flightdeck blinds

[stretch1365 40]

Hi all,

 

I seem to remember the 747 and MD11 came with working sun blinds on the cockpit side windows.

 

I looked at my 777 the other day and sure enough the blind is there folded away and so are the hooks to clip said blind to when it's across the window, but moving the mouse round doesn't seem to find any click spot to open/close the blinds.

 

So are there in fact any working blinds on the 777 and I havn't found out how to work them yet, or have PMDG given up with working blinds on this aircraft?

 

Please don't read this as a criticism, I don't mind one way or the other but I'm just curious. 

[XCLTM3 112]

I tested this too Dave, but to no avail.

 

Wonder if anyone else has?

[Jazz 1,046]

I believe they do not put such features in the aircraft they make any more as they eat into the animation limitations of FSX.

 

It is a nice feature but not at the expense of critical system modelling.

 

The price we have to pay for high fidelity simulations guys.

 

Regards

[willywonka 36]

Nope. No blinds here.

[Morvious 43]

Luckely no more blinds, ajusteble seats and armrests! They don't add anything to the sim but eating frames away. Good choice in my oppinion.

[Jazz 1,046]

Luckely no more blinds, ajusteble seats and armrests! They don't add anything to the sim but eating frames away. Good choice in my oppinion.

 

I could be wrong here but I don't believe it has anything to do with frames per second. 

 

FSX has a limit on the amount of animations that can be used. Every switch and movement of any kind uses an animation. As there is a limit it would be dense to use an animation for a blind when you should have used it for eg AIRDU alignment switch.

[kevinh 409]

I could be wrong here but I don't believe it has anything to do with frames per second.

 

FSX has a limit on the amount of animations that can be used. Every switch and movement of any kind uses an animation. As there is a limit it would be dense to use an animation for a blind when you should have used it for eg AIRDU alignment switch.

As you say, the FSX limit is the number of animations, but animations require resources and so can reduce frame rates.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Huh...... I can't see how the fairly clean flight deck of the 777 has any more click spots than the MD-11 with its bazillion switches on the overhead.

 

Compared to the MD-11, other animations not present in 777: doors for alternate gear (x2), alternate gear handles themselves (x2), seats (x3), headrests (x3), arm rests (x6), green sun blinds (x2).

 

That's 18 clickspots and animations.

 

Oh well...

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I can't see how the fairly clean flight deck of the 777 has any more click spots than the MD-11 with its bazillion switches on the overhead.

 

Gotta look a little deeper than that...

 

The 777 switches have more detail to them.  The whole VC in general has a lot more detail than the MD-11.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

The whole VC in general has a lot more detail than the MD-11.

 

Yes it does, but we are talking about animations and click spots. It doesn't matter to FSX how complex an individual animation is - it has next to no impact on performance.

 

If you want to see how heavy the model really is, remove the systems DLL and load the aircraft.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

it has next to no impact on performance.

 

Never said it did.  Someone else said that.

 

I was referring to hitting the animation limits.

[kevinh 409]

Yes it does, but we are talking about animations and click spots. It doesn't matter to FSX how complex an individual animation is - it has next to no impact on performance.

 

If you want to see how heavy the model really is, remove the systems DLL and load the aircraft.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Even if the animation itself has no impact, an animated sun visor is a 3D object which needs polygons, which need processing power. If it's just a static rendered graphic of a visor then there's no impact.  The separate issues of the animations limits and the effect of graphical complexity on frame rates have become conflated in this thread.

 

Regarding the animations limit and the 777X, if Ryan's posts on the subject are to be believed the sim is on the limit for animations which is presumably why useless things (in FSX) like sun blinds haven't been included.

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Even if the animation itself has no impact, an animated sun visor is a 3D object which needs polygons, which need processing power. If it's just a static rendered graphic of a visor then there's no impact.  The separate issues of the animations limits and the effect of graphical complexity on frame rates have become conflated in this thread.

 

Regarding the animations limit and the 777X, if Ryan's posts on the subject are to be believed the sim is on the limit for animations which is presumably why useless things (in FSX) like sun blinds haven't been included.

 

I saw a post from Ryan recently, stating that click spots themselves gobble up resources and so they want to keep them to a minimum.

[Tabs 2,790]

This is an animation limit thing. The problem isn't that performance goes down it's that there's a critical threshold with the animations where the VC just "blows up" if you go past it - it's some bizarre internal limit in FSX and if you go beyond it things just start disappearing in the VC, you get crazy artifacts etc.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

where the VC just "blows up" if you go past it 

 

That'd be interesting to see  :lol: