Hi all,I do not use virtual cockpit mode and I understand that it may tie up resources. Is it possible to disable this mode and if so, how? (I use the PMDG 737). Thanks.Cary

See this thread:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchNow run and duck for cover, as the rank and file of the Virtual Cockpit Preservation Society must certainly be digging in the attic this very minute looking for their flamethrowers... :-bang:-hahCheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

The PMDG 737 comes with 3 models - no VC, with VC and with VC & Virtual Cabin. Assuming you haven't modified the aircraft.cfg file, then these should all be available from the aircraft selection screen. Just select the no VC model!

You can hide the VC view by adding a gauge. This doesn't involve using a hex editor to changing the .mdl file.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=26115&page=2

Here's something that bothers me whenever I see a post like this.In Flight Simulator, especially given the detail we are given in relation to 3D immersion of flying, why would someone want to disable the virtual cockpit?I for one cannot see any logical reasoning behind it, as flying in Virtual Cockpit mode gives the fullest immersion of the experience in Flight Simulator. Deleting or disabling the 3D virtual cockpit (and as some have done) would result in the experience akin to flying inside of a bubble - which isn't realistic at all.I also cannot see why Microsoft has carried the 2-dimensional panel as long as they have. It seems to me that they should've progressed onward and ditched them in wholesale, as 2D panel bitmaps (as well as removing the 3D dynamic virtual cockpits) do not give an accurate sense for the aircraft in which we fly in Flight Simulator.A general rule of thumb I employ is that if the model doesn't have a Virtual Cockpit, I refuse to download it. It could be a verson of the Bell JetRanger in over 10 different configurations and extreme high exterior detail (i.e. wire strike, floats, low, skid, etc. you get the idea), and if it didn't have a virtual cockpit to go with the exterior detail, I'll simply refuse to fly it.Even with the shoddy detail incorporated into the default Bell JetRanger virtual cockpit from Flight Simulator 2004, I still continue to fly in Virtual Cockpit mode, because it's the most accurate way to simulate flying within Flight Simulator.This isn't meant to ignite a firestorm, but to be frankly honest I don't understand the need to disable the virtual cockpit feature, one that in the next Flight Simulator release should be the only panel option available.As a side note, virtual cockpits don't take up any more resources other than those needed to run the Flight Simulator itself. Owen Hewitt's freeware Bell 206 BIII JetRanger replacement and Jordan Moore's Bell 412 have exceptionally high levels of detail incorporated into their virtual cockpits - and none had an impact - negligible or otherwise, on my computer while flying in Virtual Cockpit mode or any other mode._Steve

>Here's something that bothers me whenever I see a post like>this.>>In Flight Simulator, especially given the detail we are given>in relation to 3D immersion of flying, why would someone want>to disable the virtual cockpit?Would it be possible that some folks use FS9 in a different way than you or that they have different tastes? Go figure. If you like the VC use the VC if you like 2D use 2D! What a simple answer and everyone gets what they want! Yippee!

Hi Steve,Well I wouldn't even consider disabling a VC in a helicopter but on a large airliner add-on it can make sense. In highly detailed panels like the PMDG 737 or the Level-D 767 you are doing the work of 2 people. With such a high workload you can't afford wasting time panning around in the VC. Generally you wil be immersed in the technical details that such a panel provides. Now if you cycle the views to do some sightseeing you will stumble upon the VC. Every time you hit the VC view there will be a delay while the VC textures are loaded into memory. This time can be shortened if you are willing to seek out the offending textures and convert them to DXT3 in some cases but most of the time they will stil hinder you when you are on the way to the outside view of your aircraft. Its a shame that most of the modern add-ons don't provide 2d sideviews as an extra any more. No VC means no side views nowadays (or an unobstructed view of the outside to be more precise).On the other hand when flying something as delightfull as the Realair SF260 I would want to disable the 2D view if I could. Its totaly unnecesairy in this kind of add-on. The VC is beter in this role.So I would go for a 2D only while flying the heavy metal and a VC only for helicopters / small planes.just my 2 centsHarry

