Notice to developers: no 2D cockpit - no sale to me...

[Mace 1,902]

You know, and I am SURE that you know this already, that you can re-use all manner of default gauges in a 2D panel.I made my own 2D panel for HJG's DC-8. I used gauges from their panel, from the 737, I even used a temp gauge from a Cessna 172.If you can explain to me how I did NOT do this, I'd really like to hear it.As I said, I did oversimplify. You probably thought I was minimizing the time and work involved. I was not.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

[Guest odog1999]

>I also use a multi monitor setup. I fly using the upper part>of the VC on my top main monitor, and have 2D gauges on>homemade panel bitmaps, undocked on the lower monitors.>>I don't need a professional 2D cockpit with a panel bitmap to>come with an aircraft, but what I really do need is access to>the same gauges that are in the VC to use on my other>monitors.> >The trend lately is to build the gauges into the model. You>can't access them with Flight Sim Panel Studio to use them in>home made panels in a multi monitor home cockpit setup. >>A good example of this is the Aerosoft Twin Otter. I had to>use gauges from freeware Twin Otters on my secondary monitors.>>>My main concern is that sooner or later in later versions of>the sim, It will be hard to find 2d gauges, or they may not>even work anymore. >>BillNot even that is as much of a problem as VC designers (and MS) not allowing us as end users to add gauges where there aren't any already. In all the larger aircraft I have (FSX freeware and some FS9), there is a graphic where an FMC should go, but I can't ISG's Smiths FMC because it's not designated as a gauge surface and there is no known coordinates into the VC to reach it... We can swap out the MFD or any number of 2D gauges, but only where they already exist.

[jrhoads 6]

>This is pretty ridiculous to prattle on about, and I won't do>it anymore.>>Rhett>Ok good. Thank you.Jim

[scott967 62]

It does STM that for hard-core aircraft designs, provision should be made for home cockpit builders who want / need to use elements of the 2d panel. If this could be done on a gauge-by-gauge basis from the VC, then great. For instance, it would seem to be a no-brainer to have the capability to display a glass cockpit PFD and ND on their own monitor integrated into the pit, not as part of a VC that is moving around with the viewpoint. Same with radio stacks or MCDU.scott s..

[blave 0]

Wow, I had no idea my post would get such a good conversation going - great stuff here.And, L Adamson brought up the RealAir products, which are indeed an exception to my "rule". The SF.260 panel in the latest version for FSX is truly a work of art and they have some camera views set up so that it seems like there *is* a 2D panel. The Spitfire (as I recall; haven't flown it in ages) is similar. But their 3D panels are the exception rather than the rule, even in payware offerings.So - if an aircraft comes out with a panel of RealAir goodness, I guess I'd cool my jets a bit (although I still don't like the idea of not being able to hack something "custom" in a panel designer application myself). But as a for-instance, Acceleration's EH-101 helicopter 3D panel is, I'm sorry to say, not even in the same zip code as what RealAir does.To Kevin: would I pay more for 2d panels? Well, part of me says "wellllbbbbbut I never had to do that before" but the other 49% of me says "well see here, Mr. 51%, most of these youngsters today only care about the 3D cockpits and think you should retire to Florida and fly FS98 if you want that stuff so much". So my answer is, "it depends", on things like how much extra $, are the 2D panels up to the quality that comes with most payware aircraft these days, etc.In sum: I'll modify my original rant a bit and withdraw the "never", but I would still prefer that we get to have it both ways.Now, when I can buy HD-capable head-tracking 3D display glasses, and tactile feedback gloves so that I can reach out and touch the virtual knobs and feel them click as I turn them, I'll shut up - but I think that's going to be a while.cheers to everyone,Dave B.

[jrhoads 6]

Yes, but with all due respect....Try comparing very complex glass instrument displays as opposed to simple modeled analog gauges in the VC...The difference is night and day.Jim

[Guest jshyluk]

When I can buy HD-capable head-tracking 3D display glasses, and tactile feedback gloves so that I can reach out and touch the virtual knobs and feel them click as I turn them, I'll give up MSFS, as I will be using that gaming rig to play something a little more, um, well, I see there's no way I can possibly finish this sentence... wow... hum... ... so, how's about those Seattle Mariners, eh?Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[n4gix 4,947]

>The back and forth simulated body movement makes it almost>impossible to change radio freq's, dial in altitude autopilot>settings, set a switch on vs off, when changing the bank angle>or speed values etc.There is a particular mouse technique that may be used that will essentially "grab and lock" the mouse pointer when the button is depressed, which will allow for changes to be made even with the head movement......but, it must be programmed into the mouse routine from the beginning or it won't work... ;)

[FalconAF 213]

>>It's actually easier than switching back and forth>>between the VC and the 2D panels.>>Is toggling TrackIR easier than having 2D popup panels on my>second monitor open and ready during the whole flight? You>obviously have never used a second monitor in FS. It's very>convenient.>>Ulf B>Uh, Ulf...I have FOUR monitors running FSX and FS9. Three of them for my TripleHead2Go main display, and a fourth 24" LCD "on the side" for the other apps like FlightSimCommander, ActiveSkyX, FS Widgets Browser Edition, and a few others.I can guarrantee you if you set up a TrackIR correctly with button assignments on your joystick/yoke, it is a WHOLE lot easier than using undocked 2D "windows" on a second (or third, or fourth) monitor.FalconAF

