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.

That's a very fair point. Then you get these people who use subliminal baron messages to try to get you to baron model certain aircraft.I like the idea of a utility that we could use to set our zoom and position coordinates how we each like them, then it saves it, problem solved. Sounds like a job for that guy who created EZDOK.Edit* And Dillon, while I agree about height, that is to say that most would have a relatively similiar vertical presence, it really wouldn't matter because we all have different preferences for level of zoom and distance from the panel. I can't see anyway that a developer could make the masses happy, with the exception of some of the low wing GA birds which I have found to usually be pretty good.

That's a very fair point. Then you get these people who use subliminal baron messages to try to get you to baron model certain aircraft.I like the idea of a utility that we could use to set our zoom and position coordinates how we each like them, then it saves it, problem solved. Sounds like a job for that guy who created EZDOK.

First off I'm not asking Ron or any developer to change anything. There is a proper height and out the window view specific for every aircraft. Adjustable seats allows any sized pilot to achieve optimal view outside the cockpit. My question here is how are people who've never sat in the real bird going to know the right out the cockpit view they should have? If your a developer and sat in the real thing you know this info and an example of that is how PMDG set the virtual cockpit height in their 744. Letting customers do it who never sat in a real 744 would end up looking totally different than what it's really like. I mention PMDG because I also pointed out their 737NG above. Of all aircraft I've bought PMDG nailed it with the 744. I'm actually going this weekend to a real Level-D 744 simulator here in Eagan, I'll post pictures... Bottom line is a developer knows what it's like sitting in the real thing, do like PMDG and reflect that in the VC. Read my post above about Airbus, this has nothing to do with pilot height. Developers should properly set the VC eyepoint as the end user more times than not hasn't a clue furthermore stop matching up the VC to look like the 2D panel. Again I'm not harping on any developer specifically as most of them do this from time to time.I'm done guys, take it or leave it...

First off I'm not asking Ron or any developer to change anything. There is a proper height and out the window view specific for every aircraft. Adjustable seats allows any sized pilot to achieve optimal view outside the cockpit. My question here is how are people who've never sat in the real bird going to know the right out the cockpit view they should have? If your a developer and sat in the real thing you know this info and an example of that is how PMDG set the virtual cockpit height in their 744. Letting customers do it who never sat in a 744 would end up looking totally different than what it's really like. I mention PMDG because I also pointed out their 737NG. Of all aircraft I've bought PMDG nailed it with the 744. I'm actually going this weekend to a real Level-D 744 simulator here in Eagan this weekend. I'll post pictures... Bottom line is a developer knows what it's like sitting in the real thing, do like PMDG and reflect that in the VC. Read my post above about Airbus, this has nothing to do with pilot height. Developers should properly set the VC eyepoint as the end user more times than not hasn't a clue what things should look like out the window of these various aircraft furthermore stop matching up the VC to look like the 2D panel. Again I'm not harping on any developer specifically as most of them do this.

We all understand your point about height. I'm not unfamiliar with this, and I assume most here aren't either. But if the height is set properly, but I choose a different zoom or wish to have my view of the panel closer or further back than it is, than I would almost necessarily have to adjust the height myself to accomodate for the alterations made by adjusting zoom or longitudinal coordinates.

We all understand your point about height. I'm not unfamiliar with this, and I assume most here aren't either. But if the height is set properly, but I choose a different zoom or wish to have my view of the panel closer or further back than it is, than I would almost necessarily have to adjust the height myself to accomodate for the alterations made by adjusting zoom or longitudinal coordinates.

Great point but no matter how you slice it or zoom it having the eyepoint down below the glareshield is just plain wrong and many do that. They match the height to the 2D panel requiring more work to get it right. Again PMDG's 744 is on the money no matter how you zoom in or out. Zoom really doesn't affect your picture out the window.RealAir's SF260 is another great example of getting things right with the eyepoint no matter how you zoom in or out. What's wrong with their approach versus letting things fall on simmers again who haven't a clue what their out the window picture should be in a SF260?

Ron please read my 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 aircraft.

Dillon, you started "this mess" when you named me personally and my company. You posted the same "mess" in my support forum. I gave you the exact same answer there as here. The result of your post in our forum was that certain people crawled out of the woodwork and started a disruption which resulted in posts being deleted and certain users being deactivated.Get a grip my man and recognize that when you post this sort of stuff it appears that you are aching to make much ado about a little edit...Jeremy's suggestion is great! Hopefully some enterprising free or commercial dev will write a little utility for those who don't like the coordinates a dev delivers. :(

Great point but not matter how you slice it or zoom it having the eyepoint down below the glareshield is just plain wrong and many do that, they match the height to the 2D panel requiring more work to get it right. Again PMDG's 744 is on the money no matter how you zoom in or out. It really doesn't affect your picture out the window.RealAir's SF260 is another example of getting things right no matter how you zoom in or out. What's wrong with their approach which actually works.

Okay, now that we definitely agree on.......the part about the eyepoint below the glareshield. Can't comment on the SF260 though, haven't used it in a long time.

Dillon, you started "this mess" when you named me personally and my company. You posted the same "mess" in my support forum. I gave you the exact same answer there as here. The result of your post in our forum was that certain people crawled out of the woodwork and started a disruption which resulted in posts being deleted and certain users being deactivated.Get a grip my man and recognize that when you post this sort of stuff it appears that you are aching to make much ado about a little edit...Jeremy's suggestion is great! Hopefully some enterprising free or commercial dev will write a little utility for those who don't like the coordinates a dev delivers. :(

Wow, the anger is fully realized... :( All I can say is sorry for the disruption on your forum, I was just asking a simple question thinking I could get a simple answer.

Wow, the anger is fully realized... :( We provided a simple answer. One that you apparently didn't want...All I can say is sorry for the disruption on your forum, I was just asking a simple question thinking I could get a simple answer.

Dillon, you really should consider what you've done over there..I'm sure those who've been deactivated thought they were doing no harm as well...

Dillon, you really should consider what you've done over there..I'm sure those who've been deactivated thought they were doing no harm as well...

Again Ron I apologize... :(

Again Ron I apologize... :(

Apology accepted... :(In the future please leave us out of these types of posts..

Apology accepted... :(In the future please leave us out of these types of posts..

It's hard when the truth of the matter is the issue I'm raising is present in your products and your work brought to my attention to ask why this age old issue is still happening.

It's hard when the truth of the matter is the issue I'm raising is present in your products and your work brought to my attention to ask why this age old issue is still happening.

And the simple answer is the same as it was when you presented the topic many years ago not only about us but about other developers as well.Do you think that because you named us while saying this is universal has any less impact. I've just become aware that you posted the same thing over at Flightsim.com as well as the disruption caused in our forums and in each case it appears that you've singled us out.Why include us in your quest to pressure devs into developing coordinates to your preference?The simple answer given in our first response is to edit your own viewpoints to your own preference.I've asked you to leave us out of your future postings whether positive or negative. Will you do so?

Ron and Dillon, you can take it to PM, the Eaglesoft forums, or anywhere else, but the personal matters are none of anyone elses business. No need to lock the thread, just get back on topic.

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.

Anthony, your post reflects a simple and realistic answer to the OPs question. Your post, and Jeremy's suggestion for an editing utility for folks to set their preferences seems to be the only viable solition as devs can't possibly please everyone.. :(

Anthony, your post reflects a simple and realistic answer to the OPs question. Your post, and Jeremy's suggestion for an editing utility for folks to set their preferences seems to be the only viable solition as devs can't possibly please everyone.. :(

Another thing I would like to see, sort of on topic, is an optional co-pilot's panel view, but not the view you get from pressing "A" until you're in the right seat. I don't like that because I can't get it to pan fast enough. I made my own for the CJ1 and it's working just fine, but probably not as good as if the pros did it.