>In Flight Simulator, especially given the detail we are given>in relation to 3D immersion of flying, why would someone want>to disable the virtual cockpit?>>I for one cannot see any logical reasoning behind it, as>flying in Virtual Cockpit mode gives the fullest immersion of>the experience in Flight Simulator. Deleting or disabling the>3D virtual cockpit (and as some have done) would result in the>experience akin to flying inside of a bubble - which isn't>realistic at all.>>I also cannot see why Microsoft has carried the 2-dimensional>panel as long as they have. It seems to me that they should've>progressed onward and ditched them in wholesale, as 2D panel>bitmaps (as well as removing the 3D dynamic virtual cockpits)>do not give an accurate sense for the aircraft in which we fly>in Flight Simulator.>It's always going to be a compromise when using one monitor. There just isn't enough detail, due to screen size, in many larger cockpits with VC only, to keep a good scan of realistic looking instrumentation.For instance, the RealAir Spitfire is VC only, but it's a small panel with high detail in the gauges, and it's all you need. The sense of being there, in actual flight, with this setup is excellent!If I move to the twin engine Dreamfleet Baron with Reality XP gauges and the Garmin 530 GPS, then it's a combo of 2D, or 3D with popup instruments, depending on what I'm doing. With an airliner cockpit, I tend to be 2D more than 3D because of the instrumentation. When the day comes, that we get full blown Garmin 1000 & Avidyne glass panels, then it's going to be either 2D or a popup panel in 3D that resembles a 2D anyway, simply because the screens take nearly the whole panel. (Note: some Avidynes are already in use).My own preference is the smaller GA or military aircraft with a well detailed virtual cockpit, for the "feel" of flight over mountainous areas. But on the other hand, I want to see simulated aircraft with full function glass panels such as the Garmin & Avidyne I mentioned earlier, and it will be back to a compromise between 2D and 3D.L.Adamsonedit: two more reply's, said basically what I said. I started typing before these reply's, but was interupted by breakfast. :D

Short answer for you: Slow computers. If your computer can let you enjoy flying PMDG planes in VC into addon sceneries under heavy weather, good for you. But many are not so lucky. On my new computer I get similar FPS either in 2D or VC but that doesn't make me think they both request similar amount of computer power because when I had my old computer, 2D was flyable and VC was not, simple as that.Jason Zhang

>Here's something that bothers me whenever I see a post like>this.>>In Flight Simulator, especially given the detail we are given>in relation to 3D immersion of flying, why would someone want>to disable the virtual cockpit?I can give you a lot of reasons for disabling and/or not using VC:.in many VC the gauges refresh rate is worse or much worse than in 2D panel (talking about the immersion of flying);.in certain types of aircraft, namely airliners, most people find more useful and practical to use the 2D panel as opposed to VC;.VC can take some resources (although probably not much);.on certain systems, due to a bug or some issue in system configuration, VC textures are frequently reloaded when the view is switched, and for VC with complex textures this means an annoying pause and slowdown on switching views;.without addons like Active Camera etc, VC doesn't allow glance views (45 left, 90 left and so on) that some people may find very useful;.if multiple monitors are used, 2D panel can be a better choice;.undoubtedly VC are more realistic and give a greater immersion; but being our sim experience usually limited to a 19'' monitor, having a 2D panel with readable gauges and with all important instruments ready at a glance can even be more "realistic" than using the mouse or hat-switch to move VC view (not everyone can spend 150$ on TrackIR).Marco

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>That's your view - literally. If you fly in crowded skies in VATSIM or multiplayer mode, with Active Camera head latency or even TrackIR enabled, there is just no way you can make all the panel and overhead inputs and adjustments necessary - with no copilot, remember - and still fly properly. Particularly, if you are not using an autopilot and trying to hand fly at the same time. I use both 2D and 3D cockpit; but then that is what this sim is all about, choices.<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>Well, good for you! Your choice! At least you're keeping the bandwidth free for the rest of us, but you're missing an awful lot!We all fly our own sim in our own way, that's the bottom line. There's no right and wrong, and thank goodness MS continue to supply all needs.MarkMark "Dark Moment" BeaumontVP Fleet, DC-3 AirwaysTeam Member, MAAM-SIM[a href='http://www.swiremariners.com/cathayhk.html' target="_blank]http://www.paxship.com/maamlogo2.jpg[/a]

