I have just taken these, as I hope you can see I have done no more than I think a human would do in the pilots seat, just leaned forward and looked back, no extreme views and I've showed the head rest so you can see its not even close to pressing head on any window.

 

800

 

700

 

600, it would not take much to learn and see the engines if they were there.

 

The A380 and 777 is a totally different thing, I would think you might not even see the wing tips? 

Have you tried to adjust the zoom ratio in combination with adjusting the camera in all directions to see if you can spot the engines?  Sometimes adjustments like that can help.

 

-Jim

Jim the engines are no longer modelled from within the VC. 

If you could stick your head out of the 600's VC window you would see this.....no engines

 I would think that PMDG removed the ability to see the engine to maintain realism. I asked the question to a couple r/w NG pilots this afternoon and both said that you'd essentially have to stick your head out the window to see the engine, even on the 600. The photo's don't lie.

Hello David

 

Sometimes you just have to go with your gut feelings, dispite what others say. YOU are RIGHT. You can see the engine from the cockpit in the original release.

 

I was curious after reading all the posts, and since I save all my payware downloads, and have a fresh install of FSX. I installed my PMDG 737-600-700 NGX-RTM version to check it out. Loaded up the sim and took a peak. and voila, you can see the engine from the cockpit.

 

 

This is the first time trying to attach a picture, so if it does not show up, here is the link

http://imgur.com/7svWMkG​

​

Thank you so much Rick.

"dispite what others say. YOU are RIGHT. You can see the engine from the cockpit in the original release."

 

After all this below I cannot tell you how grateful I am, you went to a lot of trouble to do that its much appreciated.

 

Its hard when everyone is telling me..

 

. There's no way the engine should be in view at that angle from the VC.

 

I don't think they were ever visible from the flightdeck in FSX 

NGX you can't. Just accept it as it is and always was.

Ask them what? If you can see the engine nacelle that's physically impossible to see? I don't see the point of the picture.

 

 The photo's don't lie.

 

Nor do I and nor does the above screen shot.

 

To all the remarks above, No hard feeling at all, but next time I say I remember something have a little trust please guys.   

 

Thanks again Rick at my age and all the negative comments I was beginning to wonder myself, that screen shot is just how I remember the view being from the PMDG 600. Be it right or wrong from real life, that WAS what I saw and remember.

 

What a great sight it was. On engine start you could watch it spin up...just.  :smile:

 

So Kyle can I ask again, would you be so kind to ask why the view was removed and is there any chance to get the view below back. Thank you.

 

Nor do I and nor does the above screen shot.

I don't think anyone accused you of lying.

 

To all the remarks above, No hard feeling at all, but next time I say I remember something have a little trust please guys.   

 

Thanks again Rick at my age and all the negative comments I was beginning to wonder myself, that screen shot is just how I remember the view being from the PMDG 600. Be it right or wrong from real life, that WAS what I saw and remember.

Usually when people say "no hard feelings" they don't use bold, underline and red ink to stress the things they don't have hard feelings about. There were no negative comments, just people politely disagreeing with you.

In my own defense, whatever I stated to David was purely from a third person's point of view...outside looking in.  To be honest, I never even considered to option to look behind me when inside a PMDG aircraft as I was too busy concentrating on getting the aircraft off the ground. lol

 

I'd like to thank Rick for posting his screenshot as this was a turn of the tide, so to speak, for this discussion.  So we have now proved that the view exists.  Hopefully Rick can share what he did to achieve that view?

 

-Jim

@Kevin

I was trying to make the point clear there is not hard feeling, being a forum its hard to portray just how you mean something. That's why it was under lined no bold there Kevin and  cheers and   thumbs up also to make it clear. If that not clear then  .

"politely disagreeing with you", yes and a lot of them,  red text is to show clearly what I was up against.The lieing was regard to a photo and a screen shot not at people. "A photo never liars" phrase.....nor does a screen shot. No one was calling me a liar or the other way round.

 

 

It was a huge tide of people disagreeing and now it turns out all along I was right. 3 pagers wasted in disbelief. I take no pleasure in being found to be right, its just a shame that I needed a screen shot to be believed. 

