Virtual Cockpits?

Watch and see how he checks the instruments.

A TrackIR user sits there in the same situation nodding his head saying yes, yes, yes!

Yes sir, that's EXACTLY how it works Real Life vs TrackIR! lol

Do you realize that TrackIR is used by many users to enhance a simulation. It's not used in real cockpits.

You can write lol as often as you like, it doesn't make 2D panels even remotely realistic. No match for a well designed VC in combination with a suitable monitor (and simulator)

Do you realize that TrackIR is used by many users to enhance a simulation. It's not used in real cockpits.

You can write lol as often as you like, it doesn't make 2D panels even remotely realistic. No match for a well designed VC in combination with a suitable monitor (and simulator)

I can only show real life videos, explain how 2D panels and the real life video are connected and TrackIR is not. There is nothing else I can argue with you.

Maybe if they had some AC/DC playing in the cockpit of that video, then the head bopping up and down as with TrackIR would be more realistic?

To enhance "simulation" using TrackIR, maybe best to contact the developer and suggest they include some MP3's with the product???

I'll just stick with my 2D panels, keep my head still and use my eyes to do the same thing as the guy in the vid. I'm happy with that even if I'm not correctly "simulating." lol

I'll just stick with my 2D panels, keep my head still and use my eyes to do the same thing as the guy in the vid.

Show me the part in the video where the pilots are looking at e.g. the overhead panel without moving their heads/bodies.

I didn't find the part where they were lying on their backs on the cockpit floor so they could see the overhead panel the same 'realistic' way you are.

Btw, with the correct/realistic zoom level you don't have to move your head either when you are scanning the instruments and you are looking outside.

Watch and see how he checks the instruments.

That may be true if the instruments are straight ahead (not all are (engine instruments? radios?)), but keep in mind that more goes on in the cockpit than staring at instruments.

Yes sir, that's EXACTLY how it works Real Life vs TrackIR! lol

In a VERY LIMITED scenario that can be true for a brief period. I've watched your clip, and other than at 33:35, where was the pilot looking and where was his head aimed? How about at 27:00? Where were the pilotS (yes plural) looking? The CO-pilot spent a lot of time during the takeoff with his head moving very little (he was the pilot flying, that is physically on the controls), but were you aware that the Captain (the pilot not flying, that is NOT physically on the controls) was looking all around the cockpit during that time, operating switches, setting things up, checking engine instruments and other things that A LONE PILOT would have to do for himself?

Did you notice that when out of the clouds the captain was looking around a lot, outside as well as in, and even the copilot (first officer, if you prefer) looked around some? Flying is a LOT MORE than just looking at an instrument panel.

When I fly, UNLESS I'M IN IMC, I don't use instruments very much. And if you get away from instruments that are straight ahead, then your argument breaks down. How much time have you spent in a real cockpit flying in VMC? In IMC? Even when teaching a student about flying by instruments with a view-limiting device on his head (a hood, as we call it), his head isn't still.

I don't think you even read my post #20, or at least you are ignoring what I said when I talked about having to look elsewhere than the panel, about looking for traffic, with maybe a glance at an instrument or a switch or a knob, then back outside looking for traffic, for aircraft attitude (much better than the attitude indicator) and to help in navigation (yes, compare outside with maps). There are plenty of instances of all that and more in the video.

You're looking for the wrong things. When teaching some students (and even some pilots on a flight review), it sometimes takes a bit of work to get them to look somewhere other than at the gauges, which they don't need, for the most part in VMC. It happened often enough so that I got to putting my coat over the instrument panel, hiding everything, and the student would have to learn to do it that way* before I would solo him. We started with this in the practice area, then my students would have to actually fly the traffic pattern several times with that coat in the way, doing touch and goes and/or full stop/taxi back landings, then takeoffs. You DON'T do that without moving your head a LOT.

Enough. Use "2D" panels? OK, have fun. Not like the VC? OK, that's fine. But don't tell me that 2D is more realistic.

* Even in slow flight, with that coat over the panel, a student soon got to where he could get very close to the speed I specified ("Give me 50 kts. Give me 20º flaps... OK, give me 56 kts."), usually within a couple of knots, just going by the attitude (as determined by looking out the window) and the sound (wind noise, engine noise, prop noise) and the feel of the controls (they get sloppier as you slow down, firmer as you speed up).

Try this in the sim sometime with the 2D, then in the VC at, say, 0.8 zoom.

Bye.

Show me the part in the video where the pilots are looking at e.g. the overhead panel without moving their heads/bodies.

I didn't find the part where they were lying on their backs on the cockpit floor so they could see the overhead panel the same 'realistic' way you are.

