I posed this question to ES but this is a universal problem. Why do developers continue to set VC eyepoint to the same standard as 2D panels? What I mean here is like in the case of ES have the eyepoint set so low in the VC you may as well be a 7 year old child. I've had many aircraft since the release of FS9 where I've had to adjust the height (which is very important to properly fly an aircraft) to properly see over the glareshield. PMDG's original 737NG comes to mind. No one has ever called attention to this issue. When sitting in a real cockpit your line of sight is not looking directly at the main panel. There's stories of people crashing in the real world because they were not properly sitting in the pilot's or co-pilot's seat. This very reason is why you'll find Airbus aircraft with the three balls on the center cockpit beam to help pilots properly adjust there seats for proper line of sight. Many GA aircraft I can threw memory set the right hight (change settings in the aircraft.cfg file) because I've been around the real thing. For those among us that are otherwise clueless a rule of thumb I go by is looking at the external model and seeing how high the virtual pilot's head is sitting over the main panel and adjust your eyepoint accordingly. You'd be amazed the difference this makes. I look at Ron's head in the DA42 and then switch to the VC and scratch my head (I sent them a message as to why they do this). Everyone needs to remember don't take for granted the default eyepoint offered by developers is how you should sit in the cockpit. In most cases it's way off and your flying the aircraft improperly until you adjust your eyepoint accordingly.

Well Dillon, as you know it is a simple matter to edit the aircraft.cfg to suit. We build for an across the board look and feel so it's not surprising that we did not meet whatever view you personally prefer.By the way, the DA42 for FSX is not yet released and both 2D and VC viewpoints are changed. If you are trying to use the FS9 version in FSX then they will both be off as FS9 and FSX differ quite a bit.

You're right. I have to hit Shift-Enter a couple of times in VC with almost every add on.Thaellar

Well Dillon, as you know it is a simple matter to edit the aircraft.cfg to suit. We build for an across the board look and feel so it's not surprising that we did not meet whatever view you personally prefer.By the way, the DA42 for FSX is not yet released and both 2D and VC viewpoints are changed. If you are using the FS9 version in FSX then they will both be off as FS9 and FSX differ quite a bit.

Except maybe when most of the customer base objects, yes? This a general reply as I have never heard how many others are affected by this issue. I am, however. What I can't figure out is why, pardon the stereotype and there are exceptions, developers often react in a defensive posture, instead of welcoming feedback, especially feedback that is passionately presented, so as to better satisfy the user base and therefore engender more loyalty by that very same user base? FeelThere's ERJ-145 that I bought recently is another one: many users expressed significant disappointment re how VC lighting is or is not implemented. A few even to the point of saying they wouldn't touch it until this was improved. ALL replies were defensive in nature. As a business response that seems inefffective at best, if not just plain detrimental.I think any successful service or product industry will maximize its potential by listening closely and continuously to their user base. This is a basic tenet of business in the higher eschelons I believe. Of course a business can perceive itself as so successful these things don't matter, but I would think at this level of business, it would matter.Noel

Nothing defensive in my post for a simple reason. There is nothing to defend.It is not possible for developers to please everyone. Period.

This is an issue that has always puzzled me a bit too, especially when most airliners actually have a visual gizmo in the cockpit to ensure that the pilot's seat is adjusted to the correct height to put the pilot's eye position in the correct spot. This gizmo is actually present in one or two payware aircraft, the AeroSim FSX B747-400D for example is one that has it, but it would be nice if the default viewpoint was placed as though you had already adjusted your seat to that correct position.Al

Hooray, another ESDG brawl thread. I predict deletion.

Hahah I don't think so...I agree some that VC's have bad viewpoints... but it is true the user can edit them.... sometimes it's harder because we don't know what all the numbers mean in the cfg file though.

Just use EZDOK.jja

Hahah I don't think so...I agree some that VC's have bad viewpoints... but it is true the user can edit them.... sometimes it's harder because we don't know what all the numbers mean in the cfg file though.

That has been documented several times over...1. Save a flight with your favorite viewpoint2. Open up the FLT file and extract three numbers3. Do some math4. Open up the aircraft.cfg file and look up the eyepoint definition5. Do some addition6. Save the aircraft.cfg fileExample (Carenado Bonanza)[Views]//eyepoint=-2.4,-0.80,2.95 eyepoint=-2.51,-0.88,3.07done :(or, if it is only the seat height you want to change..change only the last of the three numbers, one Shift-enter equals 0.03

I'd reply in detail but I won't waste my (virtual) breath - we're always the target of Dillon's complaints, even when it's a 7-year old product in question... For what it's worth I clearly remember us discussing the viewpoint on the 744 and MD-11 with the real pilots on the test team during beta and they were found satisfactory.

I don't think there was any aircraft, addon or default, that I didn't need to adjust the eyepoint. Realism is not so much the goal as trying get a view that encompasses essential parts of the instrument panel and the outside view. Moving the eyepoint up/down is the last step after first moving it as far back in the seat as possible and setting pitch angle in the cameras.cfg virtual cockpit view to InitialPbh = 10.0, 0.0, 0.0 (this affects all aircraft). This allows me to snap back to the optimal view for scanning the instruments and see where I am going after panning my view.There isn't any way for developers to anticipate what camera angle I'm using for the virtual cockpit to suit my own taste, so they would never satisfly me as far as the eyepoint location.

It is not possible for developers to please everyone. Period.

I think that goes without saying.Here are two different tacts:Product rating at baseline: 85% Response 1: "You can edit them yourself [we don't know how many users care about this, but we sure don't]"Product rating after response 1: 87% Response 2: "That's an interesting thought. Would most users rather have the default eye point moved? [let's see if others chime in . . .]Others do chime in support of this over the next few weeks . . . Addendum to Response 2: "We'll will put that [ie, the tiny amount of work it will take to recode the VC default position] into the next SP. Until then, you can try editing . . ."Product rating after Response 2: 94%Now repeat with all your product line. Before long, you garner the well-earned reputation of being responsive and interested. People stay with you! More sales! Good rep! Hey you guys do great work and no one's knocking it. But I think there is a difference between pleasing everyone and being responsive in a positive way. I know you have to weigh the time/cost involved, but for a little thing like this, it's good PR and not much cost.

Thanks Bert (and Noel as well as others) for an objective and helpful response.I have wondered about this for a long time, but have never taken the time to search or research the subject. I appreciiate the instruction for a fix.Seems to me that someone that in the past has been a great deal of help is getting a burr under their saddle, whether justifiably or not I have no idea. The claims of no defense needed are themselves defensive (and very surprising to me). I sure hate to see this as the contributions from that source are one of my favorites. Hopefully the subject at had was misread in some way and will be evaluated in a different vein after the initial reacition cools a bit.Respectfully:RTH

That has been documented several times over...1. Save a flight with your favorite viewpoint2. Open up the FLT file and extract three numbers3. Do some math4. Open up the aircraft.cfg file and look up the eyepoint definition5. Do some addition6. Save the aircraft.cfg fileExample (Carenado Bonanza)[Views]//eyepoint=-2.4,-0.80,2.95 eyepoint=-2.51,-0.88,3.07done :(or, if it is only the seat height you want to change..change only the last of the three numbers, one Shift-enter equals 0.03

I'd reply in detail but I won't waste my (virtual) breath - we're always the target of Dillon's complaints, even when it's a 7-year old product in question... For what it's worth I clearly remember us discussing the viewpoint on the 744 and MD-11 with the real pilots on the test team during beta and they were found satisfactory.

Too bad he can't complain about FeelThere so they can start adding basic features like gauge backlighting and proper night lighting, instead he complains about something so easily edited?