That won't be possible, moving the texture won't move the actual door handle :-)

Is it a 3d part?

Since you can see the door handle move when opening the doors... Yup.

If you look closely to those pics, the eyebrow window is smaller on the NGX too. Small detais that really don't matter.

If you look closely to those pics, the eyebrow window is smaller on the NGX too. Small detais that really don't matter.

 

I was about to say the same, but that one seems more like it's actually influenced by the angle. The PMDG shot is lower and more toward the nose. The real shot is level with the windows and more side-on.

 

Moreover, I just didn't feel like fanning the flames.

The handle is not aligned, but, I think, it is something that needs to modify all exixting liveries to be fixed. So, if someone wants it better, I think he can modify the livery by itself.

 

I'd say it may still be possible to revisit the handle position in ER, BBJ and MIL (if published) add-ons. That way only new paintkit will have to be changed, and authors of already published BBJ repaints would just port their repaints.

I was about to say the same, but that one seems more like it's actually influenced by the angle. The PMDG shot is lower and more toward the nose. The real shot is level with the windows and more side-on.

 

He actually may be correct that the window sizes differ. I agree that the viewing angle would influence the relative sizes of the windows, but, when you compare how the window parts align with each other (since they are located on the same surface), you can see, in the following attachments, that the viewing angle would probably have little influence. Further review of different pictures and angles would confirm my statement.

 

Another thing that you can notice, using the same attachments, is that the metal panels on the surface of the NGX fuselage don't line up with the metal panels on the real NG 737 (when comparing the position of the lines with the cockpit windows), but I think that this is more of a texture issue rather than an exterior-model issue.

 

Moreover, I just didn't feel like fanning the flames.

 

The purpose of this thread is to try to help improve a product. To read posts where people equate "trying to help" with "flaming" suggests the presence of some kind of "anti-help" or "anti-improvement" mentality. When you combine this mentality with underlying anger and frustration (which arise out of personal issues that have little to do with this forum, believe it or not), the result is posts with a rather strong disapproval of the intentions behind threads like this one.

 

Clearly, there are people that are content with the product as it is. For others, however, there may be areas where they'd like to see improvement. The one thing that both of these groups of individuals have in common is that they appreciate the work that PMDG does. The time and effort that is being spent on arguing would be better spent on trying to maintain a harmonious relationship within the forum.

Again, another 737 with the handle above the mid-point of the window: http://www.tuifly.co...Pressefoto2.JPG

 

This Ryanair bird has the handle at the same elevation as the one in your picture: http://upload.wikime...sinzuschlag.jpg

 

 

It's not just the doors which can be different. The Tuifly has the little "eyebrow windows" above the cockpit windshield and the Ryanair doesn't.

That would be a customer option...

Clearly, there are people that are content with the product as it is. For others, however, there may be areas where they'd like to see improvement. The one thing that both of these groups of individuals have in common is that they appreciate the work that PMDG does. The time and effort that is being spent on arguing would be better spent on trying to maintain a harmonious relationship within the forum.

Attached Images

 

 

The images you attached, as it relates to the eyebrow windows looks more like perception issues. The main flight deck windows look different sizes when comparing the picture also. If I know PMDG they don't make mistakes like that, which leads me to believe in that case it is simply perception.

That would be a customer option...

For my education and not wishing to change the direction of this topic, what would be the purpose of that customer option?

For my education and not wishing to change the direction of this topic, what would be the purpose of that customer option?

 

Mostly to save weight. If I recall correctly, this saves about 200 kilograms.

Also these windows lack any reasonable purpose anymore, and are but a PITA to pilots if sun shines through them, often covered by newspapers and such. Also I think noise was lower without them?

The images you attached, as it relates to the eyebrow windows looks more like perception issues. The main flight deck windows look different sizes when comparing the picture also. If I know PMDG they don't make mistakes like that, which leads me to believe in that case it is simply perception.

I just loaded the ngx up and yes the 1r door handle is lower than the one on the left as per the op has suggested so its no perception error. Myabe its meant to be this way only way is for some one from pmdg to chime in here and put this to bed one way or the other.

The purpose of this thread is to try to help improve a product. To read posts where people equate "trying to help" with "flaming" suggests the presence of some kind of "anti-help" or "anti-improvement" mentality. When you combine this mentality with underlying anger and frustration (which arise out of personal issues that have little to do with this forum, believe it or not), the result is posts with a rather strong disapproval of the intentions behind threads like this one.

 

I can't speak for the devs, so I won't. This is written entirely by me and is my own personal opinion:

While I see your point that you're offering improvements, at some point it's also worth taking a look at it from their end. When I work on things, I personally welcome a good amount of feedback. If I don't like it, or it's not worth it, I let it slide, but if it's worth fixing, I get at it and fix it. On the other hand, if I've spent thousands of hours to produce something that's as realistic as possible and people then start MSPainting a whole bunch of pictures against my work, I might not take so kindly to it. Obviously, if there was some egregious error, it would be one thing, but minute angles, slight size differences and so on are a bit irritating.

 

Like I said, they may appreciate it. I personally would, up to a certain point. I think my biggest issue right now with posts like these is that they don't seem to be passing notes. Rather, it's almost like the posts are playing find-the-error. Why else would you find issues like that? It's close enough that you wouldn't notice otherwise, unless you're around the plane every day.

 

Moreover, to a certain degree, this is like art. They're taking a real 3D object and putting it into the sim. Like the paintings of realist painters, there will be slight errors. I would never walk up to an artist and tell them the person's nose is slightly off unless they specifically asked me to provide feedback on it. This is their work of art.

 

Again, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but at the same time, my reason for not "fanning the flames" is that this is a contentious issue, regardless of whether you intend it to be or not. It's like engaging in a discussion about a topic that necessitates a little "political correctness." It can very well be a constructive debate, but it can quickly devolve into something else if someone provides the right catalyst. My lack of want to "fan the flames" was to say I didn't want to provide that catalyst.

 

 

 

The main window on the PMDG also goes back to the first section of the fuselage (the vertical line behind the window), whereas the window in the real picture doesn't. Perfect? No. Acceptable? To me? Sure.

I already told what I think about posting errors on the forum. It will be an help for the developers, a game for the rivet counters and so on, most important things like the ones related to the dynamics and the systems are more important and it's right to inform the support team, by forum but also with tickets.

Most are fsx limits, other are only missed parts (like for the scavenge system, it was left at 10X speed for testing) and a feedback will let the team to improve the plane.

It is no our decision to tell that this detail will be disregarded by the team or not, if they are still working on the 3d model (wich I doubt) they will decide if it is so important to fix or not. I think however, it is still useful pointing them in the forum, the error is present, like for others, there are more and less important, for who like perfection, all of them are important, pmdg search for perfection, why not showing them the bad things?

 

I think that a simulation cannot be compared to the art, at least, not in the same way. The simulation is something made to be as accurate as possible to the real, limited by the simulator limits (or developer capacity). So, any difference that is present is something that the developer did not correctly, it is right (from my point of view) to point them up in a way that helps them, expecially if them wants (and pmdg demonstrated from the first patch) to improve the product.

 

About eyebrows, they are old windows, not too much useful, pretty expensive when need to change as they cracks or delaminate pretty often, the better way is to remove them (they are often covered by pilots with paper) and put istead of glass and vynil, a cap that will save weight and money.