Before posting (stupid) things about seating in front of a computer or 3D rendition, you should read the links provided where Ryan (from PMDG) explains that they were wrong about this point ! It's obvious... you still continue to deny it.

 

 The point of the matter is not whether you are correct or not, it's whether people really care. You are playing a sim on a computer, it is not the real thing. The whole thing will change size if you have a bigger monitor. I fly through rain but none hits the plane, fly over land that has square edges, I see other aircraft landing in the opposite way that I am taking off or sit on the runway. The PMDG is a very nice rendition of a 737 but it's not going to be an exact copy. I cant open the cockpit door, windows. I have to load fuel and passengers through the CDU, I'm sure a real pilot does not do that. Just take it as what it is. If PMDG change it in SP2 then all well and good but don't make a big thing about it and get all shirty with people.

The point is  that the op was right  and  people  still flaming him for being  right

Also if you just look at the OP, there was no moaning or nagging involved, he wasn't slagging PMDG off in any way, just an observation, an informative one, I didn't notice this before and it won't affect the way I look at the NGX but as I said it's good to know. they said they're gonna work on some of the cockpit geometrical dimensions in SP2 so that's also something to look for.

The point is  that the op was right  and  people  still flaming him for being  right

Actually, no, that is not the point.

 

The OP compared apples with oranges and came up with bananas, and is claiming that his interpretation of the banana must be correct based a quote from someone else talking about something else that no one has actually seen yet. Go to airliners.net and you will find hundreds of cockpit photos that all suggest that the OP is right and that the gap is too big. Much too big. But the one thing that all those photos have in common is that they were taken by someone standing up between and behind the pilots seats, which completly changes the parallax effect.

Than why are pmdg going to make the changes than if  the op is  wrong  than

 

Actually, no, that is not the point.

 

The OP compared apples with oranges and came up with bananas, and is claiming that his interpretation of the banana must be correct based a quote from someone else talking about something else that no one has actually seen yet. Go to airliners.net and you will find hundreds of cockpit photos that all suggest that the OP is right and that the gap is too big. Much too big. But the one thing that all those photos have in common is that they were taken by someone standing up between and behind the pilots seats, which completly changes the parallax effect.

 

 

Exactly.  While my wording wasn't the best, and of course, I took more than a few shots at the people who seem to nitpick, my main argument was that the evidence was based on human perception, and not hard fact.

 

Granted, Joshua was right, but there's a big difference between "it doesn't look right," and "here are the numbers (i.e. facts) of why it doesn't look right."  While the human brain can very well pick up on slight nuances that are out of place, it can also be tricked very easily.  Just go look at any site with optical illusions:

 

Are these lines perfectly parallel, or bent?

 

Yes, I did take a shot at him, along with the others who pick at the minute details, mostly because so many of those arguments are just wrong.  Yes, I did pre-judge his response because of that past experience.  Yes, he was right in the end.

 

...but the method by which the point was proven was subject to many optical and human factors, because of the lack of hard evidence, that it was hard to believe it on its face.  You'll note in the linked post from Ryan, he said they went and re-measured everything and it will be changed.  They took hard numbers.  They didn't just infer it based off of photographs.

 

Again, I doubt Joshua had access to a 737 in order to come up with a stronger argument, but you can't really be too upset with those who doubted him.  Good for him for his astute observation, but at the same time, those who based their counterpoints on scientific concepts aren't necessarily incorrect.

Hi Kyle,

 

The lines are perfectly parallel. B)

 

Cheers

 

Neil

The point of the matter is not whether you are correct or not, it's whether people really care. You are playing a sim on a computer, it is not the real thing. The whole thing will change size if you have a bigger monitor

 

I don't really think that's correct ! That's why they use 3D rendition, because they know they can reproduce the 'reality', otherwise they would only use 2D... You underestimate the possibilities of 3D modelling...

The point is that the op was right and people still flaming him for being right

 

Exactly !

Again, I doubt Joshua had access to a 737 in order to come up with a stronger argument

 

Dude I was working as flight dispatcher for a big low cost European Airline, I saw dozen of 737-800 cockpits everyday, more than you did probably ! Do you want some pictures maybe ?

 

I hope you guy's realize that there's a big difference between the picture in the post above and the second picture here (2nd link). Actually if you look carefully, they replaced few things around the windscreen...

