Why no 2D Panel?

[ColR1948]

I recently bought a couple of payware aircraft, when I installed and go to cockpit view there is only the VC and no 2D.

I ended up putting my own 2D panel in, a couple of reasons, the image in the VC always seems a bit hazy compared to the 2D, also I sometimes find it hard to operate certain knobs and switches in the VC.

 

I was talking to my grandson and he too has a few payware aircraft and they are the same, no 2D panel, is this to save on getting the aircraft out on the market or is there another reason?

 

If some simmers like just the VC then why not give you/them a choice when installing?

[Allen Craig]

The choice rests with the author, whatever the reasoning behind it.

 

I also like to switch switches, spin knobs and adjust gauges in the 2D panel, and continue the flight in the VC.

 

Perhaps the finest example of panel artistry is David Maltby,

http://www.dmflightsim.co.uk/default.htm

 

His 2D and VC panels are EXACT replicas of each other.

 

They are delightful to fly, and they are FREE! :cool:

[tiger1962]

If some simmers like just the VC then why not give you/them a choice when installing?

 

An excellent suggestion ColR! I refuse to buy any VC-only aircraft because it's only half a plane to me, and I would buy several of them this weekend (it's pay day today!!) if only they had 2D panels...

[Sentry_FiveZero]

Ever since FSX came out, virtual is the only thing I use now. Maybe because I'm a pilot, it is more real for me to be able to look around.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ftldave]

It's a cost-saving measure by the vendors, sad to say. Companies like Virtavia choose now to omit 2D panels even though many of us prefer flying in that mode. I always try to add a 2D panel if possible, and hesitate to purchase aircraft models without them. Philippe Wallert is another freeware developer who continues to create fine 2D wide panels.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by ftldave
add txt

[ftldave]

Don't think that designing a 2D panel costs a noticable amount of time and/or money.

It's simply not realistic or anymore necessary since the screen resolution is more than acceptable for crisp/readable VC cockpits.

 

Wrong. When I asked Virtavia directly, their answer was "Cost saving in development".

 

Sure, VC have great appearance when well done, but many of us just don't enjoy "flying the camera" views and prefer to focus on the flight instruments.

[ColR1948]

Also (some) VC's I've found are hard to navigate, I see the switch I want but can't easily get to it, after a bit of twiddling with the hat switch I get there.

I had a panel recently and some of the switches were under the top facia and try as I may I couldn't get to them.

As already said above I install a 2D panel on the ones that come without, having said that, not all 2D panels are good, some of them have been poorly done and I end up changing those as well.

[mabe5454]

The only VC I ever saw and didn't make me want a 2d is the Aerosoft early 320/321 series and when you can still use ATC and the flight planner of MSFS. Someone sat and actually play with the planes during design back then.

 

2d makes it easy, just that simple and Aerosoft proved that it can be achieved with a little extra work and imagination.

 

Cheers,

Edited July 28, 2017 by mabe5454

[ColR1948]

My grandson recently bought the A2A Cessna 172 only to find there is no 2D panel, I looked online and found their forum and a guy on there who seems to be a member of staff for A2A said regarding the 'No 2d Panel'

 

"You cannot use the 2D cockpit in FSX as so many sounds are tied to the VC exclusively as part of FSX doing more to phase out the 2D cockpit in favor of 2D panels within the VC."

 

So according to that FSX is trying to phase out 2d panels, or is it because A2A just didn't do one?

 

I forgot to add, when my grandson tried to add a 2D panel it worked except the prop didn't spin, any ideas?

Edited August 1, 2017 by ColR1948

[ftldave]

There's no one named "FSX" phasing out 2D cockpits. That was one vendor's opinion, and it's not true for other vendors' new releases, for example the recent Virtualcol CRJ Series Pack.

[ColR1948]

@ftldave, As I thought, I was thinking of getting the A2A 172 as well but that has put me off, plus any other A2A aircraft, shame really because I believe from what I've read they do good models.

Well I'm sure they will survive without my support lol.

[il88pp]

You had answers.

-noone uses 2D panels,

-many gauges/effects (sounds, prop, other animations) don't work using a 2D panel.

 

You may not like those answers, but that's you "why?" answered.

Also, no such thing as "fsx phasing out anything". Fsx is not evolving.

Addon developers all make different decisions on their products, that's their separate choice.

 

Btw, allow your grandson to have his own account. Let him speak for himself and grow.

Edited August 1, 2017 by il88pp

[ColR1948]

I only mentioned him because of this thread really, as for 2D panels yes I got my answer, I like them and some don't.

[ftldave]

You had answers.

-noone uses 2D panels,

-many gauges/effects (sounds, prop, other animations) don't work using a 2D panel.

 

You may not like those answers, but that's you "why?" answered.

Also, no such thing as "fsx phasing out anything". Fsx is not evolving.

 

Many people continue to use and enjoy 2D panels, including yours truly.

 

New third-party vendor and freeware aircraft, scenery, and utilities for FSX continue to be released, more enough than can be used in a human lifetime, there's so much. That's the ongoing FSX evolution that hobbyists can enjoy for many years to come.

[kingnorris]

An excellent suggestion ColR! I refuse to buy any VC-only aircraft because it's only half a plane to me, and I would buy several of them this weekend (it's pay day today!!) if only they had 2D panels...

