Found deformation at the left maingear shell during outside check.

[Joduv 90]

Guy's you can't blame him for this ! It was also part of the beta to do that, and that's what I did. I remember reporting some issues in the NGX flightdeck on this forum, and had a lot of arrogant people against me. But that's what will make the NGX SP1. So think before speaking about "rivet counting"...

[Spook 96]

 

 

This shows how PMDG is doing their job! Fantastic!!!  :Applause:

Also, i fail to see the link between a part not modelled correctly with a ''Fantastic job!''

 

 How does one come to such a conclusion?

 

[Flexman 30]

Oh wow. I just found out that PMDG777 had an external model... anyway, back to the cockpit.

[bumpywindshear 43]

Also, i fail to see the link between a part not modelled correctly with a ''Fantastic job!''

 

 How does one come to such a conclusion?

 

 

...its because that "hand crafted parts" and their impact of other structures are not yet simulated.

 

JG

[thomazz123 11]

I just saw one screw on the cabin was not properly tightened. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I remember reporting some issues in the NGX flightdeck on this forum, and had a lot of arrogant people against me.

 

In my defense, I just disagreed with the method of proof 

[DylanC 181]

Oh wow. I just found out that PMDG777 had an external model... anyway, back to the cockpit.

 

+1 LOL!

[willywonka 36]

Hi,

 

this wasn't too hard to find, because of z-fighting between the trapezoid area and the maingear shell at the left side. Your picture and this one too

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3094/2723910910_c0f63f9125_z.jpg

 

shows these two regions shouldn't touch when gear is down. There is a crack between.

 

I can't say if this is done intentionally, so i just wanted to mention it.

It looks like a way to simplify the model (and therefore the polygon counts) a little bit. Since it's such a small area, with a comparatively small gap, they might have decided to merge the two surfaces completely. There's a finite amount of computer resources, after all.

 

So, it could very well be intentional.

 

As for the asymmetry. Well, 3d model conversion gets messed up sometimes. The conversion process can add, subtract, or simplify vertices. Such is the mystery of computers.

[PGBosak 4]

 

 

As for the asymmetry. Well, 3d model conversion gets messed up sometimes. The conversion process can add, subtract, or simplify vertices. Such is the mystery of computers.

 

Anyway, PMDG got it fixed.

[Joduv 90]

In my defense, I just disagreed with the method of proof 

 

You're all excused

[Guest]

Why doesn't some make a brief video with EZDOK camera mounted in an appropriate position so we can see the Gear and doors go up and down.

Clearly the smaller door needs to get out of the way of the larger door! Is that what it does in the model?

 

It looks like they didn't model the smaller door at all. It just looks like a raised area on the larger door.

If so I think this is a biggish cheat!

[Kerlix 99]

 

 

If so I think this is a biggish cheat!

 

See this:

 

 

 

It looks like a way to simplify the model (and therefore the polygon counts) a little bit. Since it's such a small area, with a comparatively small gap, they might have decided to merge the two surfaces completely. There's a finite amount of computer resources, after all.
 
So, it could very well be intentional.
 
As for the asymmetry. Well, 3d model conversion gets messed up sometimes. The conversion process can add, subtract, or simplify vertices. Such is the mystery of computers.

 

 

 

 

So after everything you get with the T7, you feel cheated? I really hope that's not what you're saying.

[Guest]

Its seem that everyone all over this forum is just looking for a fight!

Make sure your opinion is in line with whatever the preserved wisdom is here otherwise you are going to be admonished from all corners!

 

It is clear from the photo of the real aircraft here: http://farm4.staticf...0f63f9125_z.jpg that the landing gear bay door has 3 section.

 

The two sections in question are to the right of the gear.

A large door and a small door. To me it is clear how it works.

 

I always got the impression that developers took great pride in modeling landing gear in great detail.

 

In any case there is a big difference between criticizing and making an observation.

The OP merely made an humorous observation and I merely made a suggestion.

 

It is obviously the most sophisticated aircraft for FSX but it is not blasphemy to notice its imperfections.

 

A much more glaring fault in the absence of friendly discussion in this forum!

[Vic1 3]

Having modelled a lot of the exterior of the fs labs up and coming a320 I can see instantly what has happened here as I have modelled and animated these same doors myself on the airbus. There is nothing wrong with the actual doors here its simply an animation issue. when the animation was done the mini doors were simply not rotated enough and what you are seeing is the two outer corners intruding in to the larger gear door.

 

 

This same issue happened to me when I animated mine , its actually a particulally hard part to animate well because its not easy aligning the pivot point in max accurately along the edge of the door plus you have to match the opening rate of the larger door so that the smaller one always stays uniformly outside it smoothly without jerking. was a pian to do I remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kav

[ysfsim 22]

When I first saw this post last week, I did my own walk around the next day.

 

 

Not a deal breaker but it is funny that it was noticed.