 

 

On this one look at the windows handles, it is bigger than on the other one... same for the height between A/P panel and overhead we are speaking about.

 

http://www.flyaoamedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Full_VC_Previewfull1.jpg

 

 

This has been corrected in the version you guy's have, but then the height wasn't correct anymore...

 

http://www.simflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06_VCoverviewcruise.jpg

 

 

Anyway, i stop here, it has been proven and showed by PMDG Team that the dimensions where not correct (audit using real cockpit dimensions, FCOM...).

 

Cheers guy's B)

 

 

Anyway, i stop here, it has been proven and showed by PMDG Team that the dimensions where not correct (audit using real cockpit dimensions, FCOM...).

 

Dude, I was supporting you.  I was just saying I didn't agree with your method (it was very subjective - objective would've been better), and took shots at myself no less than three times.  Relax!

 

 

 

Dude I was working as flight dispatcher for a big low cost European Airline, I saw dozen of 737-800 cockpits everyday, more than you did probably !

 

I didn't know that, and I doubt others did either.  You never mentioned it.  No reason to get upset about it.

 

Just as a curiosity:

Besides fam flights (which wouldn't amount to dozens per day), why were you in dozens of cockpits per day?  Unless the dispatch role is very different from the role in the United States, you should be at the dispatch desk working on dispatch paperwork, tracking flights, and advising flight crews.

Mmm, is that the time... I need a beer!

 

 

I didn't know that, and I doubt others did either. You never mentioned it

 

There you go it was written at the beggining of my post...

 

 

 

I have been working as flight dispatch for Ryanair, and i was always wondering why this difference between simulation and real

 

 

 

 

Dude, I was supporting you. I was just saying I didn't agree with your method (it was very subjective - objective would've been better), and took shots at myself no less than three times. Relax!

 

I know Dude, and thanks for your time !

 

 

 

 

Just as a curiosity:

Besides fam flights (which wouldn't amount to dozens per day), why were you in dozens of cockpits per day? Unless the dispatch role is very different from the role in the United States, you should be at the dispatch desk working on dispatch paperwork, tracking flights, and advising flight crews.

 

When you work for this company, you have to prepare Weather documentation , OFP for crews, when the aircraft is ready, you have to go see the crew to give the Loadsheet, and make LMC (Last Minute Changes).

 

Cheers Dude

I don't really think that's correct ! That's why they use 3D rendition, because they know they can reproduce the 'reality', otherwise they would only use 2D... You underestimate the possibilities of 3D modelling...

 

 

 

What reality? I sit on a computer chair looking at a bank of monitors, controlling the aircraft with a mixture of game controllers, keyboard command and a mouse. I take off from a airport that is miles from where I am and land in a completely different place but I am still sat at home in front of the same bank of monitors. FSX is a game/sim, not quite as much as a game as Call of Duty, not as complex of a sim as XPlane. It is a program running on a computer, an escape from reality, a reality where you can go where ever you want, whenever you want and if you crash you start all over again. Normally a case of starting over again when FSX crashes. The fact that the measurements is not quite right is not a big thing. Like I said, most people don't care and have bigger problems in there life.

 

 

I know Dude, and thanks for your time !

 

You're welcome.  Man, I'm surprised I missed that mention right from the get go.  Perhaps I just saw the red arrows that looked like the typical rivet-counter argument and just ignored all of what you wrote.  I'll claim I hadn't had my coffee by that point (even though the time stamp says it was about lunch time)...

 

My bad.

 

 

 

When you work for this company, you have to prepare Weather documentation , OFP for crews, when the aircraft is ready, you have to go see the crew to give the Loadsheet, and make LMC (Last Minute Changes).

 

Cool.  I've never experienced an operation like that.  When I worked ramp at Dulles most recently, the gate attendants printed the releases, and the crews picked them up while walking out, or I walked them out.  LMC were all coordinated over freq.

I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't gotten the "Warning" tag.

Okay, so I'll be the first one to step up and admit defeat.

 

 

 

As an aside, it says a lot about a person the way they react to winning an argument, especially in regards to those who contributed nothing, yet are clearly present in commentary from the peanut gallery.

Looks like your the only one is going to admit to defeat on this one