 

Btw, with the correct/realistic zoom level you don't have to move your head either when you are scanning the instruments and you are looking outside.

I have explained everything more than once. One final time:

To view the overhead, my eyes and my head are looking/pointed directly at the overhead panel as would be the case in real life.

With TrackIR, your eyes are pointed at your screen while your head goes up.

Please find me a video where a pilot is working the overhead while his head is pointed to the overhead and his eyes are looking out the front of the aircraft.

To achieve a correct zoom level you need independent control of VC and external zoom. FS doesn't have that. You will either have an unrealistic wide view outside and a loss of the confines of a cockpit inside or a tunnel vision VC view inside with accurate view outside depending on what zoom setting you select.

 

Enough. Use "2D" panels? OK, have fun. Not like the VC? OK, that's fine. But don't tell me that 2D is more realistic.

 

I have also given reasons against all your arguments. I haven't ignored anything.

How do you know that 2D is much more realistic since you have apparently never used e.g. FSX, P3D, Aerofly FS2 and DCS?

Where did I say that I have never used those? I said I'd stay with FS9. Stop reading things that aren't there. And quote my whole post. Not bits and pieces that you think might bolster what you think you read.

I hope so. Like Oscar, I use TrackIR. It boosts realism a LOT. Even without TrackIR, I never cared much for the so-called 2D "cockpits" -- really just a picture of a panel.

I'm not sure if these are tongue in cheek comments, but I think so since there are simply no flat panels IRL and you usually don't sit at a 90deg angle in front of the panel, except the Ryan NYP.

 

It's absolutely beyond me how someone can call a VC cheesy and cartoonish. Contrary to 2D panels I've seen a lot of VCs which can't be distinguished from real cockpits.

 

2D panels maybe (still) ok for IFR only trainers without any scenery, but for any other simulation they are real immersion killers. Can't imagine landing any aircraft in an acceptable realistic way with a 2D panel.

 

I'm quite sure that not a single real pilot will agree with your opinion about the stone age 2D panels in a sim.

No flat panels in the real world? Huh? Unless they curved...? Seemed pretty flat when I flew in the little Warrior 2 back in the day. ** headscratch.

ALL VC’s are cartoon like. Haven’t seen a good one yet. The milviz 350 a good emample. The VC like many others - looks like it’s made of play dough.

Just the result of the different format / model thingy for displaying I guess . 2D have much better ability match the real thing visually using photos. edetroits panels being a good example. Just a shame he hates the flightsim world enough to not share them. Sad person.

But remember we are using it on a flat screen. VC Doesn’t translate well unless we had a real hardware instrument panel in front of us sitting inside a virtual bubble screens or visuals. Bubble boy.

The whole planning thingy and ridiculous head movement of VR seems over the top. Hard to say what it’s actually trying to replicate. The head of eyes? Seems to hurt watching it.

I easily find flying in 2D is much more enjoyable and realistic. The 2D snap views take care of any view changes.

No flat panels in the real world? Huh? Unless they curved...? Seemed pretty flat when I flew in the little Warrior 2 back in the day. ** headscratch.

I easily find flying in 2D is much more enjoyable and realistic.

Didn't know that your Warrior panel was a cardboard one without any knobs, that the instruments were flush with the panel, the different items didn't cast any shadows, etc.

There still are apparently some people who find 2D panels more enjoyable, but more realistic? No way.

If you think that Milviz makes the most realistic VCs then you are looking at the wrong add-on companies and/or flightsims.

I really don't understand why some people still claim that VCs are cartoonish etc. while it's already sometimes impossible to distinguish a VC photo from a real cockpit photo.

Didn't see a cartoonish one in this video.

The last time 2D panels where somewhat more realistic than VCs was when the gauge update rate/resolution in the VC was lower than on a 2D panel.

I quit bothering to develop 2d panels nearly a decade ago. Why? Because upon polling my customers I found that precious few ever used them simply because my 3d VCs were too darn good to ignore!

Creating 2d panels and gauges nearly doubled the amount of time needed to complete a project and simply added overhead costs that were not justified by the return.

Some VC's look amazing and yes, others look cartoony awful. As for TrackIR and other VC gear, you may enjoy it but I don't particularly want to have more hardware on my head. My teenage son laughs at me enough already. Headphones are enough, thanks.

If a payware plane doesn't have a 2D panel, with rare exception, I won't buy it. Freeware, there's often ways to add a suitable 2D panel with extra work if one isn't included, sometimes not. All my favorite FSX aircraft have 2D panels, and I fly them that way.

Personally I find the VC experience more akin to "flying a camera" than flying a plane, and for me, it's not enjoyable. Sorry, but much of the time I disable the VC, stop wasting any RAM on them. No disrespect intended to those who work so hard on them, really.

