Interesting point of view I must say...You ARE a head honcho of a company, right?Why don't you take this as an opportunity to better your product based on a qualified feedback?This approach you show here is just plain ignorant and arrogant, sorry...

I've now seen two posts by you that are uncalled for, both provoking arguments and acting foolish. One more and your short stay here at AVSIM will get even shorter. Understood?

I've now seen two posts by you that are uncalled for, both provoking arguments and acting foolish. One more and your short stay here at AVSIM will get even shorter. Understood?

You can add this insult to *******...Post 369, three from the end.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...p;#entry1774707... and I would say that ******* has already pegged him... post 371

You can add this insult to *******...Post 369, three from the end.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...p;#entry1774707... and I would say that ******* has already pegged him... post 371

Thank you Paul, he's gone.

Interesting point of view I must say...You ARE a head honcho of a company, right?Why don't you take this as an opportunity to better your product based on a qualified feedback?This approach you show here is just plain ignorant and arrogant, sorry...

You are welcome to your opinion of me be it low or high.What we've outlined and proven throughout the thread is the simple truth that it is indeed impossible to please everyone either in the sim world or in the real world.If you or others either will not or cannot accept that simple truth then there is little that we can offer. If you choose to imagine that developers are going to build custom units for individual preferences I'm afraid you'll wait a long time.Read my first response to the OP. There I said that we build for "across the board views" and are not the least bit surprised that we did not meet his personal preference.The OP chose to use our name and started a ruckus not only here but in our forums. In our view, the ruckus was in vain but again you are welcome to your own opinion just as we are. :(

I think that this thread is proof positive that ALL FSX plane developers are TALL. :( jja

:( B) Now that's funny JJ

I haven't seen it yet....but there might be an aircraft out there that does I have missed.

Does the DA Cheyenne have proper pitch sounds? Something in the back of my memory seems to suggest that it does although I haven't got around to checking it.

Ron: just keep on keepin' on. ES produces some of the finest BizJets in this little industry, and you've nothing to be ashamed of. There are actually some of us out here that like and respect you for your honest and straight-forward approach.

Any pilots out there stepped into a plane and reached between the legs to crank the seat up.............and the thing just turns and turns and doesn't actually do anything? (And it's at Full low)Now that's a fun day of flying. You really do feel like you're seven years old again (Seat fully forward, Face on the glareshield with eyes just poking out above it).From What I've been able to tell, View does not only relate to the seat height - but also the way the airplane sits. The easiest example is a set of piper archers at the place I fly from.One Archer - sits reasonably high on its main struts, the nosewheel strut seems to sit pretty.....Normal? Anyway, the view out the front during Taxi/Departure/Landing is good - No complaints what-so-ever.The other Archer - sits high on its nosewheel strut and slightly lower on its main-wheels. This creates a 2-3 degree nose up effect. And puts the flat tail of the archer "Parallel" with the ground (Vs. Angled up on the other one). You can't see out the front very well during taxi/takeoff. You can see the taxiway/runway alright, but you have to sit "Upright" (Leaning forward and sitting tall) vs. relaxed in the seat. Once in cruise - View out the window is practically the same. (Nose slightly down at 120 knots, good view over the panel). On the otherhand, in the 172 - I feel like I'm flying a truck. the seats sit fairly high, Good visibility over the nose at all times. You can even see the horizon in a little bit of an up attitude (Not too much, but a bit).Sorth of an interesting topic. I agree, some developers get it way off base though. Others find the happy middleground between Outside and Inside.Edit:This is pretty much Eye-point in the archer.PictureI have to say, the 172 does it a lot better :(.

Ron: just keep on keepin' on. ES produces some of the finest BizJets in this little industry, and you've nothing to be ashamed of. There are actually some of us out here that like and respect you for your honest and straight-forward approach.

Thanks Paul. The most positive aspect of this thread is that users are now more aware of how they can edit their viewpoints to enhance their experience. :(

This is pretty much Eye-point in the archer.Picture

The realworld Archer photo is pretty much what I see as a default view for FSX default/addon aircraft. It may work in real life since we have a wider view angle than a camera, and it's second nature to move our eyes to scan the view. I have to zoom out a little to simulate a wider view angle, because it's really a pain to move the hat switch. Of course TrackIR or a similar device is another solution.

Well, That's just the archer and varries from airplane to airplane.As another example, the 172S as I said has a great view out the front and to the lower sides. For the DA-42, I remember it being a very "Snug" cockpit. With good visibility out the canopy and marginal visibility over the panel (Much like the Archer). (I was able to sit in one a while back at an airshow, Diamond flew one in - and as a matter of coincidence the salesman wasn't actually supposed to be "Selling" the airplane HAH, Diamond's engine supplier for the Jet-A diesel engines went bankrupt and they were in the process of finding a new engine for the airplane. He(Diamond) was taking orders but not "Pushing" the features and what-not to make people want to buy them (Due to backlog of the airplanes and not having engines lined up for future orders)Anyway. Not all airplanes are created equal - as said the view out the 172S is very good. In this pic from my first solo you can easily see my face (Where-as in the archer I look more like Kilroy) The airplane has good visibility over the panel and down the cowl (in the archer you have to crane your neck or lean forward to see the cowl). Like Geofa was saying, in his Baron he can't see over the panel without help from a pillow or two, and in the seneca he can easily see over it So it's not just a magical number, each plane has its own "Seating" qualities for the pilot.172 View

The realworld Archer photo is pretty much what I see as a default view for FSX default/addon aircraft. It may work in real life since we have a wider view angle than a camera, and it's second nature to move our eyes to scan the view. I have to zoom out a little to simulate a wider view angle, because it's really a pain to move the hat switch. Of course TrackIR or a similar device is another solution.

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.

Oh come on man, no one's talking about pleasing everyone! I'm not really talking about this particular issue either, I'm talking about a style of customer service. Let's say, as with the very wonderful ERJ-145, the dev team hear several complaints about the VC lighting options, or the lack thereof as it were. They could decide to explore that a little more, perhaps post a poll and see, or not. That's all I'm talking about. What if, you did this for this specific issue of the seat height, and discovered (by applying your Response 2 strategy), that 75% of users favored bumping up the seat height by 4 clicks. Respond, or ignore? Well of course you must decide just how much time and effort it will take to implement this particular, for the final decision on changing or not. But you get the drift I'm just commenting that with several developers in my limited exposure, there is a tendency to defend the current status versus listen and be open. All in all, as I've said elsewhere recently, it's a wonderful thing we have all the wonderful work of developers of this add on and that. Without the work of you dedicated folks the hobby would be very tired indeed right about now.

We understood your position the first time Noel. Hope you understand ours. :(

I demand the next level of realism in VC adjustments, so that I can emulate this situation that happened to me once...I trap my fingers when pulling up the spring loaded lug that adjusts the rudder pedal distance, resulting a pathetic call for assistance by me whilst I attempt to not cry from the pain, until someone else on the flight line eventually hears me and comes along and pulls the release toggle that I cannot reach because I can't move my fingers which are trapped in the mechanism. :( That will be when it is as real as it gets LOLBy the way, that really hurts, so avoid it if you can.Al

We understood your position the first time Noel. Hope you understand ours. :(

May our mutual understandings provide the impetus for continuous quality improvement personally and professionally.

May our mutual understandings provide the impetus for continuous quality improvement personally and professionally.

Indeed.