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.

 

I see your point, but I was really going for the fact that someone at PMDG modeled the plane to be as realistic as possible (what a realist painter strives for), but when people create things, there will be errors. It's a simple fact of human life. So, like there are errors in art, there are errors in computer modeling. Beyond that, the other inclusion was to say that artists take pride in what they do, and I'm sure the modelers here take pride in what they do as well. In the end, I'm sure it's tiring for them to see errors pointed out all of the time, because that's their product and their art of the real thing.

 

I fully agree with you that it can be productive, especially if re-working the model is on the table. For anyone who has made something, though, having it picked at can grate your nerves, regardless of the person's intentions.

 

As opposed to my former stance, I'm with you all. I'm just trying to point out that they put a lot of work into it, and there are feelings behind the work done.

I think that except for few guys (as seen on pre-sdk or pro wxr posts) we all apreciate the great and hard work of the developers, at least 10 steps from the others, but just sayng "thanks for that great product" only will not help in improving it.

Yes, is a good product, yes, it is an uman product (like the real aircraft) and both are not error free.

But I think also that developers will not be offended if you point them an error if supported with proof. It is a way to improve it.

And I think also that if people are searching for the wrong rivets, istead of the wrong light, it means that the most important things (the systems) are working correctly and this is something to be proud enough.

I think that only developers can answer us about how they feel about this kind of topics or only them can draw a line for the useful, useless things.

;)

I think that the best way pmdg receive our positive feedbacks is with the amount of purchased products, more they are, more people apreciated it, more pmdg will be happy and more will then re-invest for the new products like the 777 ;)

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.

 

I understand where you're coming from. It's about personal preference. However, the PMDG team have mentioned that they greatly appreciate any feedback, so I figured that I would try to provide as much feedback as I can because I really appreciate the amount of quality that they incorporate into their products.

 

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.

 

I understand where you're coming from, here, as well. It's about perception, though. You perceive my posts to be like a game, but no one is playing a game because some people perceive errors differently than others. I don't deliberately search for errors; it's the combination of my appreciation for how airplanes look and my attention to detail that allows me to perceive errors better, I suppose. If I happen to find one, then I will try to bring it to the attention of PMDG. It's as simple as that.

 

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.

 

I understand, but it is still a matter of personal preference.

 

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.

 

This doesn't need to be a contentious issue, though; it's the forum users that choose to make it contentious.

 

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.

 

Again, it's about personal preference. My posts shouldn't have an effect on your enjoyment of the product.

 

I see your point, but I was really going for the fact that someone at PMDG modeled the plane to be as realistic as possible (what a realist painter strives for), but when people create things, there will be errors. It's a simple fact of human life. So, like there are errors in art, there are errors in computer modeling. Beyond that, the other inclusion was to say that artists take pride in what they do, and I'm sure the modelers here take pride in what they do as well. In the end, I'm sure it's tiring for them to see errors pointed out all of the time, because that's their product and their art of the real thing.

 

I fully agree with you that it can be productive, especially if re-working the model is on the table. For anyone who has made something, though, having it picked at can grate your nerves, regardless of the person's intentions.

 

I would be careful to not equate "picking at a product" with "providing feedback." I understand that there will be errors, but why not try to correct them if you can? As I've mentioned before, PMDG values the feedback that they receive, so I am willing to provide some. There's no game behind it; it's simple suggestions from people who appreciate the work that PMDG does.