VCs

[ahinterl 1]

Mike,I didn't start this thread to start some kind of war or receive answers which tell me that I'm simply too stupid to use VCs.If I interpret something into your posting that you didn't want to express, I'm sorry.I absolutely don't say that I'm right, nor that my opinion is the only truth.In fact, I don't have a firm opinion in this case. All I wanted to know is whether my experiences can be shared with someone else who maybe have similar observations.I tried my best to be as objective as possible, letting aside my personal preferences and look at the problem in an unbiased and clean manner by summing up possible pros and cons for each of the panel methods.I'd be happy if I I'll learn how to use the VC properly, at least I'll try my best.Please understand that since I didn't try to offend anyone, when I read something such harsh as your answers, I'm gonna react in an appropriate manner.I'm not here to leave messages which try to upset me in some way unanswered.I hope you're professional and mature enough to see what my original posting really is: simply a question in the attempt to find out what I could do better, and whether the directions MS will go are wise from a user's point of view or not. Nothing more, nothing less.Take it easy, hope you're not angry with me ;-))Peace.Andreas

[Guest odog]

make friends with someone who does. It's pretty hard for one guy to handle all this by himself nowadays.there's nothing wrong with no VC aircraft, as long as the 2d's a knockout.i rather enjoy photo perspective views (if you can get em)dont worry, it aint rocket surgery. :-)a few thousand hours and it's second nature. :-rollhave funjoe

[Guest]

yup. As I predicted 3 years ago the end is coming for the soloist and the small specialist groups.Only large groups with a very diverse set of skills will still find large numbers of users, and those groups will have to invest ever larger amounts of time and resources (read: money) to produce their addons.There may be a very few individuals with the time and skills to create something on their own, but these will maybe be able to release one aircraft every other year at most, seeing their efforts overtaken by developments and giving up in frustration.Personally, I feel VCs are overrated. While nice for VFR flying and for taxiing around on the ground, for IFR flight I don't ever use them and for most other things I can live without them.

[Paul Golding 92]

I agree with you on this............but then I've not tried the Spitfire yet.At this point, I'm having nightmares at the thought of having every gauge in an airliners panel built as part of the model's VC. And that's only the start of it with airliners. The biggest drain on performance (contrary to the polygon myth) is the total sum of the texture being used, though it is of course possible that the more polys, the greater the size of textures. At one point in the Dreamfleet 727 development, we were actually using 12 1024 x 1024 bitmaps plus their associated lighting bitmaps - in the VC alone!!! It looked nice, but the cost in frames rate and even worse, the load up time for the cockpit was, shall we say, not very good LOL!!The problem wasn't the complexity or physical size of a flight deck that seats 5, it was the total sum of the textures involved, 12 x 1024 x 1024 is 12,582,912 pixels being displayed whereas using 6 bitmaps is only 6,291,456. In an ideal world, the actual texture size wants to be bigger than that required in the sim, for example a gauge bitmap that is actually 200 x 200 will look good at 100 x 100 in the sim, but the opposite looks like a disaster.Similarly, if you use gauges built into the VC model (like the Spitfire), you'll need textures in the aircraft texture folder that are big enough to look good in the VC. Now in terms of a main instrument panel, that can be done easily enough (assuming the background of the VC gauge is coming from a bitmap in the texture folder), but to do this to a whole airliner cockpit at the right resolution; overhead(s), forward pedestal, radio pedestal, flight engineer panels, CB's ........ here come those nightmares again :-hang Now, if PMDG go and release their 747 with this kind of VC, I'll be happily giving up designing to spend some time flying for a change ;-)Having rambled away with the above, I'd just add that as this time, I don't actually know what's involved in getting a Spitfire like VC, I'm just guessing at what I think it will be like.http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[edetroit 933]

Dear Albaro, I have just uploaded some photoreal A320 side views and more for your gorgeous Airbus narrow bodies ....everyone uses your model because it the best period ...VC or not (I prefer not)...had not the PSS panel been made as one gauge with panel bmps inside. I could easily have made a pilots point of view that would beat any A-320 VC around to date i.e photoreal, perspective and immersion.p.s I am not a VC hater far from it ..I prefer the VC in the Project Tupolev to it's 2D ..but that is only because the is sooooo #### good and 2D bmps not photoreal regardsEd

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

[3Green 80]

Thanks Ed. I can't wait for these..... The day Flight Simulator stops supporting 2D panels, is the day I stop buying the program. I'm already happy staying with FS2002, because like I mentioned above, I fly IFR only, and really don't spend much time looking out the window.I hope designers don't get discouraged about VC's. I much prefer aircraft with NO VC.

