Though I assume my troubles to be quite normal, I decided to write about them and give others the opportunity to share some thoughts. Maybe I'll get some good inspiration this way...I like to speak about panels and the outside view in general.What causes me troubles often enough is the zoom factor of the outside view and the fact that any panel, may it be in 2D or VC mode, blocks the view to the outside world somehow unnaturally.Many panels are designed to depict the view onto a real panel with the disadvantage to leave only small portions of the screen available where the outside world shines through. Center posts etc. sometimes make approaches almost impossible because the runway is completely hidden behind them. I regularily need to use the up and down adjustments for the view to see the ground, and sometimes I even zoom in and out. This technique of course ruins the proper perspective which is needed to visually judge for instance the relative position to the runway on approach.Many panels have a special landing view available for this reason where the panel is artificially lowered to free up additional screen area above the panel for the view outside.Almost the same is true for VC panels, not to the same degree as it is with 2D panels, but in VCs I have another problem: to make the view better, I need to zoom out a bit, which in turn renders too many instruments unreadable and warps the view by making the world look like trough a wide view lens.I need to say here that the lack of outside view is not the result of bad flying technique, it seems to be a general problem with the techniques used with FS (hardware and software).So, there are basically the following troublemakers: zoom factor, panel design and size and position of the outside view window.Now one may think that all simulated planes and panels would have the same problem presenting the outside view, but that's not the case. Some have less problems (DF727 in my opinion for instance), and in the Simufly forums I found an article by PCAviator who writes that designing a panel is not only drawing a background and placing gauges onto it, but also to adjust the position, size and zoom factor of the outside view window in a way that at all flight stages, a realistic view of the outside world is available and the panel doesn't obstruct anything.Now I ask whether it is possible at all to have a good outside view and a big, complex panel at the same time, and how the outside view window needs to be dimensioned and which zoom factor must be used best.I need to add here that I'm talking mostly of airliners, I suppose GA aircraft don't show the same severity of the problem.On the videos of real airliners, it seems to me that even there, pilots have little possibilities to improve their view outside, and on many I have the impression the panel stands in the way in reality too because it's so big and in many aircraft types, the pilot is situated very low in the cockpit with the instruments wall building up before him. But nevertheless they aren't surrounded by a glass bulb, they do fly the real plane (maybe some complain about reduced view?).To come to an end, after simming for years now, I still wonder how others can do those curved and other dangerous approaches easily by just looking onto what they see on their monitor, may it be the VC or the 2D panel.I for my part try to improve visibility by editing the static background bitmaps and removing everything hindering my view.I let alone VCs at the moment, because even if it's a little better there, they present me with other, new difficulties which in sum iron out the advantages of better visibility. But that's a different topic I don't want to comment on here.Andreas

Just making a comparison of a general aviation 2D cockpit, to a cockpit I have easy acess to, I figure I'm only getting about 1/6th of the visual picture on my 21" monitor. It really gets down to compromising, and moving things out of the way to get proper views of the runway. I use combinations of the ctrl,shift,enter, and backspace keys quite often. Or even the "w" key to get rid of the panel when needed. I also use the shiftZ key for airspeed readouts when required.L.Adamson

I just visited a website of one of our fellow simmers. So, if you have time and money, you can improve the outside and panel visibility like he did:http://home.wxs.nl/~jarkest/pc/pc.html

