That is the question. No doubt this is a hoary old chestnut but hey, this is my first post, and it is a subject that has been top of mind for a while.Firstly, a big thank you to MS for developing a game that is much more than a game and is such good value for money. Secondly, an even bigger thank you to all those freeware developers who have done so much to improve on the base product and to keep the game forever fascinating and absorbing.I think that the base product provides a very good simulation of what it is feels like to pilot an aircraft. However, the default aircraft textures are often fuzzy and the panels are often merely a collection of dials and gauges set in an unconvincing representation of a real-life aircraft panel. This is particularly true in the case of the default jetliner panels. Up to a point, this is overcome via the concept of the virtual cockpit which attempts to simulate what it feels like to be able to look around the cockpit environment. However, virtual cockpits have several disadvantages.1. To me the VC environment appears hand-drawn and cartoon-like. Textures are often fuzzy, and the VC only provides a distorted simulation of a real cockpit.2. Because it is necessary to zoom out, in order to be able to see/operate the controls, the panel becomes indistinct, and the view forward is distorted, which makes approaches and landing more difficult.3. As the VC is part of the model it gets in the way if you want to replace the existing panel with a photo-realistic version with forward, side, rear and wing views.So, to my mind, the only advantage of the VC is that it provides a panoramic view forward at cruising height, whereas the 2D panel views are confined to individual windows and it is often necessary to raise the pilot seat to see over the panel.When I started out I would not download any add-on aircraft unless it had a VC. However, now that so many good photo-realistic 2D panels have become available, I avoid downloading any aircraft with a VC, unless it has a choice of VC or non-VC models. By mixing and matching the best of what the developers have provided for us, I have now accumulated a fleet of aircraft that for me comes as close as it gets to the real thing.Of course, the ideal would be a photo-realistic virtual cockpit, with animated controls and photo-realistic views. I would particularly like to be able to look back at those mighty jet engines slung beneath the wings. However, I guess that a photo-realistic VC is an impossibility due to the limitations imposed by having to build it into the model. Unless someone can tell me different?And for the future, wouldn

hiwell you really need a good powerful pc to get the benefits of sharp / detailed smooth VC, i am using the PMDG 737 VC only, and i will never go back to 2D,i do have a 21" monitor running at 1600 x 1200 resolutioni can send you some pics via email, you can decide for yourself.you can email me at [email protected]

This has been the subject of so many threads :-) Different opinions, with both supporters giving reasonable explanations. I am a big supporter of the 2D panel. I almost forced my self to fly in VC, thinking, hey, so many people like it, something must be wrong with my liking :-) However, I just don't like it (not interested, is the right expression). Give me a high quality photorealistic 2D panel with high quality photorealistic 2D side views (see Captain Sim, Cloud 9, Dreamfleet etc) and I'm in heaven :-) BUT and it's a big but, I also respect other people's liking to the VC. So, in my opinion, the best compromise is for the FS world to have both. Then, any individual can choose whether to delete the 2D panel or the VC, or use both. Just my 2 cents...Andy

See the Avsim review for the RealAir Marchetti SF260, and note what the article has to say about it's virtual cockpit.I'm in total agreement.http://www.avsim.com/pages/0605/SF260/SF260.htmI should also mention, that the most fun, I've ever had landing a PC simulated airplane, over & over is with the RealAir Simulations Spitfire, which is VC only. It's the closest thing to landing a real taildragger requiring a bit of engine and rudder finesse , that's ever come our way. Senses of yaw & airspeed are multiplied by use of the VC, including a few tricks with head latency & airframe movement. Of course, if you limit yourself the planes with both 2D & VC, you'll never know....L.Adamson

Darn those catoonish, distorted VCs! :Dhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119414.jpg

Certainly not cartoonish-unless you compare it to this! :-coolTo each their own-I'll take this-I prefer the fog on the outside! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/119422.jpg

It all depends on the quality of the (payware) add-on vc... The standard FS vc's are indeed awful. Big problem with a lot of vc's is that not every function works from that view. Another problem is the way you look around in the vc: the standard view options are very limiting and due to this there is hardly any reason to use a vc.But...If yo get a plane with a completely working vc (with good textures and all) AND add Active Camera 2.0 to that... well, that's another world! Then things really get immersive and as real as it gets. IMHO of course... I recently bought the Dreamfleet Beech A36 and the vc is awesome: EVERYTHING works as it should! And more! Together with Active Camera it offers all I need. I've been flying for a few weeks now in the vc and NEVER used the 2d view! Thanks to AC I can look around just as if I'm there: it's so... real! Awesome! Apart from moving and looking around in a natural and free way, you can make your own preset views, and with a click of a button you smoothly transit to that view. Very nice! I even don't use pop-up windows anymore! I got zoomed-in preset views for all important instruments. For instance, the Garmin 430 in the A36 VC is also fully functional and even though it clearly isn't as good looking as the pop-up window, it feels so much more real to use the vc's version, zoomed in, because this is how a real pilot sees and does everything! While working with it I can quickly look around and outside (thanks to Active Camera) and look back at the Garmin, just as a real pilot would!Still... I also think and have to agree that 2D cockpits look better (more clear and crisp), no doubt about it, even with the Beech A36, but... the immersion is completely different! The 2D views are so static! The vc (with AC) is so FREE! You should really give it a try (I mean a GOOD vc and Active Camera)! I can't imagine ever going back again to 2D... And I will certainly not buy an aircraft which doesn't have a good looking and fully working vc, because this is how I like it!

