Question - Will 2d cockpit view ever be available?

[Hippo 34]

8 hours ago, Dillon said:

Because technology has moved on.  We are moving toward full 3D headware (Oculus), there's no need for five oversize monitors anymore.  This has nothing to do with a FS2020 cult it has everything to do with progress.  Just like we moved away from VHS/Beta, CD, DVD, etc this is another example and we are all better for it.  Much less hardware you need at your house.

I am a huge fan of VR, and it's my own preference.  But (imho and a few 100 hrs flying real aircraft), a large screen(s) for the outside world, combined with a physical cockpit and exported instruments, for now, provides a better approximation to the task of actually flying an airplane.

For those dedicated enough to take this route, it's nice to have the options there.  Hopefully it will be included as FS2020 matures.  At the very least a "no-cockpit" view will make an appearance?

Edited August 29, 2020 by Hippo

[Paraffin 2,197]

10 hours ago, pmanhart said:

I'll NEVER understand why people agree with or even encourage removing features that other people find useful, just to signal their support for a piece of software.

There are a myriad of reasons for having a 2D or forward looking cockpitless view. Just because YOU don't need it, does not mean its not useful or necessary for others.

We can argue the merits of 2D panels for home cockpits, but it's a fact that they weren't included for this release. Therefore, I think the best argument against including them at this point is opportunity cost. I'd rather have the devs working on other things. Y'all may have noticed that there are "other things" that need working on in this release.

Maybe someone other than Asobo can figure out how to hack together a 2D panel for those who want them.
 

33 minutes ago, Hippo said:

At the very least a "no-cockpit" view will make an appearance?

You can do that already with a custom camera view.

 

[RustyFlyer 182]

11 hours ago, pmanhart said:

"... if we could get at least one of the dozens of missing features in FS2020 that we've been using for nearly 40 years... bleeding for basic features and mechanics necessary for simulating flying an aircraft."

Totally agree. Been both flying & simming since the dinosaurs... That MS&A did not provide a [.pdf] manual for a software release of this magnitude is inexcusable. It is not relevant that this particular software release is for flight simulation and/or gaming and not for enterprise use.

(btw: It is my understanding that even the small printed pamphlet that accompanies the physical disk set is woefully lacking.)

Edited August 29, 2020 by RustyFlyer

[flyinpilot212121 724]

Let’s hope we never revert back to 2D panels 

[RustyFlyer 182]

6 minutes ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

Let’s hope we never revert back to 2D panels 

I would not use a 2D panel if it were there, but that is simply my preference. Nonetheless, the option to utilize a 2D panel should indeed be available to & for others.

For those that disagree, their view is like saying "I like vanilla ice-cream. So, companies should not manufacture chocolate, strawberry or any other flavor ice-cream because I personally, and others like me, do not eat it. Those who do not like vanilla ice-cream can do without ice-cream."

Edited August 29, 2020 by RustyFlyer

[flyinpilot212121 724]

12 minutes ago, RustyFlyer said:

I would not use a 2D panel if it were there, but that is simply my preference. Nonetheless, the option to utilize a 2D panel should indeed be available to & for others.

For those that disagree, their view is like saying "I like vanilla ice-cream. So, companies should not manufacture chocolate, strawberry or any other flavor ice-cream because I personally, and others like me, do not eat it. Those who do not like vanilla ice-cream can do without ice-cream."

True, but in today’s technology, is it worth it at the developers end to include such a thing? Why doesn’t Apple manufacture an old school flip phone labeled the I-flip..Time and technology moves forward, if we can’t keep up, we are left behind unfortunately. 

[RustyFlyer 182]

1 hour ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

True, but in today’s technology, is it worth it at the developers end to include such a thing? Why doesn’t Apple manufacture an old school flip phone labeled the I-flip..Time and technology moves forward, if we can’t keep up, we are left behind unfortunately. 

You are comparing apples and oranges ( ; ) ). No one is saying that they want to permanently reside in the stone ages of flight sim. No one is saying that MS/A should produce a new, "flip phone" in the form of an entirely new & separate, 2D-panel only flight simulator (landclass-based to correspond to your un-analogous comparison). Some are simply saying that including such a vestigial 'accessory' is indeed useful to & by some (personally, I prefer 3D panels).

Cars came along, yet people still ride horses for various reasons. Jet engines came along, yet propeller-driven aircraft still abound and are still manufactured. Color photography came around, yet people still produce black & white imagery. Multi-channel audio came around, yet their is profound utility to still be found in two-channel listening. Your comment is like saying "Smartphones should not have the ability to reproduce the ringtones of bell telephones from the 50s & 60s because bell telephones went extinct during the last ice age." Or it is like saying "Smartphones do not have mechanical interfaces for taking pictures, therefore they should not have the capability to reproduce the sound of a shutter release." *Those* are analogous statements.

Edited August 29, 2020 by RustyFlyer

[flyinpilot212121 724]

19 minutes ago, RustyFlyer said:

You are comparing apples and oranges ( ; ) ). No one is saying that they want to permanently reside in the stone ages of flight sim. No one is saying that MS/A should produce a new, "flip phone" in the form of an entirely new & separate flight simulator (landclass-based to correspond to your un-analogous comparison). Some are simply saying that including such a vestigial 'accessory' is indeed useful to & by some.

Cars came along, yet people still ride horses for various reasons. Jet engines came along, yet propeller-driven aircraft still abound and are still manufactured. Color photography came around, yet people still produce black & white imagery. Multi-channel audio came around, yet their is profound utility to still be found in two-channel listening. Your comment is like saying "Smartphones should not have the ability to reproduce the ringtones of bell telephones from the 50s & 60s because bell telephones went extinct during the last ice age." Or it is like saying "Smartphones do not have mechanical interfaces for taking pictures, therefore they should not have the capability to reproduce the sound of a shutter release." *Those* are analogous statements.

Unfortunately useful to some doesn't fit into a for profit business plan... however we are off topic which is my fault, my statement above “let’s hope we don’t have to revert back to 2d panels” is a moot point and adds no value as even if 2D panels were an option, wouldn’t mean we Would be Have to revert back to 2D panels, but simply it would be an option, and options are good, However I think that it won’t be an option in the future due to the Fact that it doesn’t fit into a for profit business in this day and age. 

[HighBypass 2,339]

24 minutes ago, RustyFlyer said:

...therefore they should not have the capability to reproduce the sound of a shutter release."....

I recently went for an X-ray at the hospital (No! Not to find my brain - stop giggling at the back!) and the bloody X-ray machine had the shutter release sound! It was made by Samsung FWIW... 

VR intrigues me. There is no argument from me regarding the freedom of viewing but until it comes with proper haptic feedback I think I may pass. I don't even know if I might be affected by vertigo..

If I want to move something in the cockpit (in VR) I would like to physically grab it. Plenty of pilots IRL wear gloves, so wearing feedback gloves in VR would be quite thematic - not sure if I'd need a silk scarf too LOL.

[desbean 357]

I doubt 2d will ever return. The nice thing about 2d was usually having all of the necessary controls in front of you without having to change views. It took me a while to get used to 3d panels but once I did it felt a lot more realistic.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

10 hours ago, pmanhart said:

 pompous and self-righteous beyond belief.

Strangely enough, that's how I felt about your original post on this thread, which absolutely killed any trace of sympathy from me for your cause.

[samcan 37]

1 hour ago, RustyFlyer said:

You are comparing apples and oranges ( ; ) ). No one is saying that they want to permanently reside in the stone ages of flight sim. No one is saying that MS/A should produce a new, "flip phone" in the form of an entirely new & separate, 2D-panel only flight simulator (landclass-based to correspond to your un-analogous comparison). Some are simply saying that including such a vestigial 'accessory' is indeed useful to & by some (personally, I prefer 3D panels).

At the same time, adding 2D panels doesn't come without a cost. Let's suppose Asobo had decided in development that they wanted to have 2D panels. Now that means that the design they're working on has to be adjusted to interact with 2D panels, if it doesn't already. This may or may not be a simple change.

Then, there's the cost of devoting developers to implement 2D panels. This is going to be some non-zero amount of time, and unfortunately, is hard to estimate in any project. For example, Ars Technica just did an interview with David Brevik, the lead designer of Diablo, a game which was originally turn-based, but after much discussion, the development team wanted it to be real-time. Brevik thought the changes would take at least a month to put in place:

Quote

Brevik expected the actual change to take at least a month to implement, but he sat down that Friday evening to take a crack at getting started and in just a few hours hacked together enough of the real-time elements to support some test gameplay. (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/war-stories-how-diablo-was-almost-a-turn-based-strategy-game/)

While his change turned out to be easier to implement than he thought, we can all think of converse examples, such as road construction, where they estimate it will take X years and $Y budget and instead it takes 2X years and Y^X budget. A couple of ongoing examples are NASA's SLS rocket, which has been repeatedly delayed and had cost overruns, and the military's infamous F-35 budget fiasco.

Thus, assigning developers to work on 2D panels could take an uncertain amount of time for them to implement due to unforseen complexity, and would also prevent them from working on something else in the project.

Implementing 2D panels then creates an added burden on the software testing team. Anything coded needs to be tested. Adding 2D panels would add yet more edge-cases that the testing team would need to check for.

And of course, there's the Pareto principle, where 80% of the users use 20% of the features. We can see this in software development today where companies like Apple and even Google to an extent would rather code something that has less customization in the interest of making it simple and easy to use. And if most users never use the advanced features, these companies think, the users won't even know what they're missing!

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by samcan
Fixed typo

[Slides 1,552]

3D clickable cockpits are an industry standard now in this genre.

[B1900 17]

15 hours ago, BigWings said:

I agree. I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s not a thing in X-Plane 11 either and with free view and the ability to adjust your eye level in the cockpit, it’s more or less been rendered obsolete. 

What is X-plane? Is it anything like P3D?

 

[RustyFlyer 182]

26 minutes ago, Slides said:

3D clickable cockpits are an industry standard now in this genre.

Irrelevant. That is not the point of the discussion. Nobody is disputing that lol. The discussion has to do with those who prefer to have the *option* to use a 2D panel when & should they wish to... for *whatever* reason(s). Color photography is the industry standard now, but folks still create b&w imagery. The folks at Adobe provide mechanisms in Photoshop for these & similar purposes, as do the folks at Nikon, Canon and others for analogous reasons.

Do I use ringtones simulating bell telephones from 50+ years ago on my smartphone? No. Should people have the ability to do so should they wish to? Yes. Would I use a 2D panel? No. Should those who wish to do so be able to? Yes. This assumes that the costs to provide such a feature are not prohibitive. I suspect that the additional costs to provide such a feature in MFS are not in fact prohibitive and would, actually, foster additional sales.

Edited August 29, 2020 by RustyFlyer