Sorry, I cannot help you as in other topics I was attacked because I'm giving info... so, because this topic is already considered useless (but I think you are right asking when the product is still updated) I will not post drawings about it.

I don't think that this topic is useless; I believe that these are valid concerns.I am not sure what drawings you are referring to, but you clearly wanted me to be aware of them (you don't need to waste your time and effort by making a post telling me that you won't help me when you can simply not make a post at all :(). If you are afraid of being attacked, then you can send me a private message containing the drawings.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by ksta

I'll do ;)

Ah, I see. Would you happen to know the registration number of aircraft that PMDG used?

I certainly don't know either, but given the condition of the NGX VC (dirty, full of fingerprints and dust, worn-out and equipped with old-fashioned radios and transponder (no flame here, just stating the facts, I love it anyway) it's probably an old one bound for the scrapyard or for transfer to some 3rd world country As for the PMDG exterior/interior model: please leave it as it is (although I'd love to see a shiny, new and clean VC)

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by bpcw001

The wing box is the main structural element of the aeroplane and is most probably the same for all variants. The fairing covers the wing box and the retracted gear etc. As the length of the fuselage increases with the variants then the aerodynamic properties can change. As a result of this it's possible that the exact shape of the fairing will also change.Of course without seeing drawings etc the above is just an "educated guess"

I love perfection as much as the next guy. But sometimes there's those things that you just have to "let slide", not read to much into, and not make a big deal about (not that you are). this is one of those times.

That, and I'm still baffled by peoples' lack of understanding of the information we were given quite some time ago:The plane was developed with Boeing's data/measurements/whatever.If that's wrong, then the real plane is wrong...right?Basing your dimensions-based argument off of photographs is stupid (sorry to be blunt, but it's me we're talking about here). Coming from a guy who's an amateur photographer (it doesn't take much to know about lens distortion), cameras are known to take normal and make it appear abnormal.Example:Based on arguments like these, if I modeled this brick wall, only an accurate modeling would have bowed lines. In actuality, we all know these lines are parallel, but the camera is introducing lens distortion. Same goes for any photo. Placing yourself farther away tends to reduce this distortion, but the fact remains that when you pass anything through a lens, you're going to get distortion.Additionally, the sim is terrible at shading. It tries valiantly, but it's still terrible at it. Shadows introduce perceived differences in the shapes and lines of the aircraft.Basing the argument off of the inlet warning line (that red line you're pointing out) is also inaccurate, as well. If you look up 737-800 photos on Airliners.net (I'd link to them for you, if A.net wasn't so nasty about linking), you'll note the line location varies, or is not shown at all. Furthermore, I think that in the pictures you've provided, are you sure the aircraft types are the same (-800 compared to a v-800)?

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

That, and I'm still baffled by peoples' lack of understanding of the information we were given quite some time ago:The plane was developed with Boeing's data/measurements/whatever.If that's wrong, then the real plane is wrong...right?

As I've mentioned in the first post of the thread, building something using blueprints (or other manfucaturer's data, for that matter) does not make one invulnerable to making mistakes.

Basing your dimensions-based argument off of photographs is stupid (sorry to be blunt, but it's me we're talking about here). Coming from a guy who's an amateur photographer (it doesn't take much to know about lens distortion), cameras are known to take normal and make it appear abnormal.Example:Based on arguments like these, if I modeled this brick wall, only an accurate modeling would have bowed lines. In actuality, we all know these lines are parallel, but the camera is introducing lens distortion. Same goes for any photo. Placing yourself farther away tends to reduce this distortion, but the fact remains that when you pass anything through a lens, you're going to get distortion.

I believe that this image was taken using a fish-eye lens. These types of lenses distrort images by a considerable amount.I have a digital camera with a regular 18-55 mm lens. When I take pictures with it, they do not appear distorted.

Additionally, the sim is terrible at shading. It tries valiantly, but it's still terrible at it. Shadows introduce perceived differences in the shapes and lines of the aircraft.

This is why it is important to look at the aircraft using angles that would allow you to compare the shape against a bright background (such as the daytime sky, for instance). Using shadows is not the only method that one can use to discern shapes.

