Kevin-

 

You appear to be confusing two different topics:

 

1) We do not model the new cockpit doors for reasons related to security.

 

2) We do not model an opening cockpit door because that would require that we model the area visible aft of the cockpit door.  To do that would mean removing resources from the virtual cockpit, where we can make good use of them, and putting them outside the virtual cockpit where they are largely wasted.

 

As Ryan already pointed out- we are bumping up against some hard limits within FSX when it comes to poly use and part use in FSX... so we choose to use the resources we have for the primary purpose at hand:  Simulating the flight deck.

 

Don't confuse the two. 

Rob,

 

With great respect I wasn't confusing anything.  

 

Topic 1 is not being questioned by anyone (certainly not me). However, the modelling (or not) of the door security is not actually relevant to the question of whether PMDG chooses to model an opening cockpit door.

 

Topic 2, I agree that would be a waste of precious resources, but why not simply show a 2D rendered image of the cabin area behind the door?  The 744 has an opening door for example, PMDG chose to model the upper deck in 3D but this isn't entirely necessary.

 

However I accept it's a moot point in this case as the animations limit is being reached.

I find it interesting with the secrecy around the cockpit door. Outside the US, it's not that strict, at least I've been given full introductions to how the door works, and how to open it myself during jump seat rides. And in the end, it's the same plane, so how effective that secrecy is, can be discussed

 

Note, this is not an argument for actually modeling a door. I understand why it's not done, and I'm much happier with PMDG using the limited animations and reducing the polygons to focus on bringing out as much detail as possible from the VC itself, rather than having a non-system function that a great number of us is never gonna bother with.

 

 

Topic 2, I agree that would be a waste of precious resources, but why not simply show a 2D rendered image of the cabin area behind the door?  The 744 has an opening door for example, PMDG chose to model the upper deck in 3D but this isn't entirely necessary.

 

If you look back at the 744 it's very clear that they had the extra vertices available.

If you look back at the 744 it's very clear that they had the extra vertices available.

Well obviously, that goes without saying (or so I thought).  Hence my suggestion of using a 2D rendering.

Well obviously, that goes without saying (or so I thought).  Hence my suggestion of using a 2D rendering.

 

Sorry, help me understand.

What you are saying, is that after an hour of looking to the front setting up your plane to make your flight, and contemplating the beauty of that cockpit.. you're gonna open the cockpit door and see an ugly 2D rendering of a cabin? that's what you wanna see on an PMDG airplane?

 

Sorry, if I sound kind of rude, I didn't found a better way of asking.

 

 

I find it interesting with the secrecy around the cockpit door. Outside the US, it's not that strict, at least I've been given full introductions to how the door works, and how to open it myself during jump seat rides. And in the end, it's the same plane, so how effective that secrecy is, can be discussed

The secrecy mystifies me too. It's a bit like not revealing a magician's secret, even though the method used is fairly obvious. People are hardly going to give away access codes and entry protocols in such a discussion. If door security systems are that weak that talking about them makes them vulnerable then it's not really good security at all. Anyway, the main point is not the locking mechanism at all, but that the doors must resist forced entry.  

 

Cockpit doors have had locks for as long as I can remember, but the doors themselves weren't attack proof before 9/11. The fact that doors were breakable in the past has saved at least one flight crew from embarrassment and possible disaster to my certain knowledge.

Sorry, help me understand.

What you are saying, is that after an hour of looking to the front setting up your plane to make your flight, and contemplating the beauty of that cockpit.. you're gonna open the cockpit door and see an ugly 2D rendering of a cabin? that's what you wanna see on an PMDG airplane?

 

Sorry, if I sound kind of rude, I didn't found a better way of asking.

Surely anything PMDG would produce would be of the highest quality, not ugly at all.

 

I've seen many more ugly 3D cabin models (dodgy joins, light leaks, ugly polygonal shapes) than I have ugly 2D renderings (which can be very high quality).  Anyway, if you just look at the open doorway from the pilot's seat you won't know it's only 2D.

 

 

Cockpit doors have had locks for as long as I can remember, but the doors themselves weren't attack proof before 9/11. The fact that doors were breakable in the past has saved at least one flight crew from embarrassment and possible disaster to my certain knowledge.

 

Its all about weighing costs and benefits. The benefit of possibly dettering a terrorist plan based on hijacking the aircraft (which is, IMHO, a moot point anyway, paradigms have changed and noone would await calmly to see whether they are taken to Cuba, Venezuela or Manhattan skyline), and the "security theater" is higher than the potential benefit of someone being able to break into the cockpit if needed.

 

 

 

I've seen many more ugly 3D cabin models (dodgy joins, light leaks, ugly polygonal shapes) than I have ugly 2D renderings (which can be very high quality).  Anyway, if you just look at the open doorway from the pilot's seat you won't know it's only 2D.