Yeah, fair enough Geofa. If the argument being made is that a good VC is still a bit less crisp and sharply defined than a good 2D panel I agree. However, if the argument being made is that VCs all look so bad you just can't even use them, I beg to differ. Frankly, while it's true in most cases (with the exception of the RealAir Spitfire and 260 which have VCs so crisp and sharp and smooth I think even you would agree they equal 2D) that 2D is a bit sharper, I personally find them to look every bit as "cartoonish" simply becuase of the fact they are so obviously a flat, depthless "snapshot" plastered on top of the surrounding 3 dimensional world. For me, that has a more disturbing impact on the "willing suspension of disbelief" than the slight "indistinctness" found in a good VC...BTW, any "fog" seen inside a good VC is only due to the fact that the VC actually reacts to the "worlds" lighting, which of course the 2D panel can't do since it fundamentally isn't really a part of that world... :)

I like VC more, but...Powerfull PC is needed. So I'm used to use 2D panel, they are inferior to VC in respect of appearance, but it is not a problem if you are interested in flying itself. Especially for high-quality panels of Captain Sim, feelThere etc. Just my opinion.

isnt the overhead panel on the PMDG just a photo real panel in the VC?I think for the main parts, yokes, flaps, spoilers, etc etc.. are 3d. But alot of it is a photo real panel. Ahh well, im not complaining, i live in that bird.

Ftmp when I fly around in the big birds I use the 2D panels. I've got a less than stellar system and generally I find that the VC in those really complex cockpits is just too demanding. But, if the day comes where we have a VC like what RealAir has done for the SPit and 260 in something like Dreamfleets 727 or Flight1's ATR, I'll be all over it. Whenever I have a choice between a great 2D panel or a great VC, I invariably use the VC...

By fog I was speaking of sharpness and clarity. They may react to the worlds lighting but it is way over done...The vc on this aircraft and the other mentioned are really fine though.However doing something as simple as turning the heading bug on the DG or tuning a radio still drive me to the 2d.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Being a GA flyer its VCs all the way for me. The real drawback for 2Ds for me, as somebody has mentioned.. is their staticness. Regardless of how well you can render the panel in programs such as 3dsmax (and I've seen some very nice ones) the feel there factor is lacking. Having piloted single props I feel the most realisitc approach would only be the VC, coupled with programs such as Active Camera I rarely use the 2D at all.However, I can understand on commercial airliners the amount of button clicking and intricacy needed would require 2Ds at the moment. But who knows of what later generations of flight sim can bring us :) This subject has been beaten to death for years and no doubt a few years more, the same type of comments have been said over and over. I'd just say enjoy the sim for what it is.

I have never used the VC until I purchased a few aircraft that had really great VC's. I also purchased TrackIR with 6 DOF. When used in conjunction with a really great VC I find that it changes the whole way I fly. I find myself flying VFR 90% of the time as I am now able to simply glance in a particular direction and actully fly the aircraft without having to depend on a hat switch. So in answer to your question: You need the proper equipment in order to utilize the VC and I don't think you will go back...esp if you enjoy VFR. I'm not really convinced it makes a lot of difference if you are IFR at FL 350. C. Evans

I asked similar questions 2 times already in the past, and the last one got very long because of the many answers.In the meantime, I tried to adopt to the VC more, and after many tests and practise, I've come to this conclusions:1) VCs are excellent in small planes with little instrumentation or where the VC gauges draw fast enough (e.g. Real Air). Flying here is done more "by the seats of your pants" and visually.2) The more complex a plane gets, the more panels it has (overhead, glareshield, side panels, pedestral etc.) and the more you'd need to look around in the real aircraft, the more cumbersome the VC gets because of two reasons:2.1) Gauge refresh rate drops significantly due to the amount of objects drawn; the refresh rate in complex airliners currently always is far from usable (PMDG is going to change this in their new 744), so you need to use 2D pop ups to do your flying.2.2) I found not a single device which makes me happy by simulating natural eye and head movement. Either they force me to do something unnatural (TrackIR, which would probably cause me headaches and a stiff neck) or they're not suited for this task (coolie hat switch) because they're way too slow (because they're digital mini joysticks instead of analogue ones) or make me wish I had 4 arms and hands (keyboard shortcuts and additional mouse movements for instance).Situational awareness is superior in a VC, but unfortunately I'm sitting in an armchair and have no sensual impressions of aircraft movements, so I need to compensate with the views on my instruments which are a primary flying aid for me (try to do a 360 deg pure visual turn in a 767 without loosing height!).Instrument clarity and availability are a basic prerequesite for me to be able to land the big iron, and the VC doesn't allow this to my satisfaction, so I only use VCs where practicable (finding out when to turn during approach to LXGB or during visual approaches or the very last hase of a manual ILS approach when transitioning to pure visuals) and stick with 2D.I wish there was a better way to use VCs, but I didn't find one.Andreas