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?

Before this thread goes out of control and has to be locked...There is nothing wrong with a flight simmer requesting a feature/change or why something is not modelled.There is nothing wrong with a sim developer expressing why they will/won't/don't consider it necessary.It is the "tone" of questions and answers from either side that seem to always head things south.How about we lose the tone...and have a good discussion?Me-I have wondered why fs developers (and I am speaking generally) do not present proper prop (rpm) sounds in constant speed prop aircraft.This is very important to me. There must be a reason-too much trouble for the amount of time, can't be done in fs, or anything in between. I'd sure like to know why though.Respectively submitted....as I hope all next posts will be too.

I'm lucky, my wife says my head is always up my fourth point of contact, so a completely dark VC would suit me fine.

It

It's funny; one of my flight instructors needs to sit on two pillows to see over the glare shield (in a Cherokee).And until I saw her propped up like that I would have never considered her short.At 6' my view over the glare shield isn't like a car...it's definitely obscured.For the most part I think GA dev's are using accurate dimensions (they're so easy to get)...if anything they are fudging numbers high to make things sim friendly.But setting the viewpoint to your personal preference is best.

You are speaking to me too being somewhat height challenged (is that politically correct enough?)-short I don't know....I have two cushions I have always handy. In a Seneca III flight this week I needed none-in my Baron I need two and the seat full forward-in my Debonair I needed one and the seat mid range. Then my viewpoint isn't necessarily what the guy next to me is used to.

I'd like to see an addon that lets you set up your view how you like it, then it will save the settings to the .cfg. Even if a developer sets the height right, the view will not be correct for everyone, especially if someone wants a different level of zoom. And of course some folks just stick up a little higher than others. At 6' 4" I look like I'm crouching over in the Baron, whereas one of my friends I fly with who is about 5' 10" or so is about eye level with the compass. Since developers can't make everyone happy, we just need an addon for adjusting the viewpoint and saving it that will keep people from having to mess around with the .cfg.

True.Thaellar posted this already

True.Thaellar posted this already

Response 2: "That's an interesting thought. Would most users rather have the default eye point moved? [let's see if others chime in . . .]

But would all those users who want the default eye point moved want it moved to the same position? If you ask 10 people where they want the eyepoint I'd bet you'd get 10 different responses.Developers don't just throw in any old number for the default eyepoint. In most aircraft you can safely assume that the developer has placed the eyepoint where they like it best and where they think it provides the best balance between seeing the gauges and looking out the windscreen. The fact that so many people complain so much about the location for the eyepoint would better indicate how much our personal preferences vary rather than the developers continously getting it wrong. If you want to change the eyepoint here is how:Open the aircraft.cfg file in your favourite text editor and look for the following lines (this example is from the C172):[Views]eyepoint= -3.95, -0.85, 1.9 //(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from reference datumThe numbers are in feet referenced from a datum point (you don't need to know the exact location for this and it varies from aircraft to aircraft although it should lie along the centreline of the aircraft).The first number is the fore/aft (longitudinal). Increase the number to move closer to the front of the aircraft. Decrease it to move further back.The second number is the left/right (lateral). Decrease the number to move more left, increase to move more right. A figure with 0 will put you on the centreline (usually).The third number is the up/down (vertical). Increase the number to move up, decrease to move down.So, if you wanted to set 6 inches higher in the C172 you would edit the lines so it looks like this:[Views]//eyepoint= -3.95, -0.85, 1.9 //(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from reference datum. eyepoint= -3.95, -0.85, 2.5eyepoint= -3.95, -0.85, 2.5The double back slash comments out the original eyepoint lines so you have a record of the original values.

Hooray, another ESDG brawl thread. I predict deletion.

Nah, not an Eaglesoft issue at all. Dillon included us for his convenience sake but he has a long history of this type posting. Usually it's couched as an attempt to pressure devs into accomodating his personal preferences.Noel, on the other hand, usually attempts to paint devs as "defensive" if they do not agree with whatever his marketing view happens to be.We aren't the first dev to experience this and we certainly won't be the last.We simply told the truth. It really is not possible to please eveyone whether in the sim world or the real world.

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.