Basing the argument off of the inlet warning line (that red line you're pointing out) is also inaccurate, as well. If you look up 737-800 photos on Airliners.net (I'd link to them for you, if A.net wasn't so nasty about linking), you'll note the line location varies, or is not shown at all. Furthermore, I think that in the pictures you've provided, are you sure the aircraft types are the same (-800 compared to a v-800)?

I have looked at many NG pictures and have not been able to find one that shows that I am wrong. In my first post, I mentioned that, if people disagree with me, it would be nice if they provided evidence to support their statements. I understand that you cannot link airliners.net photos in threads, but you can certainly link them in private messages. If you have links to photos that show that I am wrong, then I would very much like to see them. :(

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by ksta

As I've mentioned in the first post of the thread, building something using blueprints (or other manfucaturer's data, for that matter) does not make one invulnerable to making mistakes.

True, but depending on the method, you're virtually guaranteed accuracy. I'm not sure of their method, but it beats the old place-image-of-Janes-profile-under-model-and-guesstimate. I have a feeling the prints included dimensions (if not full models), and the tools available to create the model would also have similar. To be honest, with today's technology, the burden of proof lies on the detractor (you), not the rest of us. Prove (not just with two vague pictures without dimensions) to us that it's wrong, and I'll cede.

I believe that this image was taken using a fish-eye lens. These types of lenses distrort images by a considerable amount.I have a digital camera with a regular 18-55 mm lens. When I take pictures with it, they do not appear distorted.

Incorrect. A fisheye would distort more than this. This is a close angle with a less-than-native zoom. If you want to try it out (since you have an 18-55), walk up close to an object and zoom back to 18. Bam. Distortion.Fisheye distortion:

This is why it is important to look at the aircraft using angles that would allow you to compare the shape against a bright background (such as the daytime sky, for instance). Using shadows is not the only method that one can use to discern shapes.

This is true, but it is an important factor. Shadows very much influence the perceived shape, and without accurate shading, it is easy to perceive the shape differently as you are doing.

I have looked at many NG pictures and have not been able to find one that shows that I am wrong. In my first post, I mentioned that, if people disagree with me, it would be nice if they provided evidence to support their statements. I understand that you cannot link airliners.net photos in threads, but you can certainly link them in private messages. If you have links to photos that show that I am wrong, then I would very much like to see them. :(

I'm not going to waste my time providing you with evidence when, again, the burden of proof is on you, to be honest. If you're going to successfully change minds, you have to provide people with evidence, and thus far you have not. Four pictures and an opinion, without supporting evidence (inferred dimensions; direct model matching - as in SWA to SWA, sim versus actual; and so on) is not proof. Sorry Charlie!If you'd like to delve further into a photography basics and psychology session, lemme know!...and while you're collecting evidence, please do let us know if the number of rivets matches the real aircraft, along with the tonal quality of the warning indicators.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

Even IF it were off a bit, making changes to the model at this point would throw off every repaint made to date. Just from doing repaints, I can tell you that the 3d model projected on a 2d screen does indeed distort depending on the angle viewed.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by JokersWild

Incorrect. A fisheye would distort more than this. This is a close angle with a less-than-native zoom. If you want to try it out (since you have an 18-55), walk up close to an object and zoom back to 18. Bam. Distortion.Fisheye distortion:

You are correct; however, it doesn't appear that any of the aircraft pictures that I've posted in my first post were taken with a fish-eye lens or at a close angle with a less-than-native zoom, so the lens argument is a little shaky. :(

This is true, but it is an important factor. Shadows very much influence the perceived shape, and without accurate shading, it is easy to perceive the shape differently as you are doing.

Once again, you are correct.

True, but depending on the method, you're virtually guaranteed accuracy. I'm not sure of their method, but it beats the old place-image-of-Janes-profile-under-model-and-guesstimate. I have a feeling the prints included dimensions (if not full models), and the tools available to create the model would also have similar. To be honest, with today's technology, the burden of proof lies on the detractor (you), not the rest of us. Prove (not just with two vague pictures without dimensions) to us that it's wrong, and I'll cede.I'm not going to waste my time providing you with evidence when, again, the burden of proof is on you, to be honest. If you're going to successfully change minds, you have to provide people with evidence, and thus far you have not. Four pictures and an opinion, without supporting evidence (inferred dimensions; direct model matching - as in SWA to SWA, sim versus actual; and so on) is not proof. Sorry Charlie!

