VCs

[LAdamson 240]

>"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.>I go spot view for traffic checks! Is that realistic? :D Normally, I just use 75% zoom and let it go at that.L.Adamson

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I go spot view for traffic checks! Is that realistic?"Pilot to co-pilot: "Excuse me while I climb down this rope to check for traffic. I'll be right baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!"I tend to prefer adjusting the zoom in the larger cockpits, although 75 pct. is about as low as I'll go. -JohnEdit. BTW Sir, when are you going to grace the forums again with your outstanding screenshots. I really miss 'em!

[Dillon 2,197]

:-lol

[JMR 2]

I love flying in the VC with Track IR and the Vector expansion but I do wish the refresh rates were better. It's great for general VFR flying and for those long boring stretches when flying the heavies, but when it comes to down to flying a complicated approach I go back to the 2d panel.

[ahinterl 1]

"De gutibus non est sisputandi", like the romans said.Like all things in life, everyone has his own preferences, and I totally accept that. I don't say 2D is superior and one should ban VCs. In contrary, I'd like to get more out of VCs, but I see many things which hinder me doing so.Your argumentations are weak as they express a "I'm better than you 'cause I can do that, I like that, and you can't, you're incapable, maybe handicapped somehow and thus 2nd class" intention.If you let your personal preferences and biased opinions aside a bit, you'll discover that simulating a 3D environment on 2D display devices is almost impossible. So, you have to make compromises no matter how you try to display that environment. That's why bot, VCs and 2D panels alike, have their drawbacks. And that's a matter of fact, whether you like it or not.As you said, I surely can fly any plane in FS in VC mode only. And I bet with you, I can fly even the most complex plane from A to B without any instruments at all, provided some visibility for orientation.And, I can do all this on a Pentium-III class computer.How's that possible? All this stuttering, looking at tiny, almost unreadable instruments with terrible gauge refresh rates in the VC?I can tell you: I'm sitting in front of a computer, and I know of a bunch of cheats how to bring that plane down in one piece.Would that be possible in real life? For no money in the world I'd dare to try. I love life, and my time hasn't come yet.That's the reason you can be happy even with your limited hardware, and a VC for your LDS-767.But here's the point where I start to wonder: there are indeed people who have full-blown 767 sims, and all they care of is the background color of the panel bitmap. Everything else has low importance for them.That's a phenomenon not only in the FS world, but in the real world as well: as long as something is looking good, it's allright, no matter how bad quality is (think of shoes, clothes etc. etc.).You can easily see that I'm right by looking at what panels are available at Avsim: most of them look pretty, but almost all switches are dummies.The fact that people think this way is not what makes me wonder. But if they start telling me that what they do is superior, I can only shake my head, let them do their thing and walk away.You're indeed telling me that what you do with your hard- and software is the optimum, and I should do the same!Boy, I'm not that kind of people, I'm interested in fluid, smooth, big instruments and thoroughfully replicated systems, not fancy eye candy stuff. That's why I purchase things like LDS767, PMDG767 et. al. If I'd be different, I'd be happy with the FS9 box alone without any add-on.And if you're objective, you see that here starts the compromise process: you cannot have it all, fluid instruments, a VC and fast refresh rates without stuttering.To some extent, you can compensate by buying better hardware, but believe me (and I can prove you whenever you want): no hardware you can buy in a store is fast enough to run FS with all the features I have on my hard drive stutter-free with a good FPS rate!And, you can compensate by using things like Track-IR etc.Or, you can compensate by squeezing all the necessary information onto a 2D screen (remember, it's always this or that that 2D only output device where the 3D world of FS is drawn onto).As I posted in my conclusion, the "more on instruments" part of the two fractions of FS9 users can hardly be happy with tiny, hardly readable, heavily stuttering instruments in a VC.Of course, 2D panels are unrealistic because they don't reflect the real layout of a cockpit. But have you ever seen something like the VCs in FS in real life? I haven't, and I have taken a look in dozenz of different cockpits already. You simply cannot catch the feeling of being there, let alone simulate it thoroughfully. I's a simulation only, that's what you should never forget.So, if you're happy, great. I'm happy as well, and I try to see the benefits of VCs. But with my expectations and needs, I see no real use of them. That's all. No need to say VCs are better than 2D or the opposite. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, both are great, but for different purposes.Oh, and I know new program versions need more computing power. But when you look at FS9, and when I say that I can prove you no hardware is able to run it properly, and you look at the progress hardware has made over the last months, what makes you confident you could buy a better machine when FS10 comes out? Man, there'll be simply none, that's the reality. And the stuttering goes on and on...Some people are content with black and white televisions only, some aren't. You seem to belong to the former group. Did you ever make a comparison between your FS system and that of another user to judge how goods FS runs on yours?I'm ending the discussion now. I'm open-minded, and as I sayd, VCs are a great thing, but I simply cannot accept weak, biased arguments which lack an objective foundation they're built upon. Open your eyes and try to see things from outside. You'll see things somehow different then.But as long as you're happy, and as long as I and all others are with their FS, it's OK. It should be fun.Peace.Andreas

[edetroit 933]

I'm definitely in the 2D camp ....because I edit panels ...and one is severly limited with VC's! ....I don't agree VC are more real ..i can make a 2D feel more real than a VC easily! ....jus' my 2 cents :-hahregardsEd