If the new flight simulator doesn't have 2D panel support, I hope at least there will be a better VC user experience than what we've seen before, with easier, less cumbersome view control.

Don't believe all the polls you see, Bill. The popularity of flightsim 2D panels is alive and well.

I found that precious few ever used them simply because my 3d VCs were too darn good to ignore!

From reading 2D panel users points of view, I think this makes zero difference to them.

For myself, a VC can look a million times better than a 2D panel graphically but it would make no difference to me whatsoever. Until I can have independent zoom of VC and outside view with natural looking perspective I'm not interested. Until I can have the ability to as efficiently flick switches or adjust dials as with a 2D panel I absolutely will not touch one.

When it comes to appearance, the best/most visually enjoyable cockpit I've ever seen is a 2D panel. Hold on to your hat folks, it's also from a FS9 freeware developer. Yes, that ancient sim that's no good!

The panel is more enjoyable visually imo than any VC I've seen from even the most recent and/or expensive VC add-on aircraft for any of the more modern sims.

I think the move away from 2D panels by developers was a mistake. While it's possible to say VC's have come on leaps and bounds, well, likely the same thing would be said if people had continued to develop 2D panels. Heck, you might even find VC users switching to 2D! It's certainly happened in the past. There is enough in this post alone to demonstrate why there is nothing to say it could not happen again.

It can't happen if developers are not producing high quality 2D panels.

“If a payware plane doesn't have a 2D panel, with rare exception, I won't buy it.”

Guessing Carenado aircraft are nowhere to be found in your hangar... lol

I think the move away from 2D panels by developers was a mistake. While it's possible to say VC's have come on leaps and bounds, well, likely the same thing would be said if people had continued to develop 2D panels.

I agree. 2D panels fell from grace when 16:1 ratio LED widescreen monitors replaced the old 4:3 ratio CRT screens. All 2D panels are designed to fit a 4:3 ratio screen, and become stretched sideways when viewed on a 16:1 ratio screen. FS Panel Studio has never been updated and still works in 4:3 ratio, so creating a 16:1 ratio panel is mostly a manual task.

I can accept that an entire 16:1 ratio 2D panel is a lot of work, but most 2D pop-up windows in VC-only aircraft are also stretched sideways which seems like laziness to me - all it takes is a slight reduction in the 2D window's screen position width, not a full redesign of the window itself.

All 2D panels are designed to fit a 4:3 ratio screen, and become stretched sideways when viewed on a 16:1 ratio screen.

Maybe more accurate to say that "originally 2D panels WERE designed only to fit 4:3 ratio". Some models, like Philippe Wallaert's, include both 16:1 and 4:3 2D panels (sometimes a VC as well).

Concorde X 2D wide panel

I also prefer 2D panels, with some effort a 2D panel can look quite realistic, here is the 2D panel I have made for my FSX Learjet 35A which I hope to release soon, I used an actual cockpit photo for the background and created all the gauges with exception of the GPS myself.

Looking at the Lear and especially the Concorde 2D panel, the question arises, how do you land with this view without loosing sight of the runway since the cut off angle IRL is usually ~20deg?

CTRL+Q to lower the field of view outside. Like raising the seat in VC view.

CTRL+Q to lower the field of view outside. Like raising the seat in VC view.

Doesn't work for me (in FSX). Ctrq+q doesn't raise the seat in the VC, it rotates the view down and it does nothing in the 2D cockpit (default commands)

Doesn't work for me (in FSX). Ctrq+q doesn't raise the seat in the VC, it rotates the view down and it does nothing in the 2D cockpit (default commands)

OK, maybe a further explanation....hold down both key buttons and watch the movement. It's not just one quick click. (This is 2D cockpit)

VC seat adjust is Shift+enter and Shift+backspace.

...hold down both key buttons and watch the movement. It's not just one quick click. (This is 2D cockpit)

VC seat adjust is Shift+enter and Shift+backspace.

Ah, I see. Thanx :) But when using ctrl-q, not only the viewing angle drops, the whole 2D tilts forward as well!

I never need to adjust the seat height in the VC. If the default POV is too low I adjust it in the cfg file.

The 2D panel forward view can be set in the Panel.cfg [Views] section as follows:

[VIEWS]

VIEW_FORWARD_WINDOWS=OVERHEAD_PANEL,THROTTLE_PANEL,RADIO_STACK_PANEL,GPS_PANEL

VIEW_FORWARD_ZOOM=1.00

VIEW_FORWARD_DIR=13.00, 0.00, 0.00

The zoom percent is the default zoom for the panel, and the direction down angle shows more of the runway when taxiing and on final approach.