I don't think the 2D gauges have anything to do with your issue with the Dakota. I'm sure the vast majority of aircraft you use in FS have 2D gauges.My 'old school' Dakota:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188550.jpg

>I don't think the 2D gauges have anything to do with your>issue with the Dakota. I'm sure the vast majority of aircraft>you use in FS have 2D gauges.The issue is caused by Vista 32. Even though they advertise it is compatible, it crashes to desktop every time.By 3D gauges, I mean the ones that are built into the model, not holograms :(; The AlphaSim Long-EZ is the best example of them. RealAir planes have them too.

I run on vista 32 with no crashes...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

I have the Long-EZ, although the gauges are good, the radios are lacking, as is the use of the default FS GPS.When I speak of realism, I would prefer gauges and radios that function like the real thing first and foremost.

I personally model the VC in full 3d. I realize that it 'locks' the panel in terms of end user modification, but I really think it makes a difference in the overall 'feel'. These pictures are from my Thorp T-18 project...all of the gauges are modeled in 3-d, along with all of the switches and knobs.http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9333/transponder1sg0.jpghttp://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1783/radio3cs4.jpghttp://img170.imageshack.us/img170/397/200...17194031ev7.jpgUltimately it's up to the preference of the developer, and/or the entity they work for. When it's my call, I'm going with the full 3-d!

Your shot shows what I consider important. I spent over 500 hours flying a Debonair with the the ai that is in the Dakota above. When I see that in a cockpit something familiar happens... then the extreme smoothness of the Reality Xp programming that allows true ifr precision when using the instrument (and all the others) makes it the ultimate..imhohttp://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/188555.jpg

This thread is remarkably similar to a conversation between Lou ( plane & DF owner ) and myself ( modeller ) during the construction phase. Much like Lou

The best deal for the consumer would be for developers to include both types of panels. Automatically install the one with all the 3D modeled switches because that whats most consumers want to see, and let the smaller number of those that want to install other gauges manually install the 2D panel since they already know how to modify things.I would have had a much better impression of the Dakota if it had modeled switched, knobs, raised or sunken gauges. When you use TrackIR, you really notice the difference.

I have no problems with modeling some of the switches and knobs as long as they are not tied to radios or gauge knobs. Or....if they are modeled to very accurate radios and gauges so there is no reason to swap them out.I agree though, a separate model for the 'panel tweaker' may be the best way to go. I do have an aircraft which a modified model was released to allow folks to replace a self-admitted (by the designer) basic GPS unit that included a 3D knob set. He released a revised model without the knobs, and now folks have the opportunity to replace the default with something that works closer to the real thing.Another example, I really like the overall modeling and detail of the FSX Cessna Caravan, and would love to fly it, but refuse to because of the over simplistic default radio functions, and they cannot be swapped because of the 3D knobs built into the model. If I could swap out all the radios with Friendly Panel stuff, I would probably fly it quite a bit actually.

Looks fantastic! :)

As I was talking about in a discussion with some other developers, the percentage of customers who would want a customizable 2D virtual cockpit is TINY compared to those who would want a full 3D one designed by the developer. In fact the percentage who would even know HOW to put in custom gauges is tiny. Remember the more-initiated forum crowd is NOT the whole or even largest part of the customer base. In fact the numbers who participate on forums make up quite a small portion of the payware customer base. You can't please everyone, but you should shoot to please the most. It is easy to say that you would like both forms of cockpits in a plane, but that would add extra time and an extra price tag to the projects, things that no one in the flight sim community wants these days...In Dreamfleet's case, I would rather have a plane that actually works, rather than a customizable cockpit. :-hmmm I really hope a fix comes out soon...

No doubt the masses are served....But the vast majority don't really know what a 'professional' cockpit is either, do they? And that was the thrust of this thread; the desire for more realistic cockpits (to me that means functioning like the real deal), not compromising for stuff we have out-grown.Some will be more than content with the 'terrible' default cockpit functionality as they are designed for the masses (I have not used a default aircraft for over 10 years). As some of us get more involved, learn more, we also demand more, and functionality that does not provide or allow that will no longer be the third party designer of choice for me.I would be more than happy to not modify another panel if each I bought functioned the way I desire.

Gonna need 8 cores to run a sophosticated 'pit with all 3-D switches and gauges with any kind of decent view outside the window. 8 cores a lot faster than the ones on the market right now....Colin Portland, OR

>Gonna need 8 cores to run a sophosticated 'pit with all 3-D>switches and gauges with any kind of decent view outside the>window. 8 cores a lot faster than the ones on the market right>now....>>Colin >Portland, ORUmmmm no you aren't... check out any of the RealAir stuff or the AlphaSim Long-EZ or GeeBee. They have fully 3D gauges and switches and they run perfect on my laptop...