The point being we DID build a cockpit so I don’t need it replicated on my front monitor, use that for 100% windshield, not the bottom portion used for instruments I already physically have.
65" monitors are less than $500, I don’t see the problem (of “wasting” screen space). What’s there in your image is life size, you don’t need any more screen space.
With my 55" monitor on my desk, it’s the same thing I see in the planes I fly. Panel is the same size, my view is the same, I love it. I could totally see putting a panel in front of it if I wanted to spend all that money. It wouldn’t bother me in the least that I “wasted screen space”.
What, are they going to get really long thin monitors just so they don’t have extra monitor? That probably costs just as much as a standard monitor with a panel in front of it. Why not just go to Costco, buy a decent monitor, set the screen as you showed above, get two side screens, and you’re done.
So, back to the issue, how does the user expect it to work? More detail is required. Is it multi screen, are they using a head/eye tracker, then what? If that’s the case, what are they complaining about if they want to see the visible portions of the plane when they turn their head? And if so, why do they care if the instrument panel turns away and comes back.
Using a head/eye tracker with a fixed instrument panel just seems like a really bad idea to me.
That’s already been answered. A view that gets rid of the virtual cockpit.
As I stated, google home cockpit view FSX… Or Check out X-Plane.
1 Like
You can do that today. Go into the model.cfg and remove the interior model. Or go to head up display, and turn off the instrument feedback.
The question didn’t say what they wanted to see of the plane, only that they didn’t want the instrument panel.
Shouldn’t have to modify aircraft configs for a camera view, that’s the ask… Can you provide a camera view so those modifications don’t have to be made.
Also, is that accessible in encrypted aircraft? (I don’t know, have never looked).
At the end of the day, it’s an ask from the home cockpit building community, who have every right to ask the question in hopes of getting an answer no different than any other question being asked.
2 Likes
Yes, but to ask for a feature, you have to fully describe that feature.
There’s too many options here, and how is Asobo supposed to choose? Sell it, don’t demand vapor as it were. That’s a good way to “get what you asked for” if you know what I mean.
I personally can’t picture anything except that which you showed above, and you can do that today. And to say they shouldn’t have to do a little work to get there is a little condescending. Look at all the work it took to build those panels! Changing a couple of lines of code is nothing compared to that. I’m sure they already wrote a ton just to get the system to work.
It’s well documented in Wishlist.
Give it a search, goodnight.
3 Likes
I hope that the new dem helps getting the grass in ground level and not floating few feets to few meters above it, fingers crossed.
-eelis-
As far as I understood Martial was, that the QA department thought that this was intended and hence didn‘t report it back as bug. So they need to investigate what went wrong and I think will ultimately fix it. For MSFS 2024 I think it need to be fixed anyway since heliports at a big feature there and if they are not working correctly would be a huge outcry in the community I suppose 
1 Like
Well I’m a very happy pig. True this is probably the optimist in me. There is an update to the PC-6 and I am thinking they might have solved the transponder not working on a cold and dark start. Still not holding my breath.
But there is also the ATR Update. I was always sad the STOL version was not included but it now looks like my wishes have been answered.
Now all I have to do is hook up my joystick and pedals and start playing the sim again, sPK
And what about VR Improvment ?
1 Like
Its a shame to hear that they beleive this is complete. Whilst it does work - its very limited in terms of flexibility. I’d be pleased if they just added independent zoom for each screen
2 Likes
As a resident of Poland, I am disappointed. During the FS Expo, the timeline for August showed the basilica in Gdańsk. Now, during the announcement, they are showcasing Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. So why was a part of Poland shown on the timeline?
3 Likes
I’m curious to see if there will still be the infamous generic french fields in the new maps…
Is the YouTube VOD available yet? Can’t stand Twitch
That’s what the Wishlist is for. You can put detail there. But if you’re going to ask a question for the Q&A it needs to be succinct enough to be viable. That particular question asked about hiding the virtual cockpit and from that you can assume it means literally turn off the entire VC without having to mod the aircraft. This is what many people thought the existing ‘Home Cockpit Mode’ toggle was supposed to do.
Others have pointed out the background here, that you could do this in FSX, giving you a forward view/s without any interior model, but side views that still include the wings etc. Clearly this is a thing that home cockpit builders want. I want it, and if asked, I’d be willing to create a very detailed description of how it could be implemented. But generally the Asobo team don’t interact with regular users that way.
Yes, it’s possible to hide the instrument panel below the edge of your physical cockpit elements - I do this today - but if, for example, you had a full enclosure / shell including window frames etc, you wouldn’t want those elements displayed on your outside view either, and you can’t hide those (except by hacking the aircraft).
If you want to envisage what home cockpit builders are asking for in most cases, you just need to look at how FSX works. Generally, we want the same options and mechanisms (and maybe some of the extra stuff from P3D) to work in the same way. Mostly, we’re not asking for innovation, we’re asking for the restoration of what the sim used to have. Though probably not 2D panels 
Yeah. That’s a thing that shouldn’t ever happen. What is the intended behaviour should not be ambiguous and should be clearly defined as acceptance criteria. That’s a process fail that needs to be addressed. It absolutely happens - I’ve seen it happen many times in my teams - but it really shouldn’t.
3 Likes
Not yet, it’ll be available later today on our official YouTube channel! Microsoft Flight Simulator - YouTube
1 Like
Thanks for updating the DACH region. Please could we have a POI list.
1 Like
There is a Wishlist topic with 153 votes and 251 comments on it:
which is a lot more votes and comments than most Wishlist topics have.
It’s fine if you don’t agree with something, but please don’t go judging other people’s desires for the sim as “a waste.”
3 Likes