[LAdamson 240]

>Personally, I feel VCs are overrated. While nice for VFR>flying and for taxiing around on the ground, for IFR flight I>don't ever use them and for most other things I can live>without them.A VC for landing can be much more than that...There are just a few designers around, who know how to put a lot of fun, as well as a bit of workout into simulated landings. With your stick/yoke, pedals, and throttle................You get a good sense of the whole process, including precise rudder movements to attempt to maintain the centerline, with a much better sensing of yaw than with a 2D, a good sense of weight controlled by throttle to stay just a few inches above the runway while speed bleeds off as you pull stick back to keep the nose up.Not to mention a heightened sense of yaw and airspeed as you slip in with a crosswind, etc. Since the "feel" in flight simulation depends highly on what we see on the screen, some added peripheral vision goes a long way to satisfy the "mind".It's a "whole" lot more than just looking out the window or taxiing. And perhaps it also has to do with knowing what a heavier wing loaded airplane or tail dragger feels like to land, rather than just a Cessna 172. Long live the continual progress of the VC's!!!! L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

............but then I've not tried>the Spitfire yet.If "I" was a designer/programmer...............I'd always want to know what the competition is up to... :D You always hear it! Dreamfleet is raising the bar, RealAir Simulations is raising the bar, etc, and etc.I'd want to know exactly how they're raising the bar...L.Adamson

[Guest]

Remember that the PSS 320 was introduced on the market 3 years ago, at a time when VCs were nothing more than eyecandy and had no functionality at all.For that purpose it's more than adequate and for its time it's a marvel of technology.I'm indeed no VC hater either, I just don't see the need to spend massive amounts of time on them when that time would be better spent on gauges and flight dynamics.

[MD83 1]

>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. Your aircraft are still enjoyed by many :). I think your aircraft are great. Don't give up just because somebody whines about the lack of a VC .... that's their problem! :)

[Guest bobsk8]

>............but then I've not tried>>the Spitfire yet.>>If "I" was a designer/programmer...............I'd always want>to know what the competition is up to... :D >>You always hear it! Dreamfleet is raising the bar, RealAir>Simulations is raising the bar, etc, and etc.>>I'd want to know exactly how they're raising the bar...>>L.AdamsonBecause the flight models on their designs are realistic.

[LAdamson 240]

>I'm indeed no VC hater either, I just don't see the need to>spend massive amounts of time on them when that time would be>better spent on gauges and flight dynamics.IMO ------ you might as well just sit on a chair in a black dark box watching gauges and pushing buttons, only to have the runway appear in the last few seconds if IFR is strictly what flight is about.In a total IFR world, I don't even see the need for improved flight dynamics, because hitting the numbers would be the only requirement; and outside visuals for a sense of "feel" wouldn't need to exist!As has been mentioned before, the majority of aircraft 3rd party vendors consist of more than one programmer/designer who excell in certain fields. And that includes visuals such as VC's, along with flight dynamics, gauges, etc. It certainly doesn't bother me, if one particular person spends "massive amounts" of time to improve VC's.L.Adamson

[Guest David Lee 2]

Andreas,You mention TrackIR but dismiss it quickly even though you have not tried it or apparently reviewed the numerous testaments to it that abound here. Your comment about small head movements all being translated into a virtual turn of the head was a minor inconvenience with the first version of TrackIR (after getting used to it) but is a nonissue with vector expansion. Vector expansion translates your head movements into appropriate counterparts on the screen. So if you want a closer look at the copilot instruments, you need only lean over to the right. You have a great deal more flexibility to move around the cockpit without messing up your view on the monitor. Hope that helpsDavid

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Yeah, I find it sort of surprising that a member of a major dev team hasn't tried what is probably the most revolutionary add-on plane yet released for FS9 (at least in terms of the nuts and bolts design aspect of the add-on) - even ignoring the amazing VC, the Spitfire is certainly one of the top sim-planes I've ever seen. You really should give it a try Paul...

[ndflieger 55]

I find VC's absolutely worthless for the type of simming I do - mostly instrument flying.Just my .02 on a very long thread,Regards,ScottKJMS