am sure this is the same whether you fly mostly props or jets. I think that NO ONE flies even a 1 hour flight with their head in the cockpit watching instruments.Regards,Mike T.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Just wanted to chime in and say that until Bill Lyon's Challenger came along, I wasn't much of a VC fan simply because I like every control PLUS the terrain ahead in my line of vision, even if a 2-d panel is a distorted representation of what the pilot sees. But Bill Lyon's Challenger, a light GA aircraft, is perfect for a VC only flying environment.The challenge with VC's of larger aircraft is often I have to pan so the runway is out of view to see a critical gauge--or zoom out so much that the runway and outside is distorted. In the real world, our eyes are much more adaptable to the scanning process.I think a choice should always be offered, unless the package (like Bill's) is a slam dunk in the with a VC alone. Ultimately though, users will decide the issue as sales will show whether the VC only concept is a worthy one for any specific aircraft.-John

[Guest vas_yan]

I also get excellent performance on VCs! Yet, lack of seat of the pants feedback,and the relatively light feel of most FS FDEs must be compensated somehow and the only way I have found is by fast VSI refresh. I already said it above, give me a smooth VSI (at least) in an airliner VC and I'll be much happier.Regards,

[Guest IanP]

Sorry, but the two aren't comparable: There is not a single clickable control in the IL-2 cockpit, as I have found to my cost on several occasions, trying to find keys to change things in mid combat.As for the RealAir Spit, no, it hasn't changed my mind on VCs. For a limited number of gauges in a confined space, a VC is great. Trying to get to a switch on the co-pilot's side of a twin turboprop, however, when it is hidden behind the yoke, was a different matter and required me to physically change seats in the aircraft - not good when handflying an approach online! :-hahVCs are not good enough, nor is the functionality there YET to dispose of the 2d alternative.Incidentally, I assume that everyone here is aware that large numbers of FS2004 users never left the 2d cockpit of the C172 or the area of Seattle?There's always a risk on threads like this, and I'm not trying to flame anyone in particular, that because high-end users like all the high-end features FS includes, everyone does. A lot of parents buy FS2004 for their kids because it doesn't have guns - that simple. Those users probably won't want to have to buy TrackIR, a fifty-button control system and rudder pedals to use it.Just something to keep in mind - not everyone uses, or wants to use, everything that is available. :-)Cheers,Ian P.(Edited to dispose of rampant runaway underline caused by a missing "/" :-roll )

[Guest pollard]

Hi,This isn't directed at you or anyone in particular it's just my take on this subject. I wasn't sure where to put it so I plugged it in here, thanks.RealAir's Supermarine Spitfire XIV is a very significant step forward in the VC department. The age-old problem concerning gauge refresh rates has been addressed and no longer seems to be an issue. This is a major advance and has made the flying experience in the 3D environment much more exciting and realistic (I deliberately use the word 'realistic' and not 'real')! But some of us seem to think that that it's all over and sorted now, everything's fine and dandy...3D rules OK and there's no need for 2D anymore... I'm not sure what gave you that impression?I think RealAir would be the first to admit that the new Spitfire technology is a really wonderful and very welcome breakthrough but collectively developers still have plenty of problems to solve before a total transition from 2D to 3D can be made! Even though RealAir have dispensed with the 2D panel it is not something they have done overnight! I'm sure it has been their intention to go completely 3D from the outset and have just reached the stage where they can now improve upon, and pursue 3D technology more vigourously. There are other issues which do require the same commitment and energy and need a solution as I'm sure even they would tell you.For example, FS can't even store the internal/external textures in it's memory for more than a few seconds and this makes some view switching routines an absolute nightmare (in ac without 2D support)! What is more unrealistic than returning to a cockpit and having to wait for it to load??? I suppose some would say, 'I never leave the cockpit because a REAL pilot can't, so I never see this..' Aw, shucks, people come on, a real pilot doesn't fly his aircraft with a mouse, or view his world through a 2D portal the size of a toilet window. Switching to an external view helps simmers reclaim a little of that real-world spatial awareness otherwise lost in FS. 2D cockpits render INSTANTLY and maintain the illusion that you're still wrapped-up in something solid and 'photorealistically' solid at that.Another problem with the current state of 3D concerns rapid head movements. Without using Active Camera and it's great mouse viewing facility, fast scanning movements in the VC are impossible without fixing your views (like 2D) and disabling hat-panning. What's the point of that then? If you can't pan quickly around your cockpit where's the 3D advantage? This problem is the biggest stumbling block for some real world pilots too, especially stunt pilots, and is currently one of the great pitfalls of the VC. However, this argument is better served by those in the know and with real-world experience of stunt-flying so it's pointless me going into it.Another problem concerns the ease of which we can access the VC switches. Some of which are down below and behind the yoke and can only be accessed, if indeed they function at all, after a series of cumbersome key-presses in the VC. By the time your mouse has interfaced correctly with that tiny little clickspot and performed the desired function and you're back in your desired position, you've probably broken about a million regulations concerning external vigilance and maintaining control of your ac priorities (hardly realistic)! I know some 3rd party hardware solutions do address this to some degree but it will obviously require some significant and further investment. Now, if it is really IS possible to control some fully functional 'heavy iron' cockpit rendered completely in 3D, without ever leaving it, or using a 2D element, in all conditions, then wow, I'll eat my checklists because I must be sitting on the 'Enterprise' Holodeck on Star Trek (or whatever it's called). This task has absolutely nothing in common with the ease of flying a simulated Spitfire! There's plenty of work to be done here! Let's build a very solid foundation for 3D first before we close the door on some very tried and tested methods!I really think both 2D & 3D elements are essential in our sims and for the foreeable future developers should support both in some form or another. They complement each other perfectly and offer a solution for all circumstances and situations. I don't doubt that total 3D is ultimately the way forward, it's great for cockpit familiarisation and (with Active Camera) weather effects and turbulence,etc and can only get better but for now, IMO, 3D needs 2D, and vice versa. We all have our views and they're all valid but let's not cut-off our noses to spite our faces!Sir John :-wave

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I agree with much of what you say. In fact, I think most of us "pro-VC" guys would. I don't know where the animosity comes in to play in this discussion. I don't think anyone (myself included) is saying "DO AWAY WITH 2D NOW!" It's likely to be some time before all the issues and complexities involved in using VCs are resolved. I think there will likely always be a place for 2D pop-ups of such things as GPS and weather radars and so forth simply due to the fact that the viewing perspective in the VC often distorts the display screens on such things. I'd be very surprised if mouse panning and head latency effects in the VCs are not an included feature of FS10 so the need for Active Camera will likely be reduced greatly. It's absolutely true though that mouse panning greatly improves the speed and accuracy of looking around and interacting with the VC environment. I wouldn't use VCs nearly as much as I do if not for Active Camera...