I like 2d panels for adjusting settings (autopilot, GPS, radios) . I have the various panels often placed and resized to all be accessible from that screen (if possible). Adjusting things from the VC with the mouse can be harder especially with active camera head latency which makes things move a bit under the mouse (and mine's set for mild).I like landing and taking off from the VC.I agree with some other comments that it would be nice to be abe to select which views one wants to cycle. I find the tower view is always in the way and would like to get rid of it.

I see the GA pilots just keep on piping up! :-rollBig Iron is a totally different kettle of fish! :)....I fly big iron more than I do GA... And I still prefera VS, *as long* as it's done right. I have no trouble using the VS in the 737-700. A few others too. I wish my trusty lear 31a had a VS... Some of the boeings I fly are still 2d, "IE 737-200" ,but they are getting kinda lame. Actually, I don't mind a 2d panelin a jet as long as it's set up like a 3d with sideviews, etc, etc.. But say with the lears, I prefer the perspective of the lear 45 VS , vs my 2d lear 31a panel. You get a wider outside view, and can see to the sides abit. I like the VS in the 737-700. "737 experience" or whatever it's called. It's not perfect, but it's prettydang good, and I like the sun/shadow effects on all the knobsetc.. I can fly big iron IFR on 2d or VS. Makes no differenceto me. The only part I don't like is a panel with hard to read A/P digits..IE: the stock lear 45 is one...Those dark bluedigits are a joke to read...Need to be lighter.As far as the 737-700, the 2d panel is pretty lame comparedto the VS.. Kinda bleak looking... I fly the default 747,777in VS. I fly the 757 in 2d...But...Thats cuz I got a decent 2dpanel for 757/767. It's got good side views, etc, and is photoreal.I didn't care for VS when it first came out. But it was mainly cuz I didn't realize you could rezoom. Once I found out how to set them up right, I've been flying VS... 2d is really getting lamesville...To me anyway... I'm not trying to convince anyone to change...And thats why I say MS probably won't be totally dumping2d. Yet.. MK

I didn't care for VS when it first came out. BTW...I don't know why I kept calling VC's VS's...Ignore...I must have had "S" on the brain... :/MK

Just food for thought.. "Why can't I add my favourite Reality-XP gauge to the VC? ..no problem with the 2D" :-hah

regardsEd

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/127932.jpgAMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 128Mb DDR Nvidia 6600GT PCI Express, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant

Peter,You and Larry will remember the Peredine (Hawker) in the Fly! II program. The cockpit had a Main panel, Overhead panel, FMS display (which wasn't functional) and Throttle quadrant which were very clear. It woould be nice if the MSFS Developers/Programmers could could combine some of the techniques, which TRI used, with their VC panels. We would then have the best of both worlds and their wouldn't be an argument about which to use.

Somewhere, I already posted this pic of a panel being developed for FLYII. Got it from the FLY forum. It's 3D and looks very sharp.L.Adamsonhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/146113.jpg

Ditto that.Guess the major part of VC addicts are bush or GA pilots.The VC in Ariane's 737NG is the reason I almost never use that plane.Looking around in the VC and finding this switch and that display - and I bet that won't be that different even with TrackIR - is too time consuming to be of real use in a more complex airliner.Asides from that, I guess even the next generation of CPUs and graphics adapters won't be able to give us full fluidity in crispy clear instruments.VCs - need too expensive hardware, are too slow and are too difficult to handle when flying a complex airliner, that's my conclusion.So, until something better pops up I stick with 2D.Andreas

Funny I don't see any real life PCTD using VC setups. If anything MSFS works better as an instrument training device as opposed to an actual motion simulator with true visual cues, something you just cannot have even with VCs in a computer setup. 2D panels run better 2D panels are clearer 2D panels should ALWAYS remain an option ...............Randy J. Smith................A PROUD MEMBER OF THE PMDG BETA TEAM[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]

To amswer the VERY first question - I SINCERELY HOPE NOT!!!!! Why remove the most essential part of the sim ?????????????????

Come on guys, haven't you bought TrackIR yet?

No - and have no plans to, either !Of course, if you'd like to supply us 2D-preferers (I use both but use the 2D more than the VC) with complimentary sets, I'll certainly give it a trial ........As to the original question ? Keep both.Alastair

2D panels will definitely feature. VC fanatics are in a tiny minority ... 2D panels have plenty of life left in them:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=5067&page=4

This must be the first software of any kind whose users are actually asking for a reduction of functionality :-roll

The last time the 2d vs. vc debate came up, the numbers appeared roughly 50/50 for both sides, so it would make sense to keep both. As for VCs being for the GA crowd, I fly mostly GA and I use 2D cockpits almost exclusively. Just my personal preference, but no VC has ever impressed me other than the latest Realair SF260. On my system, VCs are not nearly as smooth, especially when you start adding avionics like the Reality XP stuff. The first thing I do when I get a new plane is to comment out all the complex gauges in the VC, and my FPS increases by a ton. My point is there is enough people on each side of the fence to justify both, otherwise they risk alienating roughly half their customers.

The short answer is: hopefully they will disappear. Tim13