real cockpit vs Virtual Cockpit confused

Ok I did some sim stuff last winter and now picking it up again while its cold in the Northeast but I don't understand the cockpit/virtual cockpit selections. Yes I know what it is but when I fly with just cockpit I can see most of the cockpit and its in focus for the most part I can read the gauges and I can still see outside good, So I select the VC and ok I might be able to see some instruments maybe clearer and yes its neat to toggle the button and zoom around the cockpit but as far as flying this way, You only can see some instruments ,you are too far away to see them, and yo cannot see outside so what good is it unless your flying on instruments. Ok I'm a newbie so maybe I'm doing something wrong have it set up wrong not getting it set right? I am using a Vista Dell that is not the best but on the normal cockpit I'm doing fine.So what is the advantage and what am I missing?

 

This is for 2004 and FSX which I have on another older dell and the same thing you cannot see outside or move closer to the panel or adjust it so I'm lost \. there's got to be something I'm missing.

 

Thanks

 

Sterk03

with the VC, the bigger the monitor, the better. 24" is usually fine. set your zoom in the VC cockpit to .5 or so to get the best result. you can also add these lines to the fs9.cfg in the Panels section:

VIRTUAL_COCKPIT_TEXTURES_scale=2.0

what this does is increase the pixel count of the VC instruments so they are clearer and easier to read.

Some people prefer the VC, some the 2D cockpit.

It appears you may be a 2D person. I also much prefer 2D and why anyone would want to use the VC makes no sense to me either. haha

 

Just use the 2D cockpit if that's the one you like.

The virtual cockpit (VC) does allow you to zoom in so that you can read the instruments, and it looks more like a real cockpit than the flat panel that is just locked on the screen in one place. With something like TrackIR you can literally move your head around in the cockpit, rising up, leaning forward, tilting your head, lean sideways, and just generally move around, even looking out and behind or (if available) overhead. It's much more like what you can do in a real aircraft and, among other things, it makes flying the pattern and many other maneuvers much easier, more like the real thing.

 

But even with the hat switch or a mouse it's possible to move your view around the VC somewhat. But, since they also provide what some call the "2D" cockpit, that is, the flat panels, they're available if you prefer to use them. There are folks with preferences each way, so it's personal preference. For me, though, with TrackIR I don't ever use the "2D" version. As you've probably noticed, Mark prefers the "2D" version.

Mark prefers the "2D" version.

 

Yes, because until the day comes that you can set interior and exterior zoom independently, you can't get an accurate real life perspective from the VC. You can only view the world through a camera lens perspective and not that of the human eye.

 

Sorry Larry, VC's suck! I so look forward to the day we agree on something. lol

 

I would've expected a decade and a half on from FSX they would've allowed zoom control in MSFS. Appears the only thing they did and that works in MSFS is the wide angle camera. If I see one more wide angle screenshot...please save me...haha

Skywatcher12. from my experience flying real life, the VC view is much more "true to life" than flying a cutout with gauges. there's no real sense of depth. with VC it's a little better.

Skywatcher12. from my experience flying real life, the VC view is much more "true to life" than flying a cutout with gauges. there's no real sense of depth. with VC it's a little better.

 

I will try at some point post a couple of screens to show the problems related to a VC.

Ok and the next time I get up ill take some photos from my viewpoint and compare with the 2D panel vs VC.

I’ve always preferred 2D. Probably use 80% at least 2D. Maybe when taxing or flying in a circuit I may use the VC but not always.

Most 2D of the photo realistic variety look more real to me. Havnt seen a good VC yet that doesn’t have the plastic play doh feel.

Also a 2D guy, though most of my flight time is spent in spot view. Love to watch the landing gear, flaps, reverse thrust etc. Most of all though i think the scenery overall is great. Is there a wrong answer, i don't think so. Blue skies everyone, and Happy New Year.

I too am a 2D guy. People say VC (3D cockpit) with TrackIR is more real. Well, if you have the time and $, I believe the 2D to be more like the real thing. But what you need to go along with it is hardware-based OH panel, center console, throttles, control column or side stick (depending on what you fly), etc. I can see without all the augmentation hardware how the VC would be tempting. But in flight, I cannot stand having to control anything with a mouse/trackball/keyboard. It just steals so much from the emersion IMHO. I need the feel of tactile switches. But, this is why we have different colors, flavors, etc. in the world.

You can only view the world through a camera lens perspective and not that of the human eye.

Nor can you do that with the "2D" cockpit. That's the nature of the hardware we have. And Joshua is right, and that's part of why I prefer it.

 

VC's suck!

That's your opinion, and is the way that I feel about 2D.

 

I so look forward to the day we agree on something. lol

I'd like that, too.

Hi,

 

IMHO, VCs don't suck if they're well done (obviously). My PSS B757 and FT E175 VCs don't suck, my FS9 PMDG737 VC does suck, because the overhead is mostly flat with textures over it, no 3D buttons... Same for the DF727 VC. But then, most of my dialing and FMC stuff is done on the 2D panel.

 

And I've already mentioned this in another thread, with TrackIR, when set up right, you lean forward (= zoom in the VC panel) but the outside stays the same (=doesn't zoom in)...

 

Regards,

DDP.

Edited January 3, 2021 by DirkDP

And I've already mentioned this in another thread, with TrackIR, when set up right, you lean forward (= zoom in the VC panel) but the outside stays the same (=doesn't zoom in)...

 

That is honestly good but TrackIR sucks though. Lean forward, move head left, move head right, move head down etc etc. The eyes do this IRL. I had a TrackIR headset on once and while my head was bopping around all over the place, felt like Time Warp from Rocky Horror should be playing in the background.

 

We never going to agree on 2D or VC. lol

but TrackIR sucks though.

Just once? It does take a little time to get used to it and learn to use it, and since your head does control what you see on the screen you do have to control your head to be still when you don't want the view to move, but you also have a PAUSE control, which I have assigned to a button on the stick, at which point controls are the same as without TrackIR. Also, note that Dirk says:

TrackIR, when set up right,

meaning that you can adjust how much movement occurs for a given amount of movement of your head, adjusting the curve to suit you.

 

So if you tried it once, briefly, and gave up, then you didn't find out what it's really like. For me, it was awkward at first, but after playing with adjustments and getting used to it, with frequent pauses at first, I got comfortable with it very soon.

 

So it's one thing to say that you didn't like it in your brief trial, but it's something else to say "it sucks" when you didn't give it a chance. That expression seems to indicate that there is actually something wrong with it, rather than being an initial impression. Many of us have enjoyed it and found that it enhances our experience a great deal.

 

I will admit one possible problem with it, and that is that if there is a light source in its view that generates strong infrared (halogen bulb or the sun) then it gets confused, as would ANYTHING depending on infrared, but incandescent lights don't do that, and even halogen isn't a problem if it's not in direct view -- and it is obvious when you bring up the camera view in the control program, since it shows up as an additional bright spot, so you can change it. So that hasn't been a problem.

 

And just as an additional note, I've spent plenty of time in the 2D view, most of it before FS had the VC -- a BIG difference.

 

However, since you don't like the VC and the brief TrackIR experience didn't go well for you, I can see why you might prefer the 2D.

 

'nuff said...

Don't take me too seriously when I say something sucks.

Only thing that really does suck is MSFS! And I believe it to be an understatement! lol

 

I don't think I could ever be sold on TrackIR. Maybe I did need to give it more time, maybe not.

In the end, I'm totally happy with 2D and may you enjoy your VC.

I'll add another $.02 on this discussion. I understand there will always be different preferences, and in no way do I need to bring anyone over to my preference. I admit, I did not spend too much time with Track IR to refine settings etc. My basic bias is VC is a step away from emulating a real life flight deck. Now, to choose the VC for money savings and keeping from the complexity of extensive hardware implementation, I can see that as a possible necessary compromise. But for me, the VC was a temporary compromise until I could, as I see it, get closer to real life. For me, closer to real life is a hardware MCP, throttle quadrant, radio stack, gear handle, etc. using 2D window view and instrumentation screens. For now I have settled for a touch screen for the OH panel as the switches are on/off and can be operated from it. But when I have the funds, a hardware panel with tactile switches will be implemented.

 

Any required use of a mouse or keyboard to tune a radio or flip a switch or having to open up supplementary 2D panels just steals realism and is distracting. It is a stretch to believe the FAA would ever consider certifying a VC option for clocking flight hours. So for me the only choice was to strive to abandon the VC as soon as I could implement hardware.

 

Art

Edited January 3, 2021 by LJ45man

It is a stretch to believe the FAA would ever consider certifying a VC option for clocking flight hours.

FS2004 and FSX are not ever certified by the FAA for any form of clocking flight hours, or in other words, these two sims are never considered as a Flight Training Device for logging time, regardless of what hardware may be attached. So whether they'd consider a VC is a moot point. And in any case, our discussion wasn't related to the FAA, only to our preferences for our personal use.

 

If you are looking for an FTD then you need to get something they've approved, and that's expensive. However there are PCATDs, or PC-based Aviation Training Devices (still somewhat expensive), but by everything I've been able to find out, you still must have an FAA-approved device, not just something you've built at home, no matter how good. An approved device will include an FAA LOA (Letter of Authorization) from the manufacturer.

 

But if you're not looking for logging time, even for currency, then whatever you use is all the same to the FAA, that is, it doesn't matter, they don't care, because it doesn't affect the real world.

 

Advisory Circular: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-136B.pdf has the details.

ok here we go. these are comparison shots of different aircraft from my viewpoint. sadly fs9 doesn't have a great 2D panel representation for these two so I have to make due but the point is the same. so i've added the ifly 737 for a good payware control. the real-world photos are my own (except the 737. I don't fly those yet haha)

 

starting with the C172. this was taken from my exactly where my viewpoint is. seat all the way forward, 6 full turns of the chair height adjuster down from the top.

from the 2D panel

from the VC (not that great of quality)

and the real photo (airport: 29D)

 

for the Piper Cherokee: (I flew right seat on this airplane so I don't have a left seat photo)

from the 2D panel

from the VC

and the real photo

 

now for the 737. on the departure going through clouds in the 2D felt nothing like real life. breaking out I couldn't look up and see them backed by blue sky in the 2D panel. in the VC you have a better sense of speed.

from the 2D panel:

from the VC

the real photo

and the VC from the same angle

 

I don't know if this will help at all, but figured I would SHOW my opinion rather than bicker. this argument is as old as VC's have been around but maybe this will add a little to it.

 

I don't know if this will help at all, but figured I would SHOW my opinion rather than bicker. this argument is as old as VC's have been around but maybe this will add a little to it.

 

I'm not a pilot but have spent 3-4 hours in a real 172 cockpit. I had the opportunity to fly for a couple of hours once we were in the air. Coming from FS, I certainly compared my real life experience to FS in every way including the 2D v VC aspect.

 

From those screens:

 

The outside world has changed as the VC has been zoomed out to show enough of the panel. This is a major issue and even if TrackIR does solve independent interior/exterior zoom, it won't solve perspective. I'll explain below.

 

Once you zoom out on the VC so you can actually see enough of the panel, you give things the wide angle camera lens perspective. This is not the perspective the human eye sees, it's the perspective a wide angle camera lens sees.

Zooming out also then loses the confined view, feel and impression of a real cockpit as a wide angle lens/view gives a false impression of space. It's why wide angle lenses are great for real estate. They fit everything in one shot and it comes with the bonus of making all the rooms look much bigger than they are.

 

In the Cessna and Cherokee shots, the closest representation of "real" from my experience in the real cockpit comes from the 2D panel.

In a real aircraft you are close to the displays, you are confined. The 2D panel views best represent this.

 

Your screens and real photos match but they match only because both the real photos and FS screens use a wide angle perspective. The real photos were taken with a wide angle lens!

If the real photos were taken with a lens showing the same as the human eye would see, the FS screenshots and real photos would NOT match. If you were to match the FS field of view and perspective to be that of the human eye, then you don't get to see enough of the displays. It's totally wrong and there is no way to make it work.

 

Take a look at the 2nd and 3rd pics of the 172 cockpit, you can see the difference in what I am talking about. The FS 172 panel and displays appear much further away than they do in the real photo. In FS the pilot gets some serious leg room! The cockpit confines are suddenly expanded.

The real photo was taken with a moderate wide angle lens so it's not a natural representation of what the pilot would see/experience either, it's just a less severe wide angle perspective to what the FS screenshot is.

The closest representation of cockpit confines, feel, perspective that are closest to what the human eye sees and pilot feels in the real thing is shown with the 2D panel in those three 172 pics.

 

Then there is also the ease of switch operation. I think 2D is far more realistic than the methods of panning and fumbling around trying to activate a VC switch. Often you would also zoom in as well with a VC because the switches are so difficult to operate. It just ain't natural in any way. In a real cockpit it takes a second to flick a switch and you do it with ease. It takes a second to do it from a 2D panel and you do it with ease.

 

I regard the VC as the arcade/gaming view. It's what you expect in a game. You get to see the cockpit but you do it through the eyes of a camera lens. For closer to mimicking reality, then that's the 2D view.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Skywatcher12

I'm not a pilot but have spent 3-4 hours in a real 172 cockpit. I had the opportunity to fly for a couple of hours once we were in the air. Coming from FS, I certainly compared my real life experience to FS in every way including the 2D v VC aspect.

I AM a pilot and I've spent thousands of hours in a variety of real cockpits (about 60 different aircraft types), often for hours at a time. Coming from real world flying I certainly compared my FS experience to my real life experience in every way, including the 2D and VC aspects.

 

Your screens and real photos match but they match only because both the real photos and FS screens use a wide angle perspective. The real photos were taken with a wide angle lens!

If the real photos were taken with a lens showing the same as the human eye would see, the FS screenshots and real photos would NOT match. If you were to match the FS field of view and perspective to be that of the human eye, then you don't get to see enough of the displays.

True, as far as it goes, but the real problem is that the nature of the computer screen (or even of a normal camera) is such that there is no possible way to match the peripheral vision of the human eye, which is what allows you to see such a wide view in the real world, short of having a wrap-around screen arrangement.

 

The closest representation of cockpit confines, feel, perspective that are closest to what the human eye sees and pilot feels in the real thing is shown with the 2D panel in those three 172 pics.

For a still shot, and with a carefully selected view above the 2D panel, that statement is true, but the moment that you change the zoom level and/or look somewhere other than straight ahead, that truth disappears (I rarely look straight ahead for more than a second or so at a time), and it is (to my perception, and that of many others) worse than the distortion inherent in the VC -- again, the peripheral vision of the human eye cannot be matched on a typical computer screen, regardless of the "tricks" one may use.

 

Once you zoom out on the VC so you can actually see enough of the panel, you give things the wide angle camera lens perspective. This is not the perspective the human eye sees, it's the perspective a wide angle camera lens sees.

While true, up to a point, the use of TrackIR or similar pretty much negates that problem. Note, too, that in a real cockpit you don't actually see all that much of the panel (except peripherally) without moving head and/or eyes, which is done automatically (TrackIR soon becomes that automatic).

 

So, because of all the above, we really have to choose which version of distortion we will live with best, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on what works best. For me (and I'm sure for many others) it's what seems (to me) to give the best "suspension of disbelief" (or "pretend it's real") while flying from the cockpit as we choose to set it up.

 

I regard the VC as the arcade/gaming view. It's what you expect in a game. You get to see the cockpit but you do it through the eyes of a camera lens. For closer to mimicking reality, then that's the 2D view.

 

I regard the 2D view as the arcade/gaming view. It's what you expect in a game. You get to see the cockpit but you do it through the eyes of a pair of camera lenses, one fixed on the panel, the other (above it) swiveling around at times, and at different zoom levels, thus giving two separate views (it'd be better with the panel on a separate monitor below the viewing screen, IMO). For closer to mimicking reality, then that's the VC view.

 

Then there is also the ease of switch operation.

Yes, which is part of why I'm so happy with my Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, since I have almost everything (including view switching for when I have TrackIR paused) set up as a switch or axis on the stick or throttle, thus being able to operate the control in a moment, usually without looking, thus improving my "suspension of disbelief."

 

So for both of us, it's a long-winded perspective on why we prefer what we prefer, and maybe it'll help someone make a choice sometime.

 

Have fun.

So for both of us, it's a long-winded perspective on why we prefer what we prefer, and maybe it'll help someone make a choice sometime.

 

Well heck...I agree with you! lol

 

May others choose what is best for them.

 

Oh, totally agree about mapping as many controls to whatever one uses as a flight controller. I do the same as yourself with the X-52.

Hi,

 

About wide angles, zoom, viewpoints etc., here a good read.

http://www.calclassic.com/sci_tutorial/index.html

 

At the bottom there's a method to calculate the correct zoom for wide screens.

 

DDP.

What airplane mod is that on the last picture you've shown. I know it's 737, but is that ifly or?

FS2004 and FSX are not ever certified by the FAA for any form of clocking flight hours, or in other words, these two sims are never considered as a Flight Training Device for logging time, regardless of what hardware may be attached. So whether they'd consider a VC is a moot point. And in any case, our discussion wasn't related to the FAA, only to our preferences for our personal use.

 

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-136B.pdf has the details.

 

I am certainly aware that FSX etc. is not FAA certified. I am sharing an opinion that VC without tactile switches is much farther from real life than implementing 2D instrument panel and hardware (throttle quadrant, OH panel, control column/stick, AP panel, gear lever etc.). Further, that I see the VC to be a stepping stone until funds are available for a more realistic implementation. This is why I have hundreds of hours invested in my home flight deck. It is a hobby and I certainly do not strive for FAA certification, but after reading your quoted document, it comes a far cry closer to gaining certification than a VC. Your opinion may differ.

 

(FWIW I am actually now a P3D user, just surfing outside my native simulator forum).

Edited January 10, 2021 by LJ45man