What kind of panel do you like?

[Tom Clayton]

I ask because something got me thinking about older nav systems like INS. While I prefer older airframes like the Connies, I still like to have it easy in the cockpit. After all, those older systems were intended for more than one warm body to be in the cockpit to share the workload. Besides that, if you ever peek into the flight deck of something like Witchcraft or Panchito, you'll find a thoroughly modern GPS, transponder, and just about everything else. The only thing you might not get is a modern autopilot. That's why I like to add my own popups for GPS and a modern radio suite. I like to imagine myself traveling from one airshow to another where I park for a "static display," so my flights are generally between medium sized airports.

So, now that I've rambled, what are some other opinions out there?

[gaucho_59]

I ask because something got me thinking about older nav systems like INS. While I prefer older airframes like the Connies, I still like to have it easy in the cockpit. After all, those older systems were intended for more than one warm body to be in the cockpit to share the workload. Besides that, if you ever peek into the flight deck of something like Witchcraft or Panchito, you'll find a thoroughly modern GPS, transponder, and just about everything else. The only thing you might not get is a modern autopilot. That's why I like to add my own popups for GPS and a modern radio suite. I like to imagine myself traveling from one airshow to another where I park for a "static display," so my flights are generally between medium sized airports.

So, now that I've rambled, what are some other opinions out there?

I started a thread about panels a while ago.. especially those that show all kinds of anachronistic items... like radio stacks etc. that have no place
on the cockpit of 30s and 40s aircraft... Furthermore, except for maybe some of the most up to date VCs... , even the VCs... that show exaggerated errors of
perspective... as well as what I humorously call a "collage" of giant nuts and bolts... handles that look like rolling pins... really do detract from the
illusion of being in a real cockpit rather than a carnival hall of mirrors... In other words, a nice more realistic 2D panels does it for me... thank you...

[Sunny9850]

Generally speaking I prefer a period correct panel (the other aspects mentioned by Gaucho notwithstanding) and then fly the aircraft using the navigation methods available in that period.

However I also envision myself flying a classic aircraft in a modern world on occasion and then having a GPS is not an anachronism but something I see on airport ramps all the time.
I would not put a G1000 into my Connies though because that just does not work for my tastes.

VC is a must have for me with maybe a handful of really exceptionally well done 2D panels and aircraft combos where I broke that selfimposed rule and kept them in my collection.

Cheers
Stefan

[Dev One]

I prefer a VC 'cos I generally like the low & slow stuff in VFR conditions & map reading. I do create a 2D for my planes, but its really a screenshot of the VC.
As for the modern installations in old a/c, I provide these as popups for those that like to fly in modern conditions, otherwise I try to provide the contemporary instruments - thats if I can get a good enough photo of the subject aircraft - sometimes its a bit of an educated guess.
The only thing I would like though is a map display that does not stop the flight to look at it! In other words one that can be a popup or strapped to ones leg in the cockpit.
Keith

[Duckie]

I personally prefer a visually good VC with basic operating capabilities at minimum. Most of my flying is done with TrackIR which, for me, truly enhances the experience. Period purity is OK but not a show stopper. Like some others I'll use a pop up GPS window if I can't find my visually. Haven't learned how to use the nav gear of any era so most of my hops are local VFR!

[Daube]

Concerning the instruments of the cockpit, I tend to prefer the "true to original", even if that means there won't be any GPS or even radios or anything like that.
But of course, if the model is supposed to be a representation of a "modernized" airplane, which is vintage BUT with modern instruments as well, then I will like it too.
Basically: I want my panels to be exactely like they are in real life. I want the plane in my sim to be as close to the real one as possible, in the way it flies, the way it sounds, the way it works, the way it looks outside, and the way it looks inside too.

Now, when it comes to the choice of 2D or VC panels, I prefer the VC, because I want to see the plane exactely as it looks in real life. I don't like the 2D panels that put everything in front of your eyes for ease of use. If this instrument or this button is over my head in the real cockpit, then I want it to be over my virtual head in the simulator. If this instrument or button is hidden behind something in the real cockpit, then I want it to be hidden in the simulator too. If the VC is not well done, then I simply won't use that plane at all. And yes, I realize that there are very few planes with nicely-done virtual cockpits, to my great despair.

