VCs and hat switches etc.

[vhbob]

G'Day All

I started this thread as I figured I had got a bit off topic in Eric's "Fab FIATs" post. While I understand that there is no right or wrong in the VC or not to VC discussion, I don't understand the problem with using the hat switch to pan around to the various views. Surely this is the way we see our world in real life, not in a series of preset views. Considering the quality of the models available to us, operating controls and reading gagues should not be a problem in the VC. After reading Al's question in the forum, I took the Convair 240 for a couple of circuits of Bremerton National using only the 2D cockpit and found it hard to follow runway and taxiway center lines, find runway turnoffs and to judge turning points in the circuit. In short, I made a mess of it. Please don't take this as a criticism of 2D flyers, I just hope that the devellopers continue to spend the countless hours needed to provide us with both.


Thanks, Trev. (vhbob)

[robertorizzo]

Absolutely.
I've been a 2D only user from FS 5.1 about eighteen years ago, sometimes i even asked myself what 3D panels were made for. And, i must say, old time 3D were quite ugly.
Two months ago I bought the trackIR device, quizzed about how it could work for me.

Since that day I can't even think to fly without it and, before installing a new plane i carefully have a look to its vc as now it has become a must have.

Times they are changing.

[stansdds]

That's the thing, once you try TrackIR, you will never fly from a 2D cockpit again.

Back in the days of hat switches or keyboard commands being the only way to change a view, 2D ruled the sim world. As 3D cockpits went from being ugly, static instrument filled images to detailed, fully functional features, the 3D cockpit, even with a hat switch, became a usable feature. With TrackIR, especially when using its 6DOF feature, the 3D cockpit reigns supreme.

In short, if I were limited to a joystick that had only a 4-way view switch, then I'd stick with the 2D views, a hat switch makes 3D usable, TrackIR eliminates any advantage of a 2D cockpit.

[ashaman]

VC's are made for VFR, and IFR landings.

NOTHING is better than a 2D panel for IFR though, to keep tabs of flight variables.

This is what I always thought, and passing fads will nor make me change my mind.

[capflyer]

In real life, many pilots lower their seats during IMC operations to keep from getting distracted by the outside changing visibility unless they are on approach (and even then, if they've got a copilot, they use them to look outside for the runway while they fly the procedure). This is because it's much easier to look at the important parts of the panel from that position than having to look down under the glareshield. I know in the DC-10 when sitting in the seat with it properly adjusted, you can't see the panel at all without looking *WAY* down. All you see is the top of the glareshield. Great for VFR flying, but this is a transport category airplane and thus much harder to IFR without moving your seat.

[HvyEng]

Howdy Ya'll

I'm a huge VC fan, there is an extremely short list of aircraft that I will fly in FS without a VC, but I also like the SAVI method (more on that shortly). As far as the DC-10 Field-of-view goes, the ratio is about 60-40 panel/windscreen and the bottom row is way down there, but after 4500 hours in a KC-10 the ONLY time I ever saw a pilot adjust his/her seat away from the alignment marks was during receiver A/R (air-refueling) when the tanker literally becomes your horizon. This actually brings me to my point: all modern jets that I know of have alignment marks or devices to make sure your field of vision is properly positioned, the DC/KC-10 used a combination of glaresheild alignment marks and a “pullstring” (DC-10 only) to set the position, and reference numbers on the seat to get it right every time. In the heavy world, there is really only one type of flying, IFR; regardless of the weather conditions your primary method of ensuring aircraft positioning is the instruments. This is where the SAVI method comes in. For a great explanation, check out this website and then come back.
saviapproach.tripod.com/
This is a method that when used appropriately, changes VFR/IFR to a set of conditional criteria as opposed to a piloting method. I have flown with pilots that used it, and ones that didn’t, and almost to a T the ones that used it were, in my opinion, more situationaly aware and relaxed (voice tonal quality, body positioning, etc) during the approach. The real challenge with SAVI is not the skillset but rather the school of thought about training methodology.
As flight simmers, the SAVI method fits us perfectly, as the removal of tactile and wide-field-of-view input instantly converts your “windscreen” to the VI, with the only real difference between the 3D-VC and 2D panel being your scan preferences. I don’t mind using pan to scan, and actually use it to keep my scan organized, so the VC is the preferred method. I can also see the point of view of a full scan requiring no key input, as with the 2D panel. I do not have trak-IR yet, but I would like to try it out soon.

--Dan

[Tom/CalClassic]

Note that the picture on that SAVI web page is a guy leaning out the cockpit window of a United CV-340.

[ashaman]

Well.. for the second time this week I am stumped... as I realize I've always used, guided by instinct I guess, a sort of subset of the SAVI system... this is why I say that VC CAN be useful maybe in landing, if well done and thought over. In fact, if the VC is rather poorly done and assembled without a thought to ergonomic needs, better stick with the 2D all the way, in IFR flights.

[sunny9850]

I guess my CFI-I was even better than I had already thought. While he never called it SAVI this is basically how he instructed me to fly from the beginning and since this is also how I had already used FS for many years on my own it came very natural.

In fact the few flights I did fly with a check CFI that insisted on the first one and then the other approach method I found it very unsuitable for a single pilot IFR scenario.

If the VC has the required instruments I do not see any advantage what so ever to using the 2D. I am talking of the 3D cockpits in Tom's Douglas series and our Connie as examples but there are thankfully many other airplanes out today that are at least that good or maybe even a tad bit better.

I do not see where the 2D in these cases would give any advantage ... no matter if it is VFR or IFR flight rules that are applied. After all the landing unless it is a CAT III ILS is always VFR.

Stefan

[ashaman]

The Connies of this site are quite the exception to the rule, I admit freely, and so are the Douglas, Convair (and Martins too I guess, though those I have yet to use), and quite enjoyable in the VC too... problem is that they are THE EXCEPTION to a very generalized, unwritten rule.