 

You would as soon as your eyepoint moves... I prefer closed door, and changing to exterior view to go to the galley.

 

Its all about weighing costs and benefits. The benefit of possibly dettering a terrorist plan based on hijacking the aircraft (which is, IMHO, a moot point anyway, paradigms have changed and noone would await calmly to see whether they are taken to Cuba, Venezuela or Manhattan skyline), and the "security theater" is higher than the potential benefit of someone being able to break into the cockpit if needed.

I don't see how your comment on that addresses what I was saying.  I know of one flight crew that locked themselves out of the flightdeck and had to break the door down to get back in.  With "fortress" doors that is no longer possible so back up unlocking methods have to be available if the crew member in the cockpit can't open the door (as with the Helios 737 accident).  Talking about such things doesn't lessen the security those doors provide but it appears that in the USA it's something of a taboo subject.

 

 

 

You would as soon as your eyepoint moves... I prefer closed door, and changing to exterior view to go to the galley.

I know that, but that isn't the point.  It's a compromise (to save resources) so not a perfect solution, but I think it's better than not having an opening door at all.  It's just a visual effect, FSX and PMDG addons are full of such things to enhance realism.

Gents,

 

While we all sit here and argue over why PMDG doesn't model the galley area or cockpit door and stairs for a walk around, because it uses up precious resources that could be used on cockpit modeling. I still stand utterly confused as to why third party developers and flight sim enthusiasts don't just swallow their pride and realize that you can do all of that in other flight sims without having to worry about using up precious resources. I'm not saying to abandon MSFS all together because personally I love MSFS, but there are newer better products out there that can provide you with the little niche things you all want and developers wouldn't have to worry about running out of resources.

 

Happy flying

 

 

I know that, but that isn't the point.  It's a compromise (to save resources) so not a perfect solution, but I think it's better than not having an opening door at all.  It's just a visual effect, FSX and PMDG addons are full of such things to enhance realism.

 

Well I dont think it is. It is a visual effect that is so blatantly unrealistic, that having a closed door is infinitely better. At least in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how your comment on that addresses what I was saying.  I know of one flight crew that locked themselves out of the flightdeck and had to break the door down to get back in.  With "fortress" doors that is no longer possible so back up unlocking methods have to be available if the crew member in the cockpit can't open the door (as with the Helios 737 accident).  Talking about such things doesn't lessen the security those doors provide but it appears that in the USA it's something of a taboo subject.

 

Actually, the whole point of fortress doors is you cannot get in the cockpit from outside, unless someone inside lets you in (in locked state, of course). Having a backup opening mechanism that overrides inside lock defeats the whole purpose of the door, and all it means that intruders would have to do a bit of research in order to get in... and if such an option does indeed exist, then I have just lost the little faith left in aviation security.

Gents,

 

While we all sit here and argue over why PMDG doesn't model the galley area or cockpit door and stairs for a walk around, because it uses up precious resources that could be used on cockpit modeling. I still stand utterly confused as to why third party developers and flight sim enthusiasts don't just swallow their pride and realize that you can do all of that in other flight sims without having to worry about using up precious resources. I'm not saying to abandon MSFS all together because personally I love MSFS, but there are newer better products out there that can provide you with the little niche things you all want and developers wouldn't have to worry about running out of resources.

 

Happy flying

PMDG has already stated multiple times that they are looking at alternatives, but they'd be pretty foolish if they just threw away the knowledge they have with the FSX engine.

PMDG has already stated multiple times that they are looking at alternatives, but they'd be pretty foolish if they just threw away the knowledge they have with the FSX engine.

I completely agree with you kriva but at some point we all need to embrace change, there are better flight simulator platforms out there more capable of handling the needs of developers and simmers alike. You aren't going to continue to fight with a knife when there is a gun available.

Actually, the whole point of fortress doors is you cannot get in the cockpit from outside, unless someone inside lets you in (in locked state, of course). Having a backup opening mechanism that overrides inside lock defeats the whole purpose of the door, and all it means that intruders would have to do a bit of research in order to get in... and if such an option does indeed exist, then I have just lost the little faith left in aviation security.

Yet they must have such back up systems.  If that causes you to have less faith, think about this.  The pilot leaves the flightdeck for a break.  Meantime the copilot becomes unconscious (or falls asleep).  Both have happened.  Would you still rather the door could not be opened from the outside?  Having a backup release code is not a loss of security, as long as those codes are secure and frequently changed.

 

You do you think that Helios F/A managed to enter the locked flightdeck with no one inside able to open it?

 

 

Would you still rather the door could not be opened from the outside?

 

Honestly, I'd rahter this whole faux security shebang was done with and a more sensible (and more functioning) approach was taken...

Honestly, I'd rahter this whole faux security shebang was done with and a more sensible (and more functioning) approach was taken...

What kind of thing did you have in mind?