|
Post by acourt on Feb 24, 2010 7:59:23 GMT -5
I've been a 2D holdout since the beginning, but now people are making some wonderful aircraft available without a 2D cockpit. Looks like I've been left in the technological dust again (I didn't even know the difference between a DVD and Blueray until a few months ago). So tell me, what special setup does one use to make effective use of a virtual cockpit? I've read a little about things like TrackIR, but I'd like to hear from some users how they make the VC work. I hate having to use a hat switch to slew the view around, especially during approach and landing when my head is almost constantly on a swivel ("runway...gear down...other traffic...runway...gear down...other traffic...runway..."). Al
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Feb 24, 2010 10:29:56 GMT -5
Personally, I'm trying to make 2D panels (and this has made me eye FS Panel Studio) to make my very own easily usable 2D panels for some great planes that were borne without for a debatable choice of the coders, like the FIAT G18V or the G12.
It's not an easy road, nor it's the faster, but it's the cheaper. When I'll be done (not anytime soon, I'm afraid, as RL keeps interfering, demanding higher priorities) I MIGHT put said panels on the freeware circle (assuming the planes' authors don't get righteously offended at my actions).
Till then... hopefully someone else with more free time than me will have the same idea and beat me on time...
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Feb 24, 2010 11:38:42 GMT -5
Hi, those are 2 great models and it's a real shame they don't have 2D panels. In the Simouthouse thread when they were originally posted there were to be some other versions of the G-12 and perhaps if they happen Stefan might produce a panel as well! Live in hope anyway ! I 'm going to take a look at Panel Studio as well! Andy.
|
|
|
Post by doylebob on Feb 24, 2010 11:38:43 GMT -5
You might want to try moving the eyepoint backwards a few positions [CTRL+ENTER]. It gives you more of an overview of the entire panel.
|
|
|
Post by brownshoe on Feb 24, 2010 12:16:31 GMT -5
I fly almost exclusively in the VC mode if the aircraft has a good one. Especially on takeoff and landing, I find it more realistic.
One thing I do that really really helps is zooming out to .75. It takes a little getting used to, but it allows you a broader view. Some great freeware models I have (Bill Lyons) say right in the documentation that they're designed to be flown this way.
Another thing you can do is try fiddling with the "viewpoint" values in the aircraft.cfg and adjust them until the default view is something more comfortable for you. Also remember that the spacebar will quickly reset your view to the default, if you need to look forward again quickly.
You can also change the pan rate in the main FS config file. I think the default is ridiculously slow. Bill Lyons recommends 90, which works pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Feb 24, 2010 12:52:02 GMT -5
VC or 2D is almost the FS version of Ford vs Chevy or high wing vs low wing. I don't think there is but one right answer. Looking at how much work is required to make a good panel these days it is understandable in my opinion for the developer to pick one and do it right. And the trend is toward the VC.
Personally an airplane has to be really really special for me to even download it if it doesn't have a VC since that is closer to the real thing than a flat panel. Again just my take on it.
I have tried TrackIR on a buddies system and did not like it as much as I thought I might. Maybe because I got too much involuntary panning. But then that system was set up for the way he flies and not me.
I have adjusted the pan rate with the hat switch to suit my needs because as mentioned the default one is too slow. I have also used Saiteks Control Manager to program the hat switch in Mode3 to give me basically what you get using the NumPad keys...without the panning. This is for the quick look left and right and a direct return to a centered view out front.
In the end the FS setup will of course never be as natural as in the real airplane where you move forward and backward and left and right both with your entire head or just a flick of the Mark 1 eyeballs.
Play around a little in the VC, zoomed back to 075 or 0.65 to get a more panoramic view in a slow flier and get used to it that way.
Stefan
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 24, 2010 16:18:43 GMT -5
While zooming out to a smaller zoom value is a common way to handle this, FSAviator discourages this since you are changing the perspective out the window. If you are using this for "real" flight training this is an especially bad idea, since it would warp your senses vs when you fly a real plane.
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by brownshoe on Feb 24, 2010 18:58:36 GMT -5
1.0 zoom in flight sim is designed to give you 8 views covering 360 degrees. That means that you have about a 45-degree field of view at 1.0.
I fly with Night Vision Goggles on a regular basis, which offer about that same field of view. It takes quite a bit of getting used to, since many of the cues used to maneuver an aircraft are peripheral and these are lost completely. You have to compensate, partially, by keeping your head moving and deliberately avoiding fixation on one angle. The other compensation is to view flight on goggles as flight primarily on instruments (which are seen by looking under the goggles).