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/110918.jpgAMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 128Mb DDR Nvidia 6600GT PCI Express, Audigy 2 ZS

[Guest odog]

VC refresh rates have been solved, and not by putting less gauges into view. They are nothing like the fs98 style 2d bitmap gauges.3-5 times FASTER than 2d gauges, with ZERO framerate hit.I have 2 planes in my hangar, one has over 20 of these new gauges.hands down, just blows a 2d panel out of the sky... period.but... you have to wait for the man who unlocked this gem to release his planes first... sorry, i promissed.enjoy the revolution my friends, and you can 86 those '98 gauges forever.:-)joe

[Mike T 208]

Andreas:After wading through your manefesto I will use your own words:"...And, I can do all this on a Pentium-III class computer"Need I say more?And may I apologize for for my "weak", "biased" arguments. Even though many of us aspire, we can't all be blessed with your razor sharp observational acumen. :-roll Have fun.Mike T.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

"If you let your personal preferences and biased opinions aside a bit, you'll discover that simulating a 3D environment on 2D display devices is almost impossible..."I have to disagree with this suggestion. If it were true, then most of the games/sims I enjoy would not exist - including first person shooters, flightsims, and racing sims. The fact is that representing 3 dimensional space on a 2D monitor is perfectly do-able and works wonderfully - not only for "the world around us" in the game, but also for the "cockpit environment." We already, right now, have 3D virtual cockpits in FS9 that are completely useable 100% of the flight (as examples, the oft-mentioned RA Spitfire, Bill Lyons Challenger and recently released Luscombe (none of which even offer a real 2D panel at all), RA's SF260 (already very good in the VC and soon to be even better), Flight1's Piper Meridian (for a bit more complex example) and many more. I can fly all of these planes entirely from the VC (and do so often) on my modest system with 3D clouds and real weather and decent resolution and even some fsaa and aniso and get upwards of 20fps pretty much all the time. They are far from performance killers. Now admittedly, none of those are heavies - as yet the VC isn't quite there for the really complex panels. But I have no doubt that all the issues discussed in this thread in regard to those will be resolved before too long. Also, with regard to the suggestion that having to get something like trackIR to get full benefit of the VCs somehow is indicitave of their flawed nature I disagree as well. By the same token, you could argue that having realistically modelled rudders in the sim is flawed since to get the full benefit you have to buy a decent set of rudder pedals. In truth, there is no necessity for trackIR - I don't have it and get by just fine in the VCs. I do have Active Camera - but Flight1 offers a utility for free that also allows mouse panning so there is no need to spend money for that feature either. Sometimes when I hear the complaints people have of VCs it often sounds like it's more a matter of simply not having used them long enough to get accustomed to them than anything else.

[MarkW 1,493]

Thanks for the tip on changing the zoom independent of the outside view. I will give it a try.Mark.

[Guest GabrielR]

As I said I fly everything on VC even the PMDG....for those controls behind the Yoke there is only one solution:Preset views on Active Camera... That gives the feeling of reaching out to the controls... I wouldn't like VCs without Active Camera and all its functions including the Head latency, is fun even on the PMDG on turbulence... That you can not experience on 2DThe next step would be Track IR, but I have not tried that yet.

[Guest Milton]

>VC refresh rates have been solved, and not by putting less>gauges into view. >>They are nothing like the fs98 style 2d bitmap gauges.>>3-5 times FASTER than 2d gauges, with ZERO framerate hit.>>I have 2 planes in my hangar, one has over 20 of these new>gauges.>>hands down, just blows a 2d panel out of the sky... period.>>>but... you have to wait for the man who unlocked this gem to>release his planes first... sorry, i promissed.>>>enjoy the revolution my friends, and you can 86 those '98>gauges forever.>>:-)>>>joe>>Solved? Really? For whom? Must be a whole bunch of designers sitting around on "old-style" VC's not bothering to release anything because it's not solved for them. I'm sure the rest of us are just tickled pink that you know the "secret". :-)

[Guest odog]

hey Milton, yup, solved. I am not at liberty to talk for someone else, he reads these forums and when he's ready to talk about it, he will. I begged him to show me an example and he was kind enough to accomodate me on the condition i waited for him to finish his planes first, before i released mine. I can say, that these are 3d gauges, and occupy no entry in the panel.cfg It all goes into the mdl. sorry to tease you, but what can i do. I gave my word, it's not my baby.. i just adopted one. but it will change VC's forever, er until 2006 changes everything for us again. I would be really surprised if this is not used in the upcoming version, but then again, MS still hasnt figured out gauge backlighting. ;-)later gator

[Guest panzerschiffe]

For designers like myself who do not have the skills or resources needed to create the VC's (I have almost no contact with any real aircraft, cannot program gauges, don't "know the right people", etc), I guess the end is near. Already my aircraft lay unused by many because they lack VC's, and it will only be a matter of time before they lie wholly unused.

[Guest Jimbofly]

The solution:Learn to program VCs.Sorry, harsh but true.I do remember the days when aircraft were released without any cockpit, and that was enough provided the aircraft looked nice and flew well. How times are a changing...Who knows, something else will probably come along and you'll be back in business!James