Hi,I don't know about you, but I rarely use the VC; mainly because of the lag on the instruments and constant need for panning. Well, my rather "low" opinion of VC's has changed a bit after playing this "arcade" flight simulator game on a popular restaurant chain a few months ago. I realized that with a big screen monitor 40"+ or with a series of monitors, the VC can acquire a practical dimension to it, and that is, displaying as much as possible of the cockpit throughout the monitors(s) so as to simulate the proper dimensions of the cockpit in question as much as possible. The effect of this configuration would be of greatly ehnahncing situational awareness on sim flying as well as the whole "feel" of the sim. Imagine being able to see almost 180 degress of generated VC cockpit graphics on one monitor....Awesome! :)The resolution that can be obtained with the newer PC systems (albeit at a price $$$$), should be adequate enough for practical use of instruments, leaving only the lag problem to be resolved (hopefully fixed on FSX! :) ). Also, compared to a homebuilt, model-specific cockpit, using a VC is better in my opinion, as you can generate whatever panel you would want.In a nuthsell I believe the combination of high resolution VC, large viewing area, and hopefully better gauge refresh rates, should increase the realistic feel of the sim tenfold as well as make it easier to fly. What you think? Just curious.... :)regards,Macs :)

I went to VC the day I got Active Camera and found the joy of Head Latency.You didn't mention that. Probably.. you need to experience it..if you have not already.Manny

Try TrackIR and your opinion of VC's will change. I guarantee it!Then there's this:http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/1742/Cheers,N.

or try thishttp://www.matrox.com/graphics/offhome/th2go/home.cfm

I have not flown 2D in FS since about 2001 or so. Once VC started to develop with detail by third party designers, I never went back to 2D.The most important feeling for me is to 'feel' like I'm in a cockpit and 'swivel' my head around both in, and outside the aircraft. I'll even 'give-up' on some instrument refresh rates, FS frame rates, etc. With certain aircraft, sometimes that becomes secondary.That said, if an aircraft has not been designed well for the VC enviroment, including flyable frame rates, I just don't fly it. Period.2D reminds me of the days I started in FS back in about 1994/5 or so, we have come so far, I can't turn back now.

That Matrox unit is a really neat idea and works great with nVidia graphic cards. Unfortunately ATI cards have some serious resolution limits with the Triplehead2go, the pre x1k cards have a max 3d of 640x480 per monitor so you can't see all of the FS menus (or get to the start flight button!), the x1k and later cards are still limited to 800x600 per monitor but at least usable. Hopefully ATI will be able to fix this with software and it is not a hardware limitation.

I am a 2D cockpit user myself. Why? First as was mentioned, right now there are some serious limits with many current VCs (with a few exceptions like the Realair SF 260)- lower refresh rates- much more severe frame rate hits (especially for complex avionics)Now of course in time these issues will likely get fixed, maybe as soon as FSX. Still, for me and my 19 inch monitor, the 2D cockpit gives me my preferred view of the instrument panel. In order for me to get peripheral vision anywhere near real life, I have to zoom out so far that I can barely read the instruments. With a 2d panel, any view I need is a move of the thumb (or a popup window) away. Please note that this is just my *opinion*. There is no right or wrong. Maybe if I had TrackIR and a 30 inch widescreen LCD I'd switch to VCs and never look back. However given my current hardware, the 2D panels are my personal preference. The first thing I do when I get a new plane is to edit the panel and remove any complex gagues from the VC (assuming it doesn't have an option to turn it off altogether). This greatly decreases the amount of stuttering I get, even when flying the 2D panel. Again, please note that these are opinions, and there is no right or wrong. In these threads I think you will find that there is a relatively even number of people on both sides of the fence. There are even a lot of people who use both regularly!

I use both: 2D for all airliner use and VC for any GA. Flying heavies requires, for me, to be able to view the instruments and also to get to the necessary switchs quickly and easily. I can do both with pop-up panels, etc. I adjust the seat hieght until I get agood view forward over the panel and use my hat button to quickly check the other views. I actually like that much better than panning as it seems more like moving my eyes than slowing turning my entire head. For GA, using the VC is a requirement for me. It just feels more like a real cockpit. I think this has to do with the reduced workload that goes along with GA flying also. I use Milton Shupe's Aero Commander for my low and slow and the VC gives a great perspective without the frame rate hit. Mike

I love the concept of the virtual cockpit, but on a mid size machine like mine, it just wastes resources.

Cool Stuff. I have to say though, before I can afford the big screens, adn gauges are usable, 2D will be my only choice..regards,Macs :)

Hi The lag issue can be fixed now. Check out realair`s aircraft. They have achieved perfect gauge refresh rates.http://www.realairsimulations.comYou`re spot on about big screens being critical. I think 3 40" screens - one straight ahead and then 1 at 45 degrees angle on each side - would make a nice rig. Might be costly though! lolCheersJames

3D gauge technology like RealAir is renowned for (and which is now being adopted by many other developers) aside, there are now many aircraft with "convential" gauges which operate quite smoothly. The recent pair of Cessna models by Carenado, the 182RG and 206, are good examples. Of course, it will probably vary depending on your system. While I won't of course be so arrogant as to say that all complaints about jerky VC gauges can be chalked up to people basing their opinions on "outdated" aircraft, I really do think some people aren't up to speed on what some of the latest releases offer. Anyway, now that I have a system capable of handling it (VC flying is undeniably harder on your system, so it's not an option for many people with weak systems like I had up until last summer), I'm a VC-only flyer. I won't even consider an aircraft without a good VC. Some may say I'm missing out, but it's all about personal taste and I just don't really enjoy flying with 2D panels at all anymore.

My mate's 40" screen set him back

TrackIR WILL change your mind for GA flying (I don't have experience with the big rigs). I use VC pretty much exclusively (I only fly planes that have clickable VC), and my main system is a 1.86GHz Pentium M Dell D810 with 1 GB mem, and 64mb Mobility X300.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

I'm almost totally VC now. Like one poster said, 2d panels look kinda lame to me now. "Even my own" :/With 2d, I don't get quite as good a side view when looking forward, don't see the props, etc, etc...To me, I find the VC visual perspective much more realistic overall.But...Some VC's are better than others of course...I don't have too much problem with gauge lag. I'm running a P4 at about 3 ghz, so it's not a super boxby any means. I do use a 21 inch monitor driven by a 9800 pro at the moment.. If anything, I think a big display is about as important as anything with the VC's.You sit farther back from the gauges vs the 2d in mostcases, and a big display really is needed if you wanta decent display of small gauges, AP numbers, etc..I even fly the big jets with VC in most cases. I fly the 737-700 "700 experience" quite a bit. It's VC is fairly decent for a big iron, and it's quite runable on my box.Many others have some good VC's. The beech D-18 VC is pretty good as an example of freeware.. Ditto for a fewothers. I'm not going to push my views on others, and could care less what anyone else likes, but the 2d panelis pretty much history at this address... I'll still fly one every once in a while, IE: the 737-200as an example, but it's getting to be less and less. MK