I know that it isn't possible to please everyone but 'think' I know what the 'basic' idea of this thread is.1. E.g. most photos at airliners.net etc are taken from the third or fourth seat in the cockpit (which is way too low) and PR photos also show the panel from a very low level.2. Few sim pilots ever have the opportunitiy to sit in the captains or copis seat so they don't have an idea how great the view is from this seats, especially how big the cut off angle is.3. There are a LOT of screenshots posted by users like: 'Me during final approach in my 767' and this poor guy can't even see the approach lights during his approach, let alone the runway during the flare because it never occured to him that the default view position could be wrong.It's not about pleasing everyone, it's about putting the sim pilot in a realistic seating position.

I've actually changed my mind, slightly, about two pages ago. I agree that the majority of aircraft, at least the ones in my virtual hangar, do not position the pilot properly. But it's so easy to modify to your liking that it really isn't a big deal. There's been talk about how we all have the same view out of aircraft, but that's just not true outside of the heavies. Geof and I each see things differently out of the Baron no matter how many pillows he sits on or how low I position the seat. I look crouched over, and he looks like he's about to take a nap sitting on two pillows, and maybe a blanket and warm glass of milk. If he were to try to get to my eye level, he wouldn't be able to reach the rudder pedals. If the developer puts the seat in what most would consider the correct height, we would have a whole new conversation filled with complaints about the level of zoom and longitudinal distance from the panel. Or to put it more simply, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think the easy solution is for everyone to just modify the pilot's position as they see fit and keep the devs focused on the things that we can't change that need to be right when the model is compiled. EZDOK (or whatever the real name is) makes that easy, but for those that don't want to spend the money, modifying the "views" section of the .cfg isn't too much of a challenge. My biggest issue is trying to get the forward and side views to come to a compromise. I don't have many high-wing aircraft in the fleet that I've been able to modify to my liking. In fact, the only two I can think of are the Carenado and Just Flight 152s. All of my low-wings are okay, and every heavy in my virtual fleet is fine, but those high-wings drive me crazy every time.

I don't understand what all the argument is about. I thought FSX was all about tweaking, not flying. I havn't flown in ages since I'm having so much fun getting my eyepoint in just the right place. :(

I don't understand what all the argument is about. I thought FSX was all about tweaking, not flying. I havn't flown in ages since I'm having so much fun getting my eyepoint in just the right place. :(

Well said Art... :(

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.

Good grief. If the developers spent their time chasing things this small they would never get onto the next product. Especially since you can easilly assign eyepoint movement to buttons on your joystick and easilly adjust the eyepoint....kind of like adjusting the seat like every single pilot has to do when they get in a plane. My customer satisfaction rating has nothing to do with eyepoint. Nothing. Zilch. Nadda. It is so easy to adjust. If you really want realism, get the Track IR and set the eyepoint so you can't even see the isntruments looking forward. Then look down to see them. That's what it's like in a 777 simulator (which I've driven). Or, put the 2d panel on a separate monitor and have the outside view on your main monitor. Again, you will have to look down at th instruments. This whole thread is beyond silly...Colin

Good grief. If the developers spent their time chasing things this small they would never get onto the next product. Especially since you can easilly assign eyepoint movement to buttons on your joystick and easilly adjust the eyepoint....kind of like adjusting the seat like every single pilot has to do when they get in a plane. My customer satisfaction rating has nothing to do with eyepoint. Nothing. Zilch. Nadda. It is so easy to adjust. If you really want realism, get the Track IR and set the eyepoint so you can't even see the isntruments looking forward. Then look down to see them. That's what it's like in a 777 simulator (which I've driven). Or, put the 2d panel on a separate monitor and have the outside view on your main monitor. Again, you will have to look down at th instruments. This whole thread is beyond silly...Colin

It all boils down to everyone having (and expressing) an opinion and having the right to do so. Bigger than that is that we all have different tastes and flying styles. (no I do not like country music!)cheersjja