Fortunately, I fly mostly vintage airplanes, and since the cockpits of these planes are usually easier to model, the choice is much wider. Although I sometime fly some jets, since a few years I'm more in the "low and slow" thing. When flying old taildraggers with open cockpits (Waco, Tiger Moth, etc..), the view offered by the virtual cockpit simply cannot be compared with a 2D panel, especially at taxi/takeoff when you can lean your head on the side to try to look in front of you. This is especially interesting on "big noses" like a P47 for example.

As said many times, I understand that a virtual liner pilot probably prefers a set of 2D panels for controlling the systems. But for the small airplanes with few things to click inside, for those of you that have a compatible webcam, I really encourage you to give a try to FaceTrackNoIR and enjoy your flights around the airfield from a totally different point of view.

[Bjoern]

Flying with a GPS in a 1970s scenario or even in a propliner is no problem for me. It's just my virtual F/O.

[aeromed202]

I'd be happier if they just had me sitting in the left seat. So few orient the pilot from this rather obvious perspective, instead having me sit on the center console or stand in the middle and lean a little to the left. Maybe it is necessary to fit everything in but as some achieve what I appreciate to be the 'right' view, I'd like to see it be the rule and not the exception. Ahh, that felt better. Aside from that rant, I find myself more often in 2D, maybe a throwback to the times when a 3D would be too much for my machine. Most panels these days are amazing despite my peeve.

[Rallymodeller]

I have no issue with GPS in a propliner or classic jetliner. These big airliners are designed to have a navigator, and as far as I'm concerned the GPS is just doing the nav's job.

[Willy]

I have no issue with GPS in a propliner or classic jetliner. These big airliners are designed to have a navigator, and as far as I'm concerned the GPS is just doing the nav's job.

That's my take on it too. Also, I'm not real big on FS aircraft where I have to do the Flight Engineers job for him too.

[PRB]

Depends what sort of flying I’m doing. I have a “standard” pop-up panel that I made for the Round The World race events that has a GPS, auto-pilot, and nav radios. I stick it in every plane I might fly in that event. If we’re doing one of our semi-annual race events, I’ll have a different type of pop-up, one that doesn’t have a GPS, and extra nav systems like ADF and such, since those events are typically “no-GPS” events (except for this year). Lately I’ve been trying to “use what’s there”, and not mod the panel, with the goal of learning to use the gauges that were made for me by some hard working gauge programmer!

[SOLOBO]

In a flight simulator, (except with TrackIr?), we have not completely the sensation of 3D... And the virtual cockpits have sometimes a bad visibility (it depends of the plane, of course)... I use often a specific and personnal minipanel, that means: personalized according to the aircraft, as much as possible. One of my rules: a HUD perfectly adjusted to the sea level at low altitude. Important when we fly close the top of mountains with a small, fast and agile aircraft.

[aeronca1]

when it comes to cockpits, I prefer 2D and period specific. I don't ever want to see a SPAD with a radio stack or GPS or heaven forbid a glass cockpit. My 2 favourite cockpits are the Project Tupolev Tu-154B and Il-62.

[Bjoern]

Also, I'm not real big on FS aircraft where I have to do the Flight Engineers job for him too.

Flicking a few switches for startup on a F/E panel is okay, but constant attention...nah.
Most of his job is monitoring the systems anyway, so in 98% of the trouble-free, always well oiled MSFS airliners, he's just superfluous.

[falcon409]

. . . . .The only thing I would like though is a map display that does not stop the flight to look at it! In other words one that can be a popup or strapped to ones leg in the cockpit.
Keith

That would be FSNav (if you can find it anymore) or one of the freeware types.

[Willy]

Bjoern, just a few switches to start up is okay, but when you have to have the flight manual at hand just to start an engine, that's carrying things a bit too far for me. In a large propliner, I'm not fond of having to switch fuel tanks either.

That being said, a couple of my favorite panels include the flight engineer station (Glen Duncan C-75 and Manfred Jahn L749 Connie). But those aren't FE intensive either.

[lemonadedrinker]

hi,
I like all kinds, as long as they look like they might be fairly old! Well, not glass, perhaps.
In no particular order are Manfred's Connie and Glenn Duncan's C-87, as well as Rick Piper's HS 748 and Ken Mitchell's panel for the HJG 707, which I have just landed in the sea in Alaska having been directed there by the ILS. The LAGO S-79 from 'The Crossings' download is another favourite, as is the FIAT G-18V and the G-12, and I still am waiting in hope of the promised G-212. The DC-6s from calclassic!
The list is endless...Milton Shupe and Jens Kristensen and Hauke Keitel with the FW200 and the Junckers Ju 90.
A good opportunity to offer thanks to all of you who create these beauties for the community!!