I don't want to change people's minds, I just want to know whether or not I have a logical concern regarding issues such as the one that this thread is about. An intersting thing to note is that this thread is a great opportunity for people with advanced knowledge regarding virtual-aircraft modeling to provide insight and show examples. This thread is supposed to be about learning, and, after two dozen posts, I still don't understand why my (and other individual's) concerns and opinions regarding this issue should be unsound.

This thread is supposed to be about learning, and, after two dozen posts, I still don't understand why my (and other individual's) concerns and opinions regarding this issue should be unsound.

The honest answer, from me at least, is that anyone who's been around simming and its related forums enough has had to deal with nitpickers:"This panel is 0.001 micrograms off" or "the paint is missing a rivet" (this is why people like you are colloquially called "rivet counters") or "the blue isn't blue enough" or "the distance between the glare and the overhead is off" are all things most of us have heard before, because someone felt it necessary to go pick at flaws.One, what point is there in pointing out that the model is slightly off? It's the final product, and unless it's something major, as in the engine is a full two feet out of position, there's no real point in bringing it up. What difference will it make, especially if it's really minor?Two, it brings about this idea that runs rampant in FS forums so much (I haven't figured out the psychological aspect out for why just yet, though I have an idea: pilot personalities are generally type A, and the type inclined to sit around with computers tends to be the type with a need to validate) that someone knows more than someone else. Basically, by pointing out some vague reference about how the wing box is possibly in error, it's essentially the same as saying "I could've done better" or "I know more than you, because I noticed it." It may not be your intention, but that's how it sometimes comes across. Robert addressed "corrections" in a post a while back, pointing out a similar issue where people play "stump the developer" in trying to find errors, and how you should have a little faith that the people who spent time around the aircraft, had the data for the aircraft, and so on, have the knowledge that you likely don't.Three, it's just plain annoying (just like me listing my points in numbers). How would you like it if someone else pointed out all of your faults? Granted, some feedback is nice, but some of it is a little much.Four, consider just for the sake of being the devil's advocate here, that the detail of rendering the curviness was left out in order to increase performance. More curves require higher computing power (ever wonder why AI models are very rudimentary looking most of the time?), so perhaps it was stepped down slightly in order to get a few extra frames. I'm not asserting this is the reason, but it's a possibility.Five, re-think (again), that the plane was developed from real world data, not reverse engineered off of pictures....so.What does anyone stand to gain from a discussion like this? That's my question.Every time someone manages a retort, you attempt to invalidate it, but make no effort to support your opinion, either. How do you know that whoever took those photos wasn't using an odd camera lens? Are they your pictures? Furthermore, any time light passes through a lens, especially lenses that are concave and convex (ever see a camera completely devoid of a convex glass somewhere in it?), there is an introduced error, despite how "real" they seem. Taking 3D and making it 2D also introduces errors, as Chris mentioned above.

The honest answer, from me at least, is that anyone who's been around simming and its related forums enough has had to deal with nitpickers:"This panel is 0.001 micrograms off" or "the paint is missing a rivet" (this is why people like you are colloquially called "rivet counters") or "the blue isn't blue enough" or "the distance between the glare and the overhead is off" are all things most of us have heard before, because someone felt it necessary to go pick at flaws....

We can speak about sounds... there is a recent topic about engine sounds, and there, noone is telling that new sounds are useless or that a bit of difference in loud is like counting rivets...Sorry, but there are 2 methods of judgment for the details.However, ksta has the answer to his question via PM, he can share if he wants or not. Pictures from airliners.net are clear enaught to answer, mostly because in most of them there is the red line running from krueger to the aft border of the ram air, the line is vertical and it shows clearly where the ram is positioned. This without drawings or other.