A rule that want the VC's gauges being less fluid too... and to avoid falling under this sub-rule, you have to use those few planes coded so they can circumnavigate around this rule (at this moment only the Christen Eagle I can remember, only plane that hasn't a 2D panel and using which I don't really feel the need of one... it helps that it's a VFR oriented plane) or... horror of horrors... adopt that game of airplanes called FSX... a thing that no self respecting user of a simulator would do. ;D

I call them exceptions because even famous payware fall short about this simple need to have a complete set of the most used gauges always available on screen without needing to become the above quoted stoned cameraman. This is mostly forgivable is we speak of VFR oriented planes, but very reproachable if said plane's main use is IFR.

[sunny9850]

It might help to give an example or two of an airplane that you think does not have the required instrumentation in easy view...without being too harsh if possible.

Or maybe point out which gauges you consider essential to be in view at all times. Who knows maybe the next developer might put it into consideration.

I can't think of any recent AC that did not have the instruments that the FAA considers IFR requirements in easy view....unless it was old enough to not have them in the first place or not in the form we are now used to.

Stefan

[ashaman]

We're speaking about simulated planes here, and FAA, or whoever else, has yet to give indications about them. Yet, I believe that the best example you ask for is the very same Constellations one can find hereabout. No more no less.

Big and easily readable main gauges that you can find using your eyes and not the hat-switch-plus-zoom, easy to find switches that are positioned in a similar fashion to the 2D panel that don't force you to curse while trying with the mouse to find the hot spot, and easily accessible AP (if available).

In fact, the only reason I stay more in the 2D panel than in the VC when flying the old Lockheeds is only a matter of habit.

But speaking of other planes, real problems are borne not with planes with switches on the front panel, which are substantially easy to find and activate in a VC like in a 2D panel... though there are some exceptions, like when the coder puts a switch behind a non removable yoke... which is one of the smartest choices ever, fully deserving a Darwin Award, that forces you to either fully pull the yoke to yourself in flight (with easily understandable consequences), to return to the 2D panel, or to completely forget about said switches.

The real problems start with those planes that have a fully working overhead panel with dozens, if not hundreds, of switches to use not only for ground maneuvers (like starting the engines) but even and above all in flight...

I challenge ANYONE that use a plane like that to say without lying that they use the VC's overhead panel without helping themselves with the SHIFT+NUMBER to call upon the 2D overhead, or another cheat that puts your VC POV straight into the overhead panel... or obviously the TrackIR gizmo, especially in tight moments like when landing.

I have said this before and I will repeat it until it's understood: I am not against VC per se, as I am quite the VC fan myself in VFR planes, I am only weary of the scarce usability of the greater majority of them (and, I wish to stress this, among those the calcassics planes are NOT numbered), built to replicate the real deal up to 99%, but without an eye to the ergonomics of a simulator. Those I find a sometimes beautiful graphical exercise with no real usability that only sap away resources to the CPU and fully deserving of the complete removal with an Hex editor (at least when installed on my FS).

Or, I remain weary of those planes where the VC was thought as ornamental, and with no real use beside graphical... though those planes are largely old ones and throwbacks from the days of FS2002.

Don't ask me please which planes have those kind of VC I hate, as, beside them being easy to find, it's a while I don't fly them anymore and would have to make a time-consuming research on the matter to answer you.

[Tom/CalClassic]

Note that FSAviator says that a good VC design includes popup 2D windows for things needed often.

[ashaman]

It defeats the purpose of a VC to have to use a 2D pop-up subpanel, IMO. If you really must, then better stick with the 2D panel...

Then again... whatever floats your wings... and mine too. This is what I like; the possibility to freely choose. You like to use only the VC? Be my guest. You like to use only the 2D panel? Who am I to tell you to do differently...

...I like to use one in VFR (VC) and the other for IFR (2D)... and who can tell me not to?

...here we go what I don't like... do you want to know who WANTS to tell me not to choose what I like? Those that decide that VC is the best for everything indiscriminately and make a plane "forgetting" to put a 2D panel...

Seen the effort needed to make a VC... not to make a 2D panel means the coder DIDN'T WANT to put one in, not that it required too much work (and in fact it usually goes the other way around).

The freedom of one person SHOULD stop where it it compromises the freedom of another person, but sadly, like I wrote before, life seldom is even only fair, so I'm going to do something about it, even if maybe only for myself.

[capflyer]

May 14, 2010 11:09:16 GMT -5 HvyEng said:

As far as the DC-10 Field-of-view goes, the ratio is about 60-40 panel/windscreen and the bottom row is way down there, but after 4500 hours in a KC-10 the ONLY time I ever saw a pilot adjust his/her seat away from the alignment marks was during receiver A/R (air-refueling) when the tanker literally becomes your horizon.

Dan,

Here is a pic I took at eye level with the seat moved back slightly to compensate for the camera lens to make it as close to the "eyeball view" as I could from a DC-10 cockpit for the never-completed SGA DC-10 VC. All I see here is the top of the glareshield. I had to make a conscious and deliberate movement down to see any of the instruments.



I didn't see any of the marks that you reference, but I set the seat to what was (for me at 6'1") a comfortable location to reach the yoke and the throttles. Are they on the above picture or one of the following (*wide-angle view is of an MD-11 cockpit)? Sorry for some of these being kinda blurry, they were taken with a very old digital camera in less-than-ideal lighting. I didn't realize they were so bad until I'd gotten home.







I'm really interested in knowing if what I was seeing and where I was positioned was incorrect because the position was the same as where I was when flying the United 777 sim and their 747-200 sim and isn't much different in the end from where I put my seat when flying the various light planes I've flown.