To each his own! The eye candy of VCs are just not that imporatnt to some, not to mention the extra work and research that needs to be put into its making. Some people don't have access to the resources that others have. Others have no talent for making xml gauges. If you want to design an aircraft that is AI friendy, then why would it need a VC? I am not putting you down for enjoying those vehicles which have a VC. All I am saying is be a little more tolerent to those who deside to forgo the VC.... they probably have their reasons. Be appreciative of what they share. It has been what has made this community so strong and lasting.

Lou

I believe that most online games (I'm thinking Warbirds and AcesHigh) have ONLY a VC and not a 2D panel.  LIke it or not, the flightsimmers are " demanding"  a VC and the minimum, a DVC most of the time.

It IS time consuming and a challenge to learn it.  If a "1% accurate"  VC is demanded, that's even more of a challenge to get right.

I think that most simmers would enjoy at least a rudimentary DVC than not at all.

However, to each his own ... each model builder has to make his own decision...

Everything one needs to do the animating and the Virtual Cockpit are contained in the FSDS studio suite.  I didn't buy anything special though I did have a bugger of a time learning some aspects of their use.  (I emailed Chuck Dome about 50 times to ask questions) I still haven't animated a connected hand and arm to a flight stick controller though I have made the stick and the pedals work.

As for having access to what the actual panels for these planes look like, if you have Internet access you have the same ability that I do to find a picture of any particular cockpit.  Super secret aircraft may not have publicized photos of the cockpit design, but in that case you can use a little artist license.  Also, one of the primary advantages I've found in designing or building obscure, experimental and homebuilt airplanes is that you can configure the panel pretty much any way that you want if you can't find an example to go by. The all pretty much have the same stuff (basic six pack, coms, navs, breakers, on/off switche,s etc.  It's not that complicated except in finding a way to fit in all that you'd really like to have in real life if money weren't an issue.  (I'm planning to build an ultra light in my garage and about half of my cost overages are going to be the gauges that I really want instead of the ones they give you in the kit.)(That's not even counting a GPS unit)

As for gauge design, one needn't design or program a single gauge ever as there is a complete library of them in your gauges directory as well as a download section on this site.  It contains way more variations on avionics and engine monitoring gauges than you'll ever be able to use up and new ones are being posted all the time.  Again, the editor for creating both 2d and VC panels are all included in the FSDS suite of tools with tutorials in the help files and on this site.  I don't have GMAX so I don't know about that set of tools though I will have it by the end of the week. (I hear it's is more powerful but a heck of a lot more difficult to use and some of the documentation that I've read suggests that the animating features are included.)

Habu mentioned that I should respect the builder’s wishes to build as they please since the stuff is free.  Maybe he has a point.  I certainly respect the quality of some of these models, my biggest irk was the lack of a working of even non functional VC when it seemed to me to be only a little more work after such a lot of work on the model itself.

I don't get the comment by Firestriker about making the aircraft AI friendly removing the need for a working VC.  I assume AI is artificial intelligence but I don't know what it has to do with this.  If you could enlighten me, I would appreciate it.  Of course, my primary point or response would probably be, include the VC for those who are not going to be using it in an AI fashion.  The comment is sorta like saying why should a movie have sound if it's going to be used by lip readers?  Well, it may be used by lip readers, but it will also be used by non lip readers so it might be useful or more enjoyable to the users if it has sound.  Anyway,.. I write too much

Like everything, it's a matter of preference. Some people prefer not to have a DVC or static VC. Ask RollerBall what he thinks about them. LOL

Quote:

Quite right. Most of my creations are AI Only drones, mainly for CFS2. These need far less detail than fully flyable aircraft & don't need any form of VC or interior views. This suits my limited abilities as far as aircraft design goes. You would be waiting a very long time for flyable versions. The point here is that people usually create what they want. The fact that they post them for others to share is a bonus.

Quote:

Believe it or not I was there. The SB.3 would make a great little project but I have no immediate plans for doing it.

When I made my B707-320, way back when, I set out with a plan with certain goals.

1. To make this pioneer aircraft as dimensionally correct as possible and "annotomically" correct.

2. Easy to repaint for the repainter crowd. This must have been accomplished as I have seen nearly 40 different liveries.

3. Easy to fly. I have recieved lots of e-mail telling me what a pleasure it is fly.

4. AI / ATC friendly. Keeping the poly count as low as possible and in turn the mdl file, keeping the frame rate impact low.

5. Easy to download and install. Not requiring a lot of download time and a simple unzip to the Aircraft directory. And using as much of the stock gauges as possible. Also easy on those that don't have the latest and greatest system.

So you see, your end goals are what dictate your approach to solving the problem. Some people go at it with the idea of just modeling EVERY thing they can think of. I applaude there drive, as this is what THEY want to do. It may run quite well on their system but maybe not so well on someone's with a less powerful computer. I believe it all depends on your point of view.

I wish I had a dollar for everytime it had been downloaded...LOL

Lou

Hagar,

No, it has a revolutionary new system to improve air quality and exhaust emmisions. Uses a digester much like a septic tank. Liquid effluent and digester gases are mixed into the fuel system like water injection and burned in the turbine. Much like Nox. Then a honey dipper takes care of the solids or optional crop fertilizer drop door... LOL

Lou