The honest answer, from me at least, is that anyone who's been around simming and its related forums enough has had to deal with nitpickers:"This panel is 0.001 micrograms off" or "the paint is missing a rivet" (this is why people like you are colloquially called "rivet counters") or "the blue isn't blue enough" or "the distance between the glare and the overhead is off" are all things most of us have heard before, because someone felt it necessary to go pick at flaws.One, what point is there in pointing out that the model is slightly off? It's the final product, and unless it's something major, as in the engine is a full two feet out of position, there's no real point in bringing it up. What difference will it make, especially if it's really minor?Two, it brings about this idea that runs rampant in FS forums so much (I haven't figured out the psychological aspect out for why just yet, though I have an idea: pilot personalities are generally type A, and the type inclined to sit around with computers tends to be the type with a need to validate) that someone knows more than someone else. Basically, by pointing out some vague reference about how the wing box is possibly in error, it's essentially the same as saying "I could've done better" or "I know more than you, because I noticed it." It may not be your intention, but that's how it sometimes comes across. Robert addressed "corrections" in a post a while back, pointing out a similar issue where people play "stump the developer" in trying to find errors, and how you should have a little faith that the people who spent time around the aircraft, had the data for the aircraft, and so on, have the knowledge that you likely don't.Three, it's just plain annoying (just like me listing my points in numbers). How would you like it if someone else pointed out all of your faults? Granted, some feedback is nice, but some of it is a little much.Four, consider just for the sake of being the devil's advocate here, that the detail of rendering the curviness was left out in order to increase performance. More curves require higher computing power (ever wonder why AI models are very rudimentary looking most of the time?), so perhaps it was stepped down slightly in order to get a few extra frames. I'm not asserting this is the reason, but it's a possibility.Five, re-think (again), that the plane was developed from real world data, not reverse engineered off of pictures....so.What does anyone stand to gain from a discussion like this? That's my question.Every time someone manages a retort, you attempt to invalidate it, but make no effort to support your opinion, either. How do you know that whoever took those photos wasn't using an odd camera lens? Are they your pictures? Furthermore, any time light passes through a lens, especially lenses that are concave and convex (ever see a camera completely devoid of a convex glass somewhere in it?), there is an introduced error, despite how "real" they seem. Taking 3D and making it 2D also introduces errors, as Chris mentioned above.

Your post appears to contain a lot of frustration. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by only stating your fourth point; it actually sounds like a fairly reasonable assumption, and you may be right. Everything else that your wrote in your message seemed rather unnecessary because it didn't help me or anyone else understand why these types of concerns should not need to be brought up in the future; it only showed me that you are clearly frustrated.It is fairly obvious that you have a bias against people that would like to try to help companies improve their products, and this bias is the driving force behind the way that you word some of your messages (as well as how you perceive other messages). The more that people introduce hostility and frustration into their messages, the more that others will be deterred from listening, and the more that you will see the same things being discussed over and over, which will only lead to more frustration.One way to reduce the amount of "nitpicking" could be to create a tutorial that is located in an easy-to-find place on the forums. This tutorial can explain why inconsistencies exist between simulated and real-world aircraft in order to help people understand these issues. This could also be an effective solution to help to reduce the amount frustration that people like you experience.It's not about having the need to know more than others, it's about having the need to help others.Think about it.... :(

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by ksta

Ken is correct. The inlet is a little short.. albeit not by a lot.

I for one could care less. It hasn't changed the flying qualities one bit. Do you want an accurate flying model or every rivet in the exactly right spot? Do you think for a minute if you spent big bucks and swung for a real simulator you would get any outside views to nitpick? You don't even get any scenery comparible to what we get. If we spent as many hours flying as some spend counting rivets we would all be on our way to a professional ticket.Enough said.Tom Hibben

I for one could care less. It hasn't changed the flying qualities one bit. Do you want an accurate flying model or every rivet in the exactly right spot? Do you think for a minute if you spent big bucks and swung for a real simulator you would get any outside views to nitpick? You don't even get any scenery comparible to what we get. If we spent as many hours flying as some spend counting rivets we would all be on our way to a professional ticket.Enough said.Tom Hibben

This post adds nothing to the discussion. Different people like different things; it is not a difficult concept to think about. :(