Hi,There has been several questions regarding how to remove a VC from an aircraft model lately.Since some developers (no names mentioned) insists in making virtual cockpits which only serves as framerate hogs, the "removing VC demands" has increased. Make no misstake that there are also developers who makes beautiful VC

Blasphemy! :DIf it don't have a VC, I don't fly it. Haven't since FS2000+/-.But if you insist on removing them...have at it. ;)

Removing a VC doesn't necessarily result in any increased performance. I thought I would mention this also it may sound obvious to many. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Hi Michael,You are right,..but in many cases, removing the VC really results in increased performance. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HD

Here we go again! I was the originator of a similar post, and innocently stirred up a hornets nest. I had no intention of destroying peoples hard work, and only removed VC's from some aircraft to suit my own rudimentary home cockpit. I was only trying to help other people who wished to do the same. It was not intended to start the never ending VC vs 2D debate.For the record, I have since gone back to flying from the VC, and enjoy it very much. 2D panels also have their uses and own merit as well.I implore all of you reading this thread to view it as an information source only. I think that is what the original poster intended, not to incite a flame war.Please don't let it go south as my original thread did.

>You are right,..but in many cases, removing the VC really>results in increased performance. ;-)I think, it is some kind of "placebo effect", at least for fast systems :)I've tried it with some very complex models (PMDG 744 for example, which has arguably one of the most complex VC implementations, and btw. an option to not load the VC at all) and the results were not spectacular. The a/c may load a bit faster and having no VC can reduce the memory requirements for FS9.exe, but I did not see any improvements in framerate when using a outside view or the 2d panel. Also, many products come with different models (/w VC, w/o VC etc.) and that also never shows dramatic fps improvements when flying the 2d panel. I also don't think my system is too fast or something like that - it is fast and in very good shape, but not the fastest you can get.If someone has a really slow system or is constantly low on memory, it may help though.

Hi Boris,Thanks. Yes you are correct,..this thread is only ment as an informative thread for those who really can

I've noticed on a lot of acft, the VC gives a frame rate hit over the 2D panel, but I wouldn't call that a frame rate degradation BECAUSE of the VC.Since I expect it to happen, I live with it. On only a few aircraft, such as biplanes, will I use the VC, but that's what melts my butter.Bob

I think that a clarification is in order regarding the procedure.Douglas mentions that only the two first strings should be edited. However, the first string has to do with the aircraft shadow, and the second string is the VC. So consequently, if you want to keep the aircraft shadow, the only string which has to be edited, is the second string.;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HD