Steve,The reason I do not use nor need a VC is quite simple. I am running Project Magenta (www.projectmagenta.com) to drive the cockpit displays via a local area networked group of computers and use MSFS for the visual display only. Hence, I do not need any cockpit presentation through MSFS and simply wanted to ensure that I was tieing up resources unnecessarily. Thanks to those who provided me some helpful guidance.Cary

Until I found Active Camera (Head Latency), I never cared for VC. IF the front Panel is going to remain still, why would I want anything less than Photosgrpahic Panels?But Active Camera with its head latency changed it for me. VC with hea latency trumps photographic panels for me.

>Here's something that bothers me whenever I see a post like>this.>>In Flight Simulator, especially given the detail we are given>in relation to 3D immersion of flying, why would someone want>to disable the virtual cockpit?>>I for one cannot see any logical reasoning behind it, as>flying in Virtual Cockpit mode gives the fullest immersion of>the experience in Flight Simulator. Deleting or disabling the>3D virtual cockpit (and as some have done) would result in the>experience akin to flying inside of a bubble - which isn't>realistic at all.>>I also cannot see why Microsoft has carried the 2-dimensional>panel as long as they have. It seems to me that they should've>progressed onward and ditched them in wholesale, as 2D panel>bitmaps (as well as removing the 3D dynamic virtual cockpits)>do not give an accurate sense for the aircraft in which we fly>in Flight Simulator.>A general rule of thumb I employ is that if the model>doesn't have a Virtual Cockpit, I>refuse to download it. It could be a verson of>the Bell JetRanger in over 10 different configurations and>extreme high exterior detail (i.e. wire strike, floats, low,>skid, etc. you get the idea), and if it didn't have a virtual>cockpit to go with the exterior detail, I'll simply refuse to>fly it.>Even with the shoddy detail incorporated into the default Bell>JetRanger virtual cockpit from Flight Simulator 2004, I still>continue to fly in Virtual Cockpit mode, because it's the most>accurate way to simulate flying within Flight Simulator.>>This isn't meant to ignite a firestorm, but to be frankly>honest I don't understand the need to disable the virtual>cockpit feature, one that in the next Flight Simulator release>should be the only panel option available.I'm glad you're not on the Flight Simulator Team. The team realises that many people still prefer 2D cockpits.>As a side note, virtual cockpits don't take up any more>resources other than those needed to run the Flight Simulator>itself. Owen Hewitt's freeware Bell 206 BIII JetRanger>replacement and Jordan Moore's Bell 412 have exceptionally>high levels of detail incorporated into their virtual cockpits>- and none had an impact - negligible or otherwise, on my>computer while flying in Virtual Cockpit mode or any other>mode.>>_Steve>>If someone wants to fly in 2d panel mode then that's their choice. They can do whatever they want. My signature sums it up.---------------------------------------"If it doesn't have a VC, I won't be flying it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/smug.gif" ... hang on a minute .... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/DarrenA300/unsure.gif ... that is too restrictive! Most flight simulator planes don't have a fully functional VC .... I'm happy to fly non-VC planes such as the brilliant iFDG range, Samdim's fantastic aircraft, POSKY's wonderful planes, and many many others! I'm the richer for it :).

>You can hide the VC view by adding a gauge. This doesn't>involve using a hex editor to changing the .mdl file.This gauge just forces the cycle view command to quickly skip to the next view...I don't believe it stops the VC textures or gauges from being loaded.If the add-on in question offers a no-VC model, that's the "A" answer...use what the authors have done for you. If the add-on does not offer a no-VC option, removing the vcockpit sections from the panel.cfg and modding the .mdl file as previously referenced prevents performance-reducing loads of textures and/or gauge code that are only applicable to the (unused) VC.As far as which is better...2D or 3D panels...like the Lite beer ad: "Tastes great!" "Less filling!!" "Tastes GREAT!!!" "Less FILLING!!!!" "TASTES GREAT !!!!!" "LESS FILLING !!!!!!"RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile