Why did virtual cockpits not gain widespread traction until after fs9?

While I have a vague understanding that a VC is built into a single model in fs9, unlike in fsx where they are two separate entities, I am curious as to why so many addon designers both early on and now, have chosen to not include even simple virtual cockpits for their fs9 addons? This comes from an observation of mine in that outside of payware products, many airliners and even smaller non commercial aviation addons have no virtual cockpits for their fs9 versions. Was there something which made VC inclusion in fs9 more problematic than in fsx? Or was more or less down to a personal preference? I ask as I have always been stunned by how relatively few fs9 addon designers chose to include even a basic VC like the ones found in all of the stock aircraft, which fs9 comes with, (737-400, 747-400, etc.).

 

Also, I am equally curious as to what the actual process of placing a VC into an fs9 aircraft is like, as I am interested in understanding what makes this process so different from that of the ones used by FSX addon designers.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Tristar35

Well, as I recall, there were several reasons why VCs were a pain to include in any aircraft.

By the time FS98 and FS2K rolled out, you could find how to design one in the SDK. There were more limitations back then, you had to use very simple gauges and you didn't want to include too many unless you wanted to see your frame rate plummet. Most VCs at that time were more of a novelty, a kind of demonstration of what was possible. The coding was also VERY complicated, so only the true die-hard designers would try it -folks like Bill Lyons and Dennis Simanaitis would goof around with adding them but the VCs were, again, more of an oddity.

 

FS2002 and FS2004 were more suited to virtual cockpits, the default aircraft included VCs. That didn't make adding them to a freeware project any easier, though. A lot of this is due to how the sim displays .MDL files (convex and concave parts) and how you define which parts are visible. The programs the freeware designers used took some time to catch up, so a lot of this stuff came down to trial and error.

 

So, the short answer to the question is that they were complicated. Very, VERY complicated. :rolleyes:

The other reason is that the original SDK tools for FS2002 and FS2004 did not include this capability without command line processing (a pain). It took our community to create the GUI utilities to make this convenient, and that took time

So, the short answer to the question is that they were complicated. Very, VERY complicated. :rolleyes:

Indeed - I heard from one developer that the work-load was as great as the building of the aircraft itself. Some of the developers of free products out there preferred to move onto their next work, their true love, and you certainly can't fault that when they are offering their work for nothing.

 

The situation for commercial products is different of course. Purchasers are entitled to have expectations.

 

John

Few planes have given me this feeling of 'being there' as Milton Shupe's Dash-7 VC

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by piet06273
pic incorrect

The other reason is that the original SDK tools for FS2002 and FS2004 did not include this capability without command line processing (a pain). It took our community to create the GUI utilities to make this convenient, and that took time

 

 

I was hoping you'd jump on this one. :D

I started out helping folks understand what was going on in the Apollo Aircraft Factory manual, which was translated from technical German to English. :rolleyes:

Eventually, I found FFDS and Paul wanted me to be the "jack of all trades" guy but I had the most fun brainstorming what was going on inside the .air file with Sam Chin.

 

 

"Glue? What the #### is glue??" :confused:

I incorporated VC's into a few (small) aircraft I designed using FSDS … the work was no more or less complicated than the rest of the model, as I remember, but getting the panel to "behave" in an acceptable manner was a whole different ball-game. Some gauges were simply too unreliable to be useful, consequently I had to look around for (or design) something else, then incorporate that into the main 2D cockpit instead of the (preferred) original. In many cases the effort just didn't seem to be worthwhile!

I think the VC's are the best part of a plane! :pilot:

 

Chrristopher Tarana

I think the VC's are the best part of a plane! :pilot:

 

Chrristopher Tarana

 

I think the walk up drinks bar is the best part but each their own. :p

My personal experience is that VC panels require too much zooming out in order to be fully useable. Unfortunably this also very negatively influences the outside scenery in the same way, making realistic flying difficult to achieve.

 

Regards

 

Hans

My personal experience is that VC panels require too much zooming out in order to be fully useable.

 

Well, I've been doing it since VCs became available, so I have to disagree with that statement. However, it IS true that you have a bit different perspective on things in a VC than in the "2D" type and for some people that's awkward to get used to. My experience with them was improved immensely (so were external views) when I got a TrackIR, though, where you can lean forward, back, sideways, tilt your head, even stretch up and down a bit, allowing you to have a more realistic perspective, but the VC was (to me) still preferable to the so-called 2D cockpit even before TrackIR. And being able to lean forward to see a gauge better, lean forward and look out the side to see under a high wing, lean back and see the runway numbers reach the 45º point and much more make the TrackIR invaluable, to me, and the VC invaluable, to me.

 

Maybe it's the years I've spent in real cockpits (many different kinds), or maybe it's a difference in our world view and mental adaptability for this kind of operation, but the "2D" views are way too limiting in way too many ways.

Edited July 8, 2022 by lnuss

Well, I've been doing it since VCs became available, so I have to disagree with that statement. However, it IS true that you have a bit different perspective on things in a VC than in the "2D" type and for some people that's awkward to get used to. My experience with them was improved immensely (so were external views) when I got a TrackIR, though ...

 

The awkward "zooming" and constant "camera flying" always caused me more problems than delight with VCs. And I do feel somewhat guilty as I always disable VCs on the aircraft I use, apologies to all those who put so much work into them. But, my preference. As for TrackIR and similar tech - I have a teenage son, and I won't submit myself to the ridicule and humiliation of wearing gear like that on my head when I flightsim. :p

The awkward "zooming" and constant "camera flying" always caused me more problems than delight with VCs. And I do feel somewhat guilty as I always disable VCs on the aircraft I use, apologies to all those who put so much work into them. But, my preference. As for TrackIR and similar tech - I have a teenage son, and I won't submit myself to the ridicule and humiliation of wearing gear like that on my head when I flightsim. :p

 

Agree. I prefer 2D as for the most part, panels look better. More photorealistic as opposed to a graphic artwork display. Feels kinda plastic.

And as in a real panel, you don't need much head movement, its all eye scan. We almost do a 'snap view' in real life, a quick head movement and eyes lock on the new view in an instant. Like a 2D view change. I don't feel it's any less realistic with a 2D panel.

 

Especially on my monitor on my desktop with my 2 cats walking all over the keyboard putting flaps and gear down at cruise altitude messing up my VA points. :D

I used to fly 2D only starting in FS2004, then I went VC and never looked back because I wanted the immersiveness and the "as real as it gets" perception. It also makes it easier to look out my left or right windows. Especially while taxiing. Perhaps the greatest VC I had used in FS204 was the awesome PMDG 737NG. I flew that sucker everywhere! Even to Hawaii and New Zealand island hopping along the way.

 

The Lear 45, Challenger and Cessna Caravan amphibian were all flown VC. Now-a-days you can do this with virtual reality that I have yet to try.

I have a teenage son, and I won't submit myself to the ridicule and humiliation of wearing gear like that on my head when I flightsim.

Wow! Ridicule and humiliation? I'm sorry you feel that way. I've shared that with my teenage grandson, ever since he was little, and never even considered that kind of reaction. A small reflector and glasses or a hat to clip it to is all there is.

 

Well, each to his own.

Just look at some of the early VCs - low res, little to no texturing, limited interaction, some didn't even have working gauges....

 

One of my favorite aircraft is the ancient SimTech Staggerwing; nice model, nice handling, nice 2D panel, nice sounds, absolutely horrible VC. Toggle switches look like hammer handles sticking out of the panel, no textures, just plain colors. (It has not been replaced because the only other Staggerwings, to my knowledge, are a payware for FSX and an even older FS9 version with no VC at all.)

 

It took a while for designers to get the knack of decent VCs (which weren't resource hogs). But I still prefer a 2D panel for most flying, especially when landing, and use the VC for sightseeing.

Edited July 12, 2022 by jgf