For me, flying in flight sim with a .75 zoom allows me to get some of those peripheral cues back.
I think flight sim shouldn't be used for the "visual" aspect of any kind of flight training, since this is where its inherent weaknesses are most apparent. It's very useful for learning navigation and instrument procedures, though, as well as getting a feel for the general flow and process of flying an aircraft. The "sight pictures" are the easiest part to learn anyway.
|
|
|
Post by coenraad on Feb 24, 2010 19:45:55 GMT -5
I fly allways in the VC, if it has no VC i won't fly it. On the Connies (both L749 and L1049) I move back a bit and zoom out to 0.40. Works really great for me
|
|
|
Post by stansdds on Feb 25, 2010 6:07:46 GMT -5
Ever since I bought a TrackIR 3 Pro with the Vector Expansion (allows movement fore, aft, up, down, left and right) I have flown exclusively from the virtual cockpit. I will not even bother downloading an aircraft that does not have a nice virtual cockpit. Flying straight and level is fine for 2D, but while in the landing pattern or taxiing I find the freedom to look around by simply moving my head helps tremendously. Once you become accustomed to Track IR and the VC, you won't go back to 2D.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Feb 25, 2010 9:12:32 GMT -5
Fact remains that, may we like one or another, it SHOULD be a good idea to have a choice. I do not condemn those who decide to use only the WC VC ;D but sometimes I really am annoyed at what remain the debatable choice to make a sparking VC and then be derelict on a simpler ( in kind) 2D panel. Not everyone can afford a TrackIR, and I personally get WAY too much annoyed at having to use the joy's hat switch to search for the right switch on the panel... one that the coder put there, far away from the default flying position, because on the real plane is there ( one simple example among all, the cowl flaps on the default DC3)... conveniently forgetting perhaps that there's not a single pilot flying that kind of planes ( the Connies are a refreshing new trend, where, with the right positioning even I can use the VC without going berserk, but they're like an oasis in the Gobi's desert, far and few in between). Is it too much to ask to be able to choose how to fly?
|
|
|
Post by Defender on Feb 25, 2010 12:08:22 GMT -5
I for one always preferred the more accurate detail of 2D until Manfred's VC panels came along and of course we now have improved DC6/7 VC's as well.
2D is always out of necessity a massive distortion , with or without zoom because all the dials have to be squeezed in to such a limited area. I found it caused a lot of eye strain, nor can I see what place zoom out has with 2D.
With Manfred's Connie VC, we've set up the default view so as to get just the essential instruments visible but even then it still puts your eyepoint quite a bit behind the pilot's seat. But as Stefan says, it just takes a quick shift to say 0.75 zoom out to get the whole panel and throttle pedestal visible when, and only when, you need it, which should never be on take off or landing. If you want a wider VC panel view for take off etc, use the Ctrl+Enter keys instead. It has no effect on the outside view.
So I just hope that future designers will follow Manfred's example and be willing to devote a little more time to creating attractive VC cockpits.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Feb 25, 2010 16:53:15 GMT -5
Hi, I guess if you have the right size screen and resolution, a good VC is well worth having, but on an elderly computer which squeaks if I bring the GPS up in a Window, I find a 2D panel much easier to use..Rick Piper's Dove springs to mind. Stunning. And, of course John White's Connie which is still the benchmark. The VCs in the CalClassic planes are great, as are Manfred and the Team's Connie versions. So.. what am I saying? We need both 2D and VC and that makes FS9 just about perfect. What I cannot get used to is the blank screen if the 2D or VC is missing and so Douglas Dawson's View Skip gauge has to be one of the most useful add-ons. Thank you Mr Dawson The problem to my way of thinking is the amount of movement that has to be done in a VC to see the instruments and all the zooming in and out, whereas in the 2D view it's all there with just a eye swivel, as it would be in a real cockpit. I always land ( or to be slightly more accurate, hit the ground) in the 2D view. Andy.
|
|
|
Post by mjahn on Feb 26, 2010 11:31:49 GMT -5
... Rick Piper's Derek Palmer's Dove springs to mind ... just trying whether I can still post after a virus attack that shot XP to pieces. On W7 now, no FS yet, no gmax either...
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 26, 2010 12:17:18 GMT -5
So sorry to hear that Manfred - hope you get things back to normal soon. I went through that about 6 months ago and it wasn't fun at all. Also hope you had all your GMAX models backed up. I'm still not sure I have some of the "newest of my old files", but they would have had only very minor changes. Luckily I was able to back up the very latest files.
Take care,
|
|