 

Never mind we all live and learn. 

 

The only pleasure I take is am not going senile so that's great news  :smile:

@Kevin

I was trying to make the point clear there is not hard feeling, being a forum its hard to portray just how you mean something. That's why it was under lined no bold there Kevin and  cheers and   thumbs up also to make it clear. If that not clear then hey ho.

"politely disagreeing with you", yes and a lot of them,  red text is to show clearly what I was up against.The lieing was regard to a photo and a screen shot not at people.  A photo never lie.....nor does a screen shot. No one was calling me a lie or the other way round.

You are correct, generally, photos don't lie, but these days, people can doctor any photo to make it look like something else, but that's an argument for another day.   My take on all of this is about trust.  A lot of us come here for knowledge that can be trusted.  I don't think anyone here would purposely try to lead someone astray so with all of the discussion about "the view that doesn't exist", we have experienced a lot of negativity, as if David's claim was unfounded.  David had brought a lot of great knowledge to the forum as well as on the outside.  For him to make the statements he did would only prove that he has checked and rechecked everything to be sure before making such claims on this site.

 

I can understand his frustration.  I have experienced many an occasion where I knew something was wrong and was so sure of it, but was being proven incorrect in what I knew all along.  Situations like that can only be resolved with hard proof that the others can see.  Now in David's case, he did have anything to make a comparison to, only his word and I think some of us failed him by not believing what he said, even if the word 'lie' wasn't mentioned.

 

I asked earlier if Rick would share how he achieved the view so others can learn, so until then, I still walk a cautious line but I do hope to be proven wrong.

 

-Jim

 

"the view that doesn't exist", we have experienced a lot of negativity, as if David's claim was unfounded.  David had brought a lot of great knowledge to the forum as well as on the outside. 

 

 

 

 Now in David's case, he did have anything to make a comparison to, only his word and I think some of us failed him by not believing what he said, even if the word 'lie' wasn't mentioned.

 

 

-Jim

 

 

 

Thank you very much Jim, very kind words its appropriated .

  I don't think it was ever the fact of whether or not the engine was visible in the previous version or not, it's the fact that it shouldn't be..

 

  My statement "the photos don't lie" is still correct and doesn't accuse anyone of lying or being wrong, it's an example of what you see in the real machine. So you used to be able to see the engines from the flight deck in the sim, you CAN"T in real life and is most likely why PMDG removed the ability in the current sim.

I spent a little time searching the net for a photo taken in real world, not a simulator, that would show the presence or absence of the engines, no joy. I also looked for a scaled top view drawing of the aircraft to see the geometry and again no joy. My suspicion is that they dissappeared because they were unrealistic in the view; however, I missed the original NGX beta and can't even offer an insight from that perspective.

 

Alas, I believe we are waiting for a rated pilot to chime in here... lol, they are probably enjoying this too much to put an end to it.

  I don't think it was ever the fact of whether or not the engine was visible in the previous version or not,

 

 

The "fact" Dave this topic was just that, It was on the fact it was there in a previous version and not now, I never asked if you could or could not see them in real life.

 

Frankly I see that being a different topic. Because with or with out the engines you still see far more wing than the photo you posted so all the geometry of the wings/VC is wrong? Different topic I think.

Wide angle photos are a poor reference. Look how close this noise is, a classic wide angle lens. It looks like around 28-35mm. 

 

I personally think PMDG deleted them because of performance or needed the VC resources for E.G. the weather radar. 

 

I also think PMDG got it right but that' like I said is a different topic.

I spent a little time searching the net for a photo taken in real world, not a simulator, that would show the presence or absence of the engines, no joy. I also looked for a scaled top view drawing of the aircraft to see the geometry and again no joy. My suspicion is that they dissappeared because they were unrealistic in the view; however, I missed the original NGX beta and can't even offer an insight from that perspective.

 

Alas, I believe we are waiting for a rated pilot to chime in here... lol, they are probably enjoying this too much to put an end to it.

Hang on, I'm only 5 minutes away from KIAD, I'll run in and ask for a 737 pilot to verify. 

 

-Jim