Andy.

[andersel]

I tend to prefer 2D panels because of my eyesight (or lack thereof). Vcs are, in most cases, way too dark for me. There are some models in which the VC is either adequately lit or provided with the capability to adjust the lighting, but these are few and far between. I don't care for mini panels, mostly because they almost always lack complete & proper instruments. A possibble exception would be the A2A WoP II series of models.

LA

[Daube]

Bjoern, just a few switches to start up is okay, but when you have to have the flight manual at hand just to start an engine, that's carrying things a bit too far for me.

You would probably change your mind after starting a few engines on the Accusim B-17 !
Starting this plane is, like, 50% of the fun. The good thing is that once you have started them, you can hand-over the controls of cowl flaps, intercoolers and engines RPM to your virtual copilot, so you just need to concentrate on the pleasure of piloting the plane

[Daube]

hi,
In no particular order are Manfred's Connie ... as well as Rick Piper's HS 748 ...
...
The list is endless...
Andy.

Manfred's Connie is absolutely beautiful and I hope that the engineer panel in the VC will get completed in future.
Rick's HS.748 is, to me, one of the "legendary" pieces of freeware ! The cockpit of this plane is one of the most complete and detailled I've seen, may it be for FS9 or FSX worlds.

In terms of vintage and ultra-complete/detailled interior, let's not forget the absolute freeware gems made by David Maltby, especially the BAC 1-11. The virtual cockpit of his planes are all photorealistic, and they offer a point of view that is really immersive and enjoyable. I place them at the same level than Rick's HS.748.

[stansdds]

Once I started using TrackIR, I started to live in the virtual cockpit and pretty much ignore the 2D cockpit. I do like a good bit of systems modeling too. Not to the point of needing a flight engineer, but then again I limit myself to single and twin engine types, so a degree of systems complexity is nice.

[KellyB]

hi,
I like all kinds, as long as they look like they might be fairly old! Well, not glass, perhaps.
In no particular order are Manfred's Connie and Glenn Duncan's C-87, as well as Rick Piper's HS 748 and Ken Mitchell's panel for the HJG 707, which I have just landed in the sea in Alaska having been directed there by the ILS. The LAGO S-79 from 'The Crossings' download is another favourite, as is the FIAT G-18V and the G-12, and I still am waiting in hope of the promised G-212. The DC-6s from calclassic!
The list is endless...Milton Shupe and Jens Kristensen and Hauke Keitel with the FW200 and the Junckers Ju 90.
A good opportunity to offer thanks to all of you who create these beauties for the community!!

Andy.

Can you point me to Ken Mitchell's 707 panel for HJG? Google doesn't find it.

Thanks.

[Willy]

You would probably change your mind after starting a few engines on the Accusim B-17 !
Starting this plane is, like, 50% of the fun. The good thing is that once you have started them, you can hand-over the controls of cowl flaps, intercoolers and engines RPM to your virtual copilot, so you just need to concentrate on the pleasure of piloting the plane

When did they make Accusim available for FS9? FSX won't run worth a flip on this comp.

[Daube]

I don't know about your current computer and this is off topic. What I wanted to tell is that once you'll get your hands on some serious addons, may it be on FS9, or in future on FSX or XPlane, your point of view on the aircraft complexity might change.

Since you mentionned the aircraft starting sequence, I simply jumped to the most obvious example: the Accusim planes. There's nothing better than starting an Accusim warbird. If one day you get a chance to try that, your point of view might change and you might start to like playing with the engines of your birds. That's what I wanted to say.

[lemonadedrinker]

Can you point me to Ken Mitchell's 707 panel for HJG? Google doesn't find it.

Thanks.

Hi,

I think it's one of the panels listed in the 'panel' section at HJG for the Boeings.

HJG B707-320B EARLY SERIES BY GEORGE CARTY. 28 August 2007

I'm just going to have a look myself!.....Nothing found...... Well I don't know what happened there. Possibly a brain meld with an empty dustbin. I was convinced I read that somewhere. My apologies.

On a different note, I added in the beautiful INS gauge by Julian Avisenis to this panel and now it's possible to fly a route you set up without the pink line showing on the map, as you don't have to load a Flight Plan into FS9 to get the INS to function.