Panel depiction in FSX ?

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

When FS9 came out I was rather surprised to see that MS had kept the old 2D panel layout while bringing in the new VC layout.At the time it smacked of " Jack of all trades, master of none" ie MS were not convinced enough of either method to drop one and concentrate their efforts into a brand new way of displaying panels and guages.We had the old 2D looking through a post box slot method of displaying panels and then we had the VC which while much better from a view perspective in itself had its own drawbacks.We are faced with a square screen panel to cram everything into and this isnt good for the old periferal (hope its spelt right) views.If you look straight ahead at a spot in front of you and place your arms out straight you should still perceive a movement when moving your fingers.Now move your eyes to the right while still looking ahead and you can move your arms and hand behind you and still see finger movement.There has been nothing shown in screenshots to show what MS are going to do with panels and cockpit views in FSX or any information on any clever ways of improving the "perception" of periferal views on a sqaure flat screen.Will we be faced with more of the same ie 2D / VC, or will MS finally dump the 2D because they have become masters of a new method of panel/guage /cockpit display which is probably the biggest challenge to be faced in FSX?Peter

[Guest 3202b]

I hope they don't dump the 2D panel, there was a huge post a while ago where most people agreed.

[Guest GeorgeDorkofikis]

Oh please, do not abandon the 2D panels!At least you can turn them off and fly with outside view only on a small home cockpit. VC cannot be turned off!Also, the impact VC have on some systems is too much for smooth flight.And least but not last, the instruments in VC are generally very hard to read as being small in relation to the prespective. Let's not forget that in the real cockpit you are sitting in a 3D environment, and it's very hard to simulate this on a 2D plane on a monitor.George DorkofikisAthens, Hellashttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.png

[Guest Dennis_k]

I hope the 2d stays, because i use this the most.Sometimes i use the vc, but thats more for picturemaking then flying.Also, al lot of computers can't handle the grafic load of the VC. (i cant use the PMDG 774 VC, my frames go down to 7)My opinion is that they (MS :) ) use them in the same way as they are used now in FS2004 / FS9

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>Oh please, do not abandon the 2D panels!>At least you can turn them off and fly with outside view only>on a small home cockpit. VC cannot be turned off!>>Also, the impact VC have on some systems is too much for>smooth flight.>And least but not last, the instruments in VC are generally>very hard to read as being small in relation to the>prespective. Let's not forget that in the real cockpit you>are sitting in a 3D environment, and it's very hard to>simulate this on a 2D plane on a monitor.>>George Dorkofikis>Athens, Hellas>http://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.pngGeorge the fact that people cling to the old 2D panel method is because MS have not yet come up with an ideal solution.I do not see the two camps 2D/VC and people clinging to the 2D as indicative of how fantastic the old 2D is but of how far the new VC still has to go.Yes there are flaws in the existing VC but already smooth guage technology and other methods are making complex aircraft like the Level D 767 and PMDG 747 as smooth and clickable as the old 2D.The very fact that people call for both systems is indicative that both methods are "Jack of all trades master of none".I know of no other sim which gives two ways of showing panels. If the solution had been cracked in a satisfactory way then this arguement wouldnt exist.There has been nothing shown in screenshots and I dont expect there to be any comments from our friends in this forum. That to me indicates that this is still an undecided problem area.Peter

[Guest daniel.alm]

IMO there's still no better methode as a 2D panel for complex airliners. GA aircraft might be fine with VC, but not airliners.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>IMO there's still no better methode as a 2D panel for complex airliners. GA aircraft might be fine with VC, but not airliners.

[rich135 0]

I use mulitple displays and 2D panels exclusively. I question the assertion that continued support of 2D panels is hindering the improvement of 3D panels.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>I use mulitple displays and 2D panels exclusively. I>question the assertion that continued support of 2D panels is>hindering the improvement of 3D panels.Mr Joe Public doesnt use multiple displays and I have not asserted that supporting 2D is hindering the improvement of 3D.I am suggesting that neither system as they stand do a good job of making the flying experience as real as it gets.The 2D are claustraphobic and as looking through a toilet roll compared to real world.The VC is not as claustraphobic has "better" periferal views but hasnt been as clear or framerate friendly in the past and as they stand are far from perfect yet.PMDG in the their 747 made their VC framerate friendly and clear.I am suggesting that there has to be a better way and I dont care whether its 2D VC or Mickey Mouse :-) for making the cockpit much more immersive and nearer to real world than we have at the moment which frankly is way off real world.We talk about the FDE and how everyone wants a more real landing experience, that cannot be divorced from the other senses which are not FDE but visual and getting the visuals as close to how the real pilot sees them.You are obviously trying to achieve that by going multiple displayPeter

[maxter 0]

G'day Pete,Totally agree, there has to be a better way... I cannot cope with the mail slot view placed at the level of my stomach either. VC all the way for me...BTW, FYI - peripheral means the same as periferalCheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[slashed2 53]

I also agree. A game called European Air War by Microprose was my first introduction to a true virtual cockpit and from that point on 2D was out. I think to each his own so I won't argue either way, but panning around in the VC to me just seems more realistic and immersive than looking at a panel crammed with all the instruments, so I do agree that the VC is important, more like the real world whereas the 2D is more a relic of the past....Okay, I couldn't help argue a point but again, to each his own and I think they'll probably implement both for this version as many users still use the 2D. Ian.

[rich135 0]

Thank you for clarifying Peter.<>Based on the responses thus far, I think many interpreted it that way. For example,<"Finally dump the 2D" suggests to me that to achieve something better, you have to abandon something. I am not suggesting 2D panels and multiple monitors are the solution. Rather, I am very pleased with what we have now, and would like to see these features remain. Improvements are certainly welcome too.Regards,Rich

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

<

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>BTW, FYI - peripheral means the same as periferal

[rich135 0]

<>You raise a good point Peter. I believe human beings enjoy "multiple means" of accomplishing a task. That is why I the only "feature" I advocate on these forums is greater extensibility.Here are two quotes from: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/02/the_art_of_crea.html"Give people something concrete to chew on. Communities can