2D panels or VC?

[JSMR]

VC all the way for me, don't understand how anyone can still fly with 2D? In fact I've disabled the 2D panel option in FSX altogether so that it doesn't even come up when I cycle views.

 

I've been simming since the 1980's on a ZX Spectrum, and today still fly FS9 on my PC, but mostly FSX and a little bit of P3D. For me it was an evolutionary process and once i progressed to TrackIr and widescreen monitors, 2D made absolutely no sense any more.

 

I have also flown small aircraft in real life and a static 2D panel is nowhere near the same sense of realism compared to TrackIr and VC combination, where you have complete freedom of movement and views. Soon we'll have Virtual Reality and 2D will become a true relic.

 

I also have flown real aircraft and find 2D panels more realistic. I can scan with my eyes only....as I did in the real aircraft. Without wearing fancy equipment and having to pan around with a switch. Mostly can be setup with everything in front of me as in the real aircraft.

[jgf]

.... Have you moved away from 2D flight or are you happy to remain a dinosaur?

 

A not very complimentary and entirely subjective opinion.

 

What panel I prefer depends on what I am flying, and when. Small aircraft are more enjoyable from a VC; helicopters, whose views should be enhanced from the VC, are more easily controlled from a 2D panel; the relatively rare occasions I fly people-haulers it doesn't matter much whether it is 2D or VC, there's little to see (once at altitude and on course I often go to external view, turn down the sound slightly, spin my chair around, and play something else on another computer). For landing I almost always use the 2D panel, it's much easier to keep your bearings there.

 

I view a VC as a nice addition to any aircraft, but not a necessity; a "skip view" gauge eliminates that "suspended in mid-air" view in a no-VC aircraft when cycling through views.

 

I am however mystified by many releases the past few years - the creator(s) go to great lengths to replicate every rivet, seam, antenna, and animation on the exterior ...while the cockpit is merely aliased to a default 2D panel.

[Skywatcher12]

A not very complimentary and entirely subjective opinion.

 

I'm a dinosaur. Have a sense of humor. ;)

The term I used generated from some threads I was reading. For example, I think if you read rooitou's opinion post #25 I consider how I worded the post quite appropriate. lol

 

Must mention TrackIR. I tried it on a friends PC running P3D. Imo it looks silly, feels silly and doesn't add to the feeling of realism in any way. Those who love it portray it as a magical solution for flight simulation. No, it's very much a love or hate item I believe unlike a joystick for example which has a universal agreement regarding usefulness. Some will find TrackIR increases the simming experience, others like myself think it's no better than using a hat switch.

[NMLW]

I also prefer 2D panels because they are realistic, clear and easy to read. They also require no panning and allow me to concentrate on the morer important issues of flying. I fly freeware aircraft exclusively and with the exception of a few recent offerings, there are very few really good VC panels that I find easy to use. There are some great looking vc panels in a number of payware FSX birds, but I fly FS9, so 2D it is for the foreseeable future.

[NMLW]

I also prefer 2D panels because they are realistic, accurate and easy to read. They also require no panning and allow me to concentrate on the more important issues of flying. I fly freeware aircraft exclusively and with the exception of a few recent offerings, there are very few really good VC panels that I find easy to use. There are some great looking vc panels in a number of payware FSX birds, but I fly FS9, so 2D it is for the foreseeable future.

[Wing_Z]

The Microsoft ACES team would have talked this issue to death when they were deciding what to release with their New Sim, back in the day.

As you can see in your sim, they decided to go with 2D as well as VC panels, not without a great deal of effort!

With good reason: the office work is best done on 2D panels, and the mini-panel option is often best when you really need a good view on approach.

But when the drudgery is done, and you are airborne, or even sightseeing on the ground, the VC offers real immersion.

And TrackIR added a further dimension to that immersion.

I'm flying the new Bell 429 using TrackIR as it has a stonking VC, and I'm totally loving the experience.

 

The only point of argument arises when you are using the wrong methodology in a given situation. Learn to use your sim properly, and you will learn to love it more...

[old_wombat]

Having the luxury of two screens, having the (2D) panel, GPS, throttle quadrant, etc, on the "nearer" one, whilst having the outside scenery (2D) on the "further" one gives a 3-dimensionality and depth that no single screen - 2D or VC - couple possibly match. In fact once I get the man cave downstairs done, the "further" screen will be replaced by a projected image, and hence even further away, which some preliminary testing has shown will give an even better depth. But as a few have replied to this post - that's just me.

[flyer8]

In case you might be interested, I've included a FlightSim screen shot link to an old panel which was originally created by John Van Voorhis. He created it in 2007 and that would be a little more then nine years ago.

 

Godzilla is a 2D Panel

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?301548-Godzilla-is-a-2D-Panel

 

For me, its quite fun and interesting to modify the main workspace of an aircraft. You know, have the ability to change what I'm looking at, try new gauges, mix and match stuff, and create my own panels and gauges.

 

And when the 2D panel was removed in X and beyond, (and I haven't given X much of a chance), so I'm not sure if you can make modifications to the FDE in X or PP3D. If that's true, doesn't that seem like a degree of separation for the home pilot/panel builder.

 

I suppose the rhetorical question is why would anyone not want the ability to modify an FDE, and, how did that happen?

 

Best Regards

Mark