About the development of new Aircraft in IF


this is more a question in the direction of the developers and people who know a bit or two about coding.

In the choosing of the rework and development of a/c for IF, I noticed that it is often the aircraft with the not so complex cockpit layouts.

Some people requesting older Aircraft like the 747SP or a 747-200, were I have my doubts, if it would even be reasonable to design it, considering how much work and software/hardware resources devices would need in order to simulate the cockpit properly.
This is just a guess on my end, if I am wrong please educate me as my knowledge about coding and this stuff is very limited.

Another question I have is, which layout is more demanding: a glass cockpit layout or an analog cockpit layout?

With best regards, please keep up the good work!


This is correct, and this is the reason the Concorde was put on hold by the team. The first officer’s seat and panel are so so complex that it is simply not viable to design and code. I’ll link the official response below.

I can’t answer this definitely but perhaps can give you some food for thought. Usually, aircraft which are powered by an analog cockpit tend to be more complex in general. For example, the aforementioned B742 - because of the aircraft’s era it has first officer panel which also needs to be modelled, named, mapped etc. The case tends to be that if an aircraft has an analog cockpit, it usually has a first officer panel which increases the overall workload.

That being said, the first aircraft to come to Infinite Flight which featured live cockpits was the A10 Warthog which has an analog cockpit. This makes me think that creating analog cockpits is easier or perhaps more efficient than glass cockpits. The A10 was the perfect aircraft for the team to test live instruments because it did not have the additional complexities of jetliners like the B742 which needs the first officer panel along with many more switches to be modelled. As I said previously, these are my thoughts and could well be incorrect, but from an outsider’s point of view, it makes sense.


While I can’t really give you an answer here, I just want to add on @Maxim‘s great answer, that it might be easier to implement a live cockpit where the instruments are already coded/existing then building a new one from scratch. An example would be the A330, where the cockpit would have to be newly modelled, but the instruments are extremely similar to the A320s and could probably ‘just’ be transferred.


So it is manly the problem of the workstation of the flight engineer, and in even older aircraft of the navigator.
Understandable, since operations and procedures are already modeld in a more simple way.
So at some point, people might get the C-130J, but not the C-130H reworked, because of the number of workstations and minimum of flight crew.

Thank you very much tho!

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.