 

Don't buy any Ceranado planes. Although personally I like them, (I have two of them), none have 2D panels..

 

I also only fly in VC. Just seems more realistic to me, but to each their own..

[ColR1948]

I do have a few that only have a VC, I put a 2D in those, they work ok.

[tiger1962]

Don't buy any Ceranado planes. Although personally I like them, (I have two of them), none have 2D panels..

 

I also only fly in VC. Just seems more realistic to me, but to each their own..

 

Received and understood KN! I do like to see a really good VC, I don't like planes that don't have them in fact. I've noticed that on my rig after a long flight in the VC my framerates begin to drop drastically, and that if I switch back to 2D view, the framerate returns to normal. I can can still monitor the instruments too of course. It's good to have that option and on longer flights of 2 hours or more I spend more time in 2D view than the VC.

[criticalmass]

You had answers.

-noone uses 2D panels,

-many gauges/effects (sounds, prop, other animations) don't work using a 2D panel.

 

I am fully cognizant that this discussion is old, and inactive now. I'm only here because I was searching, and this page came up. I disagree with the above, for several reasons.

 

Look at this image:

 

Does it look more like one of the sim VC panels, or more like a GA 2D sim panel? Obviously, it looks more like the 2D panels being discussed. And guess what? It's a picture of the panel in the real Piper Comanche 260B I owned.

 

What does that tell us? What it tells me is that 2D sim panels are more realistic than the VC panels, and my speculation is that the simmers who insist that VC panels are more realistic have never sat inside a real cockpit. IMO, VC panels are just eye-candy, nothing more. The information on the instruments on VC panels is so small as to be unreadable and useless for anything but looking pretty. If one wants to be just a passenger, along for the ride, VC panels are OK, but if one wants to be able to actually USE the instruments to get information to fly the airplane, a VC panel doesn't do that.

 

Saying "no one uses 2D panels" is simply false. There are obviously some simmers who do, and those would be the ones who want the information 2D panels provide, and VC panels don't. As a licensed pilot, I happen to be in the former group; I want to be able to fly by the gauges, and do it right. I agree with the others here who say they aren't interested in even buying aircraft that have only VC panels - they're a waste of time and money. Developers who try to cut corners by eliminating 2D panels are clearly targeting gamers, not pilots. So be it - it's their call, but they won't get my money.

 

Oh, and almost forgot - the quote above that "many gauges/effects (sounds, prop, other animations) don't work using a 2D panel" is pure rubbish. I usually fly the Mooney Bravo in p3dv4 since it's the only plane provided with a 2D panel, afaik. And every single one of those listed items works flawlessly - there's nothing that "doesn't work".

Edited December 15, 2017 by criticalmass

[Kenneth Birdsong]

I always fly 2d panel. The other panels don't look good with my set-up. I think a lot of developers should include a 2d panel with their endeavors.

[napamule2]

DP,

You said: 'Developers who try to cut corners by eliminating 2D panels are clearly targeting gamers, not pilots.' I agree 100% with that. But...I am afraid you are not going to have the final word. This debate has been going on for years. The 'VC ONLY' clan laid claim to 'more imerssive' and 'more real'. Then they set realism to hard, and land their 737 at 180 kts...on the nose wheeel! (haha). There is also that 'snob' factor that they rub themselfs with (all over) to content with. It does not 'wash' off. It's like a tattoo, on their forehead, no less. But don't let them get you angry or upset. Not worth it.

Chuck B

Napamule

[MrUnSavory]

I prefer VC and YES I have flown a real aircraft. This is 1 of those dumb subjects like "What is better FS9 or FSX or P3D?" It is all up to what you like. Some like the immersion of the VC and some like the ease of use of the 2d panel.

 

Does it really matter as long as we enjoy the hobby? :)

[bretwizer]

If you are missing the close in views try Chaseplane for setting up custom views within the VC. I never liked 2D panels personally because they are unrealistic for VFR flying but using Chaseplane does make close up views of parts or sections of the panel much easier.

 

Sometimes you have to go with the flow and not getting aircraft because it doesn't have a 2D panel is just limiting your enjoyment of the many enjoyable offerings available. My2cents

[Skywatcher12]

No 2D, no buy or fly plane.

 

I'm no real pilot but I've been in a real aircraft and flown one for a little while. A VC gives you more of an impression of what it's like in a real cockpit visually with things like lighting, seeing a prop spin in front of you, glass etc.

However, to actually operate and fly the aircraft is much more realistic in 2D view imo.

 

These are the differences for me and it's the operational side of flying that is far more important for me. Looking around is also preferable in 2D. Trying to use a hat switch to quickly scan around in VC is just slow, tedious and hard to get yourself back into a straight ahead view that you're happy with. I feel like VC is always about fumbling around with everything while 2D is just about flying.

[il88pp]

There is a shortcut key for lookink straight ahead.

[Skywatcher12]

There is a shortcut key for lookink straight ahead.

 

As far as I know this sets the view to a default VC position which you can't change? If I ever did use a VC I would like to set a position and would like to have a shortcut key to go to my custom position.

 

Anyhow, even if it can be done it's still nowhere near enough to even make me consider using one. Each to their own. Differences of opinion make for good threads.