Hello

Your 777 is a masteriece, I have no performance issues with it, no complaints so far, but I do have a general question. It concerns cockpit animations. While I don't get excited about coffee cup holders and cabins and moving documents and animations of that nature I was generally curious if it was for performance reasons that the sun visers are not animated?

I am full sure readers will suggest these are akin to coffee cup holders, but then so is oxygen hissing from a bottle and yet this is modelled. I would have imagined the visers to be something used often enough to justify their inclusion, but don't get me wrong, for such a sophisticated aircraft to perform so smoothly on my system, it is mere curiosity and in no way a negative remark.

thanks

Lise Morgan 

The oxygen-test is part of the cockpit preparation flow and a checklist item, so arguably that's a good reason to simulate it. Ryan said in another thread concerning seat animations that click spots are a major performance concern and no superfluous ones were to be included.

There is also a limit to how many animations you can run within FSX I've heard.

I think their reasoning has always been that while cockpit animations are neat "eye candy", the more "animations" you have built in, the more your performance will generally take a hit. I believe they would like to get good to great performance for 80-90% of users rather than 20% of the users who have high end systems that can tolerate insignificant animations.

Personally, I'd much rather they wasted polygons on rain on the VC windows than simulating sun-visors. 

Personally, I'm glad they waste polygons on things like cockpit switch and movement detail, as well as LCD screens, not to mention exterior model stuff rather than rain. Just my two cents.

Personally, I'm glad they waste polygons on things like cockpit switch and movement detail, as well as LCD screens, not to mention exterior model stuff rather than rain. Just my two cents.

 

You mis-interpreted what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying they should've used polygons to model rain as opposed to vital aspects of the flight-deck of a 777. I said I'd rather they used polygons simulating rain on the windows as opposed to trivial things such as sun-visors; don't really know how you made the jump from sun-visors to LCD screens and cockpit switches  :lol:

You mis-interpreted what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying they should've used polygons to model rain as opposed to vital aspects of the flight-deck of a 777. I said I'd rather they used polygons simulating rain on the windows as opposed to trivial things such as sun-visors; don't really know how you made the jump from sun-visors to LCD screens and cockpit switches :lol:

You're right. I was being flippant with what you said, my apologies. I know what you mean.

I was thinking that the window screens/visors would have been included. There may be some constraint regarding total animations, but I think it's a stretch to say that there'd be a noticeable impact on frames.

 

It was a good feature I remember on the PSS 777 when travelling westbound over the pacific and chasing the sunset for most of the trip.

 

Cheers,

Chris.