[robert young 2,897]

I think it is important to define what we mean by "2d panel". The thread starter is I think not aware of the current possibilities in FSX. It is not really correct to say for instance that we have abandoned 2d panels, since our opinion is that a 2d panel is, in effect, a frozen 3d panel.In our current FSX aircraft, you can "freeze" a 3d forward view so that the panel clarity and gauge clarity is equal to, or better than, the traditional "2d" view. You can also instantly call up this 2d view with a simple key press, AND you can still instantly flick to two side views for reference if needed. BUT....you can also adjust the magnification or zoom, AND the relative height of that panel with the surrounding scenery.That being the case, provided a 3d panel equals the fidelity of the old 2d panels, there is simply no point in having a traditional 2d panel at all. There is no magic to a 2d panel, it is simply a FIXED VIEW which is there and available with all our panels. The only other issue which used to be relevant to the two kinds of panel was gauge needle smoothness. We solved this problem long ago and our gauges now perform smoother and faster than the equivalent 2d panels used to.Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[robert young 2,897]

Hi Dave B,Thanks for acknowledging that our panels are in fact a 2d and 3d panel-in-one. Our fixed view option renders our 3d panels exactly in the same way as old 2d panels used to be, but with options of zoom and height/lateral adjustment too. I've explained this in more detail elsewhere in this thread.Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[jrhoads 6]

>We>solved this problem long ago and our gauges now perform>smoother and faster than the equivalent 2d panels used to.>Hi Rob,With all due respect, I disagree. There is still plenty of reason to have 2D panels and it becomes apparent anytime these type of discussions come up...Even though only a handful of developers embrace it, the technique of modeling 3D analog gauges has been around since CFS3 and lends itself to typically very good performance in the VC, but try that with glass gauges. It is a whole and different ball game. So, as long as you are modeling analog gauges with needles, etc. in the VC, the effect and performance is hard to beat and looks very impressive.... but try adding a few glass gauges to the panel...Again, not trying to argue or diminish your efforts because I am certainly a fan, just clarifying that all is not equal in the VC environment.Regards,Jim Rhoads

[virtuali 4,419]

>So, as long as you are modeling analog gauges with needles,>etc. in the VC, the effect and performance is hard to beat and>looks very impressive.... but try adding a few glass gauges to>the panel...I think we demonstrated, with the Acceleration F/A-18 panel we did for Microsoft that, not only a VC only airplane is perfectly flyable, but also that's not true that the purely 3D approach is only valid for mechanical needles and not glass gauges. The F/A-18 is the perfect example of this, since the model A we modeled is an hybrid analog-glass gauges panel, it has several mechanical instruments, and 4 big glass panels (3 MFDs plus the HUD ), plus the central radio stack which is digital as well, all without any fps problems, which might have been more noticeable in an high-performance jet.I agree entirely with everything Rob Young has said: there's no use for 2D panels anymore in FSX, because the new View system can replicate any "2D" panel with a carefully positioned fixed camera.This fact alone, for me, is enough incentive to not even start thinking of doing an airplane for FS9, or an airplane that has to work with both FS9 and FSX because FSX is the first Flight Sim were is REALLY possible to drop entirely the old 2D panels, and this changes everything in the developing process, because an airplane that is *designed* to be VC only from the start, not as an afterthought, requires a totally different approach and, to offer a 2D panel (that can be reproduced anyway with fixed views in FSX), would really means doing the panel twice..

[jrhoads 6]

>>Sorry, but this is not true. The fact that not all developers>are particularly good at optimizing code, or analyzing were>bottlenecks are, doesn't mean the concept is less valid...>>I agree entirely with everything Rob Young has said: there's>no use for 2D panels anymore in FSX, because the new View>system can replicate any "2D" panel with a carefully>positioned fixed camera.>And you are entitled to your opinion which I also disagree with.Just because you prefer a certain method and I something else does not mean you or I are exclusively right.Choice is a wonderful thing isn't it?I also believe you missed my point and... you are not talking to a pup here about FS development so don't assume I do not know anything about optimization. I think we have and are continuing to develop extremely optimized examples of very complex glass instrumentation in both 2D and VC. You can say or feel anyway you want, but just because you think there is no reason for a 2D panel perspective does not mean everyone is in agreement with you. And most specifically flight training where not only is the VC typically void, it isn't even typically considered or wanted for this application. Someday? Maybe... but the VC has not matured enough to support this type of application usage. And that is indeed something I know about.Jim

[N400QW 205]

As long time admirers of the Real Air approach to 3D Modeled VC gauges it should be noted that the technique did not start with Robs Team and has been around for quite a long while now.... The technique works well with analogue type avionics but does NOT work at all with with complex "glass" gauges.A "hybrid" panel as in the F-18 is a solution that is available to all devs who wish to use that technique but it does not always lend itself well to certain aircraft types.As to the old 2D V. 3D debate. Some devs will abandon 2D for 3D only while others will continue using both 2D and 3D Panels.Eaglesoft was first and continues to offer both 4:3 ratio and 16X9 ratio widescreen 2D panels in the same package so it's fair to say that we are committed to using both 2D and 3D for the forseeable future :-)