Just to set the record straight I never had anything to say about the VC viewpoint in the PMDG forums, your team has always got that right after the original 737. What we discussed about the 744 was the lack of wings visible from the VC. Concerning the MD11 what we discussed was how the FS9 version was gutted concerning things like window trimming where as the FSX version was more on par with your FS9 744 in visuals. It's interesting things that were once possible in FS9 are no longer possible... For the record you guys are spot on with the eyepoint of your aircraft especially the 744, I challenge you to find a post of mine stating otherwise. I can however produce an apology by you for demonizing me when to the contrary I've commended PMDG for their work many times.

Nah, Dillon included us for his convenience sake but he has a long history of this type posting. Usually it's couched in an attempt to pressure devs into accomodating his personal preferences.

Ron I'm offended by your attitude here. I'm not asking you to do anything per say just asking why in general something is done. I like your products, I support your efforts, and these are the things you come in here and say. There have been more than a few write-ups in magazines like AOPA and Flying that covered improper seat height in cockpits and how that's gotten real world pilots into trouble. I just saw one in AOPA magazine where they outlined Airbuses tactic in curbing this problem, the three balls on the center beam in the cockpit. Now everyone here can adjust height all they want but many have never sat in the many real world birds we have at our fingertips virtually. How in the world are you going to know what view aspect to adjust to when you haven't sat in the real plane? Geoffa uses pillows in one bird and none in the other, a man 5'8" has to adjust the seat differently than a man 6' but at the end of the day they are vying for the same out the window view. Virtually these factors are a non issue as one size fits all but you have the right view. It's not personal preference rather your out the window view should be universal that's why Airbus chose the ball method. If your designing an aircraft you know the right height your head should be to get the best out the window view (this fact is even more prevalent when one looks at the external model and sees the virtual pilot sitting properly at the right seat adjusted height in the cockpit). No matter the height of everyone on the development team if each one sat in an aircraft they adjust the seats to give them exactly the same result. Airbus has pilots of many different heights but they all have to match up the ball line of site before they takeoff so they get exactly the same view out the cockpit window. This is all I'm saying. A developer knows his object aircraft inside and out why not put in the correct line of site out the window in the VC? Leaving it to the end user is sinceless again because 9 times out of 10 they've never sat in the real thing to know what to set, furthermore I'd be willing to bet most just trust how the product comes out the box and never realize in a real plane the panel is not in front of them like a 2D panel is in FS. Ron since almost anything said remotely about a ES product offends you I will say this again I'm not harping on you or your work as this is a universal issue. It's just the Twin Star was just released and I've sat in the real one more than a few times. Looking at the bird externally seeing you sitting in the cockpit reminded me to ask an idle question that's been dogging me for years nothing more...

Me-I have wondered why fs developers (and I am speaking generally) do not present proper prop (rpm) sounds in constant speed prop aircraft.

aren't Carenado and others doing this now? i remember reading something about fs not modeling this correctly before or something

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.

Well said Art. That is the precise reason that PR talk is not a solution. Better to state the facts than mislead folks. :(

Nah, not an Eaglesoft issue at all. Dillon included us for his convenience sake but he has a long history of this type posting. Usually it's couched as an attempt to pressure devs into accomodating his personal preferences.Noel, on the other hand, usually attempts to paint devs as "defensive" if they do not agree with whatever his marketing view happens to be.We aren't the first dev to experience this and we certainly won't be the last.We simply told the truth. It really is not possible to please eveyone whether in the sim world or the real world.

Ahh, back to Response 1. Oh well, I tried.

Ok Noel, here's an easy example...You email us with the coordinates the you prefer, we include them in a release, Dillon comes along and doesn't like them, then Al shows up and prefers both his own and/or Dillons coordinates. Geof comes along and wants pilows, Jeremy wants a utility which will make editing easy....This applies to everyones personal preferences. You see it threads about reflective VC glass vs none, VC or no VC, 2D or no 2D. etc. etc.Again, not possible to please everyone. Period.

Ok Noel, here's an easy example...You email us with the coordinates the you prefer, we include them in a release, Dillon comes along and doesn't like them, then Al shows up and prefers both his own and/or Dillons coordinates.This applies to everyones personal preferences. You see it threads about reflective VC glass vs none, VC or no VC, 2D or no 2D. etc. etc.Again, not possible to please everyone. Period.

Ron please read my latest post above and stop this mess. You know no matter how tall or short a person is the view outside the cockpit should be somewhat universal thanks to adjustable seats. What some developers are doing is programing the default VC settings to have the same aspect as if one was sitting in front of a 2D panel. You and I both know that's not how it is in any real aircraft.