Needless to say this has already been discussed at length elsewhere. I published a relevant tutorial with demo files earlier this year.Part 1 begins by explaining the criteria to which high quality 2D panels produced for flight simulation use are beta tested;http://www.simufly.com/cgi-local/YaBB/YaBB...;num=1112635055Part 2 - The VC integration tutorial and demo files are available from here;http://www.simufly.com/cgi-local/YaBB/YaBB...;num=1112917808Part 3- The 2D panel integration tutorial and demo files are available from here;http://www.simufly.com/cgi-local/YaBB/YaBB...;num=1113928655Here are some composite extracts from the second page of the first tutorial;Few stand alone panel designers know how to integrate the panel they design with the flight dynamics they choose to drive it. Consequently few 2D panels have ever been test flown to objective criteria...........you may wind up wasting hours trying to control an aircraft.. (using)... random external pitch and roll cues, and external vision so restricted that the aircraft becomes inoperable across a wide IAS range, and in low visibility. The external pitch and roll cues are often the biggest problem. All 2D panels compromise the forward view. That is why operating an aircraft from the VC is always more realistic, ..........A VC auto-integrates with any realistic FD. It cannot block the head up operating and navigating view in an inappropriate way. The only thing that can preclude integration of a (realistic) VC with realistic flight dynamics is declaration of an inappropriate eyepoint in the original aircraft.cfg, and that is easily fixed. Many 2D panel authors fail to understand that their primary goal is to create an external view within which the perspective and the pitch and roll cues for head up operation of the aircraft are 'appropriate'. They cannot be 'real' using a 2D panel. They can only be 'real' using a VC. Since 2D panels always compromise realistic operation of the aircraft the designer must expend a great deal of time creating a good compromise. He must do this by restraining the size of the 2D bitmaps so that as far as possible they block no more of the default forward view than the VC default forward view. This will rarely be literally possible. It is however this nearly impossible goal that the chosen bitmap size and integration compromise seeks to achieve. After the panel designer has carefully restrained the size of the bitmaps he decides how distorted your perspective will be in the simulation compared to human perspective. He does this by setting SIZE_Y versus SIZE_X in his panel.cfg. The lower the value of SIZE_Y the worse the perspective compromise imposed. This is an entirely objective measurement of the perspective compromise imposed on you. The more the panel designer allows his artwork to cover the screen, the lower he has to set SIZE_Y and the worse the compromise you suffer. Because 2D panels always block the real head up view MSFS offers a second variable to fake the head up view within a 2D environment. This is the VIEW_FORWARD_DIR variable. If none is declared in a 2D panel you will be sitting on the floor of the 2D cockpit environment instead of sitting on a chair. The value declared is however always a fake compromise. It is carefully integrated with the fake SIZE_Y in an attempt to restore a 'realistic' head up view. However good the compromise fake values chosen they can never actually succeed in creating the real view. A VC has no such compromise. SIZE_Y is always full screen and no fake DIR command is ever needed. VCs are inherently superior. They allow closer approximation of human perspective and they can only block sight lines that are blocked in real life. They can never deny real head up pitch and roll cues and they always deliver realistic ones, (if driven by realistic FD). Does that mean that we all need VCs to fly propliners? Only sometimes. It is perfectly possible for an expert 2D panel designer to design a 2D panel that has a fully functional head up pitch and roll reference compromise for aircraft that have unswept wings and also have flaps. It is usually possible to create a functional 2D cockpit environment for flapless aircraft (but this is more difficult). The DZN L-049A Constellation 2D cockpit environment demonstrates nicely the bleeding edge of possibility using 2D panels in a big aeroplane with unswept wings and flaps. If the panel bitmaps consumed any more of the screen it would be unusable in low visibility. It required very precise coding of the view compromises between screen percent used for gauges and screen percent used for head up flight by visual reference. High faked SIZE_Y is the first objective measure of 2D panel design success. Low faked VIEW_DIR is the second, but it is the outcome which is the third, final and true objective measure. That outcome is the ability to navigate the aircraft by visual reference to the surface in restricted visibility, across the widest possible IAS range, not only when cruising, but for a propliner, most critically when flying a non precision instrument approach, maintaining MDA, in approach configuration, at approach IAS. When flying a propliner you need visual reference to the surface to see the approach lights and visual glidepath indicators. Only a VC can allow you to fly an approach to the minima of the real approach and real aircraft concerned. All 2D panels increase approach minima because the approach lights and touchdown point become hidden behind the panel bitmaps, when they would remain visible in real life. The final objective measure of the quality of a 2D panel is the minimum visibility in which it allows flight by visual reference to the surface whilst in level flight, in approach configuration, at MDA, at approach IAS. All high quality 2D panels are carefully tested to meet a specified minimum visibility requirement (under those conditions). If they do not allow visual contact with the surface in a visibility of two miles than you cannot even operate the aircraft down to VFR minima, (in many jurisdictions), let alone use such a panel to simulate IFR flight to IFR minima. Many panels have never been test flown to meet any objective criteria and consequently if you fly level at low airspeed near the ground you will not be able to see the ground at all. It should be visible. You should be able to navigate the aircraft by viewing the scenery, at that airspeed in level flight, and you should be able to operate the aircraft by seeing the horizon to obtain head up pitch and roll cues, but incompetent 2D panel design all too often precludes both possibilities. High quality 2D panels contain a very carefully integrated compromise to permit both low IAS and low visibility operation. On the other hand many 2D panels are so awful that they require, 'landing views', or panel sliding, or video game zoom factors, to see anything outside the aircraft at low IAS, even in good visibility . This is just incompetent panel design. If the original panel designer had no clue how to produce a panel compatible with flight simulation use, then there is a significant probability that there is no compromise value of SIZE_Y and VIEW_DIR that will allow the panel to present anything resembling realistic external pitch and roll cues, or anything like an adequate view of the surface for en route visual navigation, let alone approaches in low visibility. Many panels are so badly integrated with any existing FD, that they do not even allow you to see the distant horizon, in the cruise, in perfect visibility, when by definition aircraft pitch is close to zero, and the pilot's eyes would be looking straight at the distant horizon. It does not matter how good the FD are, if the panel is broken, you cannot see where you are going. It is the 2D panel designer who designs your view from the 2D cockpit environment. It is the single most important task he has to perform. The trouble is many just don't bother. As far as they are concerned if the artwork looks nice it must be a good panel. Unfortunately there is much more to 2D panel design than creating a nice collage. Real pilot's .........can see where the aircraft is going, and have viable head up horizon pitch and roll reference, down to very low visibility and very low IAS. Panels that do not replicate this are badly designed. This is an objective fact, not a matter of opinion. Many panels you can download are just a collage of artwork. Many are functionally useless over a very wide IAS range, and some are so bad that they cannot be fixed, even by an expert. If you have no VC the 2D panel is the simulation interface. The higher the visibility at which you lose sight of the horizon, (using human eyesight i.e., zoom = 1.0), in normal cruising flight, the more incompetent the 2D panel design, even if it offers all the correct gauges and controls. It is very easy to test and rate a 2D panel to objective criteria. For the full text of the three relevant tutorials, and access to the demo files, please visit the calclassic propliner forum using the links at the top of this post.FSAviator

Thank you all for your answers. FSAviator, your tutorials were a great help for me!Andreas