Flying A Desk

You're right that I included some 'branding' in my cockpit but that's pretty irrelevant. You will also find that my cockpit doesn't really look like a Twin Otter as the panels are input-only and I moved most things around. What really matters is the range of functions available. I still haven't decided the best way to do it but I will note that I have been flying other aircraft around than the Twin Otter. And in doing that I have used a solid core of switches and buttons while ignoring a whole bunch of others.

Indeed, even when flying the Twin Otter there are switches I have never used beyond trying them out to make sure they work! These include all the test switches, the fuel panel (except boost pumps) and a bunch of the light switches. This reflects two things - first, I have yet to really, properly, start flying the Twin Otter seriously or realistically if you like. But second, which I sort of knew when I started, some of the functions aren't really implemented at all. The test switches, for example. Take the 'autofeather test' switch - you can go through the autofeather test sequence in the checklist and the switches do what it says they should do, but you aren't really testing anything because the autofeather system is not modelled and so it will never fail. (I suspect that feathering the prop has no aerodynamic effect anyway, like I found in the Catalina.)

Now don't quote me on this as I haven't explored it in depth, but it also goes for other functions like the Inverter switch, the backup fuel pumps, bus tie, etc. My understanding is that these are all contingency systems and because failures are not modelled they will never be required. I did talk to Finn (developer) about this and as I recall he said that the Twin Otter doesn't respond to standard FSX failures. (I am a bit sceptical about this as I would guess that some of the Twin Otter functions are invoking FSX core functions under the surface. Still a lot of stuff to try out!)

Back to your question. I would recommend carefully working out the core systems you will actually use - for example autopilot, GPS, startup, fuel management, lights, etc. - and then design a generic panel for each of these that will be a good enough match to map a lot of different aircraft to it. This is the approach i have taken with the GPS+ and Autopilot+ panels. I think that's pretty much what Scott has done with his radios, since most aircraft have more or less the same radios in different combinations.

That's a good way to do it.  I wanted a radio stack to improve my communication on Pilot Edge. But if you only use FSX ATC, then a radio stack may not be that necessary (your "reach for the mouse" technique should identify that). I considered the Saitek radio which has an actual readout but I recall Mark said tuning it can be tricky and it may require SPAD drivers (which is no big deal).  In the real world, ATC communication was intimidating to me and I've found that reaching for and turning an actual knob feels pretty realistic and reminds me of what used to be automatic.  I have two nav/com radios along with an audio panel that works which aids in switching frequencies.  The goal for me is to maybe get my license current again. However, I'm pretty sure one nav/com would be enough.  I also find myself using the autopilot a lot now, and I seldom used it before in the sim or in the real world.  Implementing the interface software helped me understand the various aircraft component functions in more detail (I think Mark said something along those lines in one of his videos). I don't use the GPS as much as I should but that's because I didn't put enough thought into the panel layout, the labels, and the size of the buttons and because I use Plan-G.  I think I'd use it more if it was associated with it's own screen. Give thought to your panel(s) labels and how far they are from the knob/button as some knobs can hide the label at a bad angle.  Also, experiment with various panel angles from your seated position and consider how far you will have to turn your head to look at a knob then look back up again at the virtual cockpit readout.  I made my panels compact due to limited space.  To me, the VOR & ADF (although the ADF is old tech) is a must for learning.  I find myself adjusting the OBS 1 & 2, the heading bug, and kohlsman most often in terms of the instruments.  I wouldn't omit the ADF but, I use it less.  I use the heading rotary (gyro drift) less and I use the artificial horizon rotary the least, if at all.  Although, each of those least used rotaries are part of setting your instruments prior to a real world flight, if you intend to get into that practice.  I use the xponder rotaries a lot and the DME rotaries less often.  I actually have a cabin heat, air, and defrost push/pull switches that probably waste panel space except that it's neat to see them implemented and the A2A aircraft actually fog the interior glass if you don't open the defrost or a window!  I use carb heat a lot but that wouldn't be necessary if you choose to fly fuel injected aircraft.  The A2A aircraft require a primer to start the aircraft but, I'm not sure that would be necessary for any other aircraft. I have a ag-sprayer switch that is NEVER flipped and taking up space (not sure what I was thinking there!)  The fuel valve: I use that a lot as the A2A aircraft models that.  Most of the switches I've implemented are there to help me re-learn routines prior to and during flight, including the parking brake.  It's really all pretty cool... when I shut down an aircraft, I find myself looking at my physical panel to confirm everything is in the correct position!  The A2A aircraft will remember the last state you left the aircraft in with every switch!  Sorry for the long and chaotic post.  See... I do have communication issues!