Since the last thread got closed for a ridiculous reason, we'll try again here...

At work today I snapped a few shots of the area depicted by the texture in question.  Below is the PMDG screenshot posted before, and then a few real pics: 

My pics are all much closer than the screenshot was, but I'd say the PMDG textures are pretty good. 

(I don't think this area is *actually* intended as a footrest, as you can see what eventually happens when it's used as such - this was a beat-up old -800.  But we all end up using it that way eventually.  I think its actual purpose is just to provide a little "give" in the event you swing your shin into it, vs being a hard sharp metal right angle haha.)

@Drumcode

Have you changed your mind ?? .. Just joking..

That last photo is most definitely an example of what I would not want to see rendered in a simulated version of an aircraft. That ripped open section looks horrible.

2 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

That last photo is most definitely an example of what I would not want to see rendered in a simulated version of an aircraft. That ripped open section looks horrible.

Funny how some people want a plane used, and some want it to at least still look a bit decent. I'd love a nice used plane, I need my dirty flap lines, I want that chipped of paint in the flightdeck.. but yeah, I get your point as well

35 minutes ago, Victoroos said:

Funny how some people want a plane used, and some want it to at least still look a bit decent. I'd love a nice used plane, I need my dirty flap lines, I want that chipped of paint in the flightdeck.. but yeah, I get your point as well

I like the used look too. Gives it more character and more realistic operational vibe. IMO <- this should be standard at the end of each post on this forum. lol.

What an odd thread. lol  PMDG are most likely completing a set of VC textures that they can use across all models inc the Max to speed up development time and streamline the files as there alot of models coming out based around the VC.  The cockpit of the NG and the Max a great deal of similarities, so they are most likely trying to streamline textures some.  I believe they used a newer NG for their image database anyhow.  I think the MSFS PMDG VC looks absolutely stunning.

A lot of people would be surprised how dirty and beat up these cockpits get after a few years. Not to mention the comments written about management in the window tracks.😄

In the NGX those spots that the pilots use for a foot rest show the ware and tear.

I have always been somewhat puzzled why so many people want rendered cockpits that look like the inside of a car on a scrap heap. When I purchase a new simulated aircraft, I want it to look like a brand new real world aircraft. I couldn't care less whether most of the real aircraft in service are years old. Mine is brand new!!

Edited March 10, 20224 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I have always been somewhat puzzled why so many people want rendered cockpits that look like the inside of a car on a scrap heap. When I purchase a new simulated aircraft, I want it to look like a brand new real world aircraft. I couldn't care less whether most of the real aircraft in service are years old. Mine is brand new!!

I agree in the world of flight simulators as overdone wear in the VC can make things look washed out textures sometimes go backwards as far as immersion is concerned when you get computed-generated lighting conditions etc.  Some dust here and there and some wear os ok; the NGXu was done well in that respect. The MSFS version looks great and can be used ok across a range of aircraft from new to some age without too much headache by the looks of it.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I have always been somewhat puzzled why so many people want rendered cockpits that look like the inside of a car on a scrap heap. When I purchase a new simulated aircraft, I want it to look like a brand new real world aircraft. I couldn't care less whether most of the real aircraft in service are years old. Mine is brand new!!

Don’t need to be puzzled, you have your opinion and others have their opinion. People have different preferences… both can be realistic. Just because YOU like it one way doesn’t have to puzzle YOU. 

In this day and age, with how easy it is for graphics artists to really blow someone away with photoshop and a freeware rendering program, I'm surprised not a single high end 3PD offers different looks (new vs used). I figured someone by now would've had "age of aircraft" wear set somewhere.

Even non-flight sim games, like Transport Fever, gradually age the textures of aircraft you buy, over time.

This must be satire...

and the VC looks just fine the way it is. The more dust and scratches etc the better.

Personally I like to see wear and tear on airliners as in real life that’s what happens, they’re working planes with high utilization and are sometimes flown by people who are messy.  Feels more realistic that way.

For GA it’s a bit different, on an older aircraft, sure give me wear and tear…there’s no way a 30 year old aircraft will look brand new unless it’s just been completely overhauled. On a new model, I want it nice and clean because in my mind I’m flying an aircraft purchased new.

To each their own.

Being familiar with the real thing, I was surprised when people were complaining about that padding on the edge of the panel in the PMDG pics, because it looked pretty much like the real thing to me. Whether to render things 'a bit battered' or 'pristine' is perhaps something which could be a selectable option in the sim because some people would like one or the other.

It's worth bearing in mind that it doesn't really take long for even pretty new airliners to start carrying a few dents and scratches. Most people tend to see airliners from quite a distance away, and of course they all look like they are in great shape when viewed from those kind of distances, but I think a lot of people would be quite shocked at how they look when you get close up. Nearly every one of them has dozens of tiny circular log stickers with a number on them on the exterior; these numbers tally with an entry in the aeroplane's log book as a record of dents and bangs on the thing which engineers have already checked, and this is so these are not re-reported on a walkaround when you spot them.

Pretty much every airliner has several fan blades on the engine intakes which are different in appearance to the adjacent ones from having been replaced, most of these have a number written on them in black marker to identify which one it is because they have to be ground down a bit to ensure they are balanced, and these grinding marks are also fairly apparent, as are those black marker numbers. The undercarriage struts are usually absolutely filthy, and the underside of the aeroplane is often very dirty too, with lots of bug splatters and splashes of oil and such along it. Quite a few have mismatched panels which have been taken from other aeroplanes during servicing, so livery demarkation lines frequently don't match up upon close inspection, especially on radomes and engine cowling panels. Frequent de-icing, rain, mud and fuel/lubrication drips etc, mean that the metal on the wings is rarely very clean since all this tends to carry dirt along as it drips and usually these fluids are quite sticky too, which means dirt clings to it. Most of the flap canoes have surface cracks on their fiberglass and sometimes these have mismatched grey paint. Very occasionally these are missing entirely, but this is pretty rare to be fair.

Inside the holds, the interiors get a lot of wear and tear from constantly having ULDs and bags loaded and unloaded (even a smaller AKH ULD weighs 88 kg when empty, so it could easily dent stuff even on a load up of an empty can), there are usually a lot of tiny padlocks, broken suitcase castors, suitcase straps, bits of paper and string, bits of zip-fasteners and such in all the nooks and crannies of an aeroplane hold. The interior walls of the hold have tons of scuff marks on them and the protective cages over the halon fire suppressant outlets in the ceilings of the holds are very often pretty dented from people in the hold smacking their heads on them or bags and cargo hitting them when being moved. The hold floors are usually pretty dented and scratched. It's not uncommon to find that the auto-loading system rollers on the cargo floor of A320s don't work very well, or sometimes not at all, even on new NEOs. Sometimes there are even entire access panel doors missing from the outside of the aeroplane, although to be fair, this is one thing which does tend to get fixed fairly quickly.

Barely a week passes where we don't have to do an air-start on an airliner because it has a broken APU and it's not that uncommon for me to report problems I've found when doing a walkaround check. This is one of the reasons why I always carry one of those super-mega-bright torches you can get these days, so I don't miss any of that stuff when checking things at night. You'd really be quite surprised to see how ropey some airliners look when you get up close to them.

Edited March 10, 20224 yr by Chock