• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

FSX New Panels & Question

Messages
76
Country
unitedkingdom
Well all I just did another couple of 2D panels getting better at all this XML stuff would now class myself as beginner. Thanks again to rpmc and Spokes2112 who without their assistance I would be throwing my keyboard out of the window.

I know 2D is a bit old school however as I have two screens one above the other and a few other goodies I like them as it enables me to actually read the gauges and jump from vc to spot and still keep an eye what the aircraft I doing.

Any way panels below all gauges work and our duplicated on both.

Question is I know that most payware developers and moving away from 2D Cockpits I am just curious why as I created both of these in under a week I am not a good programmer or graphics guru however when the textures are already done for 3D model it doesn't take that long to create a good looking 2D Gauge. Panels bitmaps are just photos from different angles spliced together. So why cannot they provide them when they pretty much have all of the difficult already done. (granted a large turbo prop would take longer due to all the systems etc but you know I think the average user would forgo those and use VC one if he had a good VFR and IFR panel plus radio. throttle etc pop ups. This is not meant at the freeware designers as all the amazing stuff that is free has no right being critized . But when you spend a considerable junk of money for one aircraft I think they should give you the option.

I wold love to release these just to see how many downloads just for research however the textures are not mine per say so think I would be in breach of copyright. Plus a couple of Gauges GEM and Wx radar came with the aircraft so big no no there.

Piper PA-31
PzcJDqz.jpg


AC500 Commander
Ech2rmy.jpg



Cheers
Matt
 
It certainly wouldn't hurt to asked the developer for permission. While extent can certainly be argued, I don't think there is any question that existence of after-market 2D panels will make a given add-on aircraft more marketable. I certainly stopped buying add-on aircraft when 2D panels disappeared.
 
@D panels can still be quite useful in certain situations. For example, for me I have a three 27" displays across for a nice wide few. Below that I have a little 15" display that I can use for 2D panels. Some look good - some not so much. Wish developers of 2D would "break up" their 2D panels into sections to fit easier into that space but that time may have passed. So I usually place individule gauges there. It's all good.
 
I think that 2d pop-ups are important for areas that in the real aircraft you would only need to quickly glance at to use. It's both difficult and unrealistic to look away from the instruments for a dangerous amount of time just to flip a switch that you could flip blindfolded in real life. The default King Air in X-Plane 11 has the heading bug and course knobs behind the throttles. In real life you would be turning them while looking at the EHSI to see what heading/course you are selecting, but in the sim it's impossible to turn the knob without looking at it, so it is very hard to use the heading bug unless you have a very large monitor. A 2D pop-up would help tremendously there.
 
I generally create 2d popups where it makes sense, but I no longer invest the time to create full 2d panels. It's just too much work for the tiny return.
 
Wow it is the very first time I would disagree with you Bill...I'm aware that 2D panel is outdated and past due for most of developers (and users). But or you sure 2D panel consumes more time than 3D modeling and programming of VC panels?o_O
 
He didn't say it takes more time, just that the time it takes is not worth it. I made the 2d pop-ups for the Razbam Metro, and I was going to make a full 2d panel, but it got too tedious to tweak the bitmaps, find the right xml from the modeldef, and use that to write new xml for the gauges. I realized that I really only needed a few pop-ups, so I did all that for those.
 
Wow it is the very first time I would disagree with you Bill...I'm aware that 2D panel is outdated and past due for most of developers (and users). But or you sure 2D panel consumes more time than 3D modeling and programming of VC panels?o_O
If it were possible to use the XML scripts from the modeldef.xml file to drive the 2d gauges, it might not be such a burden, but trying to synchronize and maintain two different sets of scripts for the 2d and VC equivalent gauges is simply too much wasted time in my view.
 
Bill: does it take that much time? My current project looks like this:-

2D <->systems<->VC

where 2D and VC are just dumb terminals. Okay, so I admit you're writing the same code in two different languages, so maybe I do get your point.
 
Dai, if the "systems" are written in C, then that methodology would be much simpler, at least for certain values of "simpler..." :rotfl:

However, since modeldef.xml animations and 2d animations are driven by entirely different paradigms, it simply would not allow for a common "systems" control, IMHO.
 
Back
Top