13 minutes ago, molleh said:

i made a small recording just for you. look at the cars across the street. do you think i'm waving a window in front of the camera, or am i just moving my head (camera) very slightly from side to side?

 

The distances are completely different. It's not a valid comparison. The cars are 100 yards away. The engine looking out of the left window of the plane is a few feet away.  Try again. Or fly a plane and look out of a side window at the wing or an engine. And in your vid, if you look closely, the nearer post things do move relative to the window frames and camera. 
 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by jarmstro

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

The distances are completely different. It's not a valid comparison. The cars are 100 yards away. The engine looking out of the left window of the plane is a few feet away.  Try again. Or fly a plane and look out of a side window at the wing or an engine. And in your vid, if you look closely, the nearer post things do move relative to the camera image.
 

well, you can lead a flightsimmer to obvious conclusions, but you can't make them accept them, i suppose. best of luck to ya! 🙂

1 minute ago, molleh said:

well, you can lead a flightsimmer to obvious conclusions, but you can't make them accept them, i suppose. best of luck to ya! 🙂

Thanks for the discussion.👍

Ok.  I have the islander - will take a look.

47 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

It's not a valid comparison.

I have read the discussion with some interest.
For me, the key is that it is a simulator.
The simulator cannot get hold of your head and move it, so it must instead simulate the movement of a head by moving the eyepoint or camera if you prefer.
This in turn must move what is framing the eyepoint, in this case, the windscreen or window.
In the case of a real-world moving car the emblem on the bonnet (hood) in front of the windscreen for example, will indeed look static but the windscreen edges will appear to be moving in relation to it, because the viewer's head cannot remain still in a moving vehicle.
 
 

 

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

So looking left out of the window in the Islander at the engine my eye and the engine are perfectly aligned and neither moves out of alignment even a fraction. But the window moves up and down. No way is this correct or lifelike.

Considering the developer is working within the constraints of a simulator that is starting year 3 of a 10 year development cycle, I think the added realism he has brought to the sim is very welcomed.  Maybe the engine should move a couple of pixels to be 100 percent accurate, but at least the effect IS THERE. Many things in MSFS aren't 100 percent accurate, but being there adds more to the flying experience than not having the effect.

I feel your glass is half empty, rather than half full.

Can someone just take a video of the PMDG 737 window moving all its own, or the GA aircraft wing fixed but cabin moving?

I really just want to experience what others are seeing, instead of all this text describing it.

42 minutes ago, WestAir said:

Can someone just take a video of the PMDG 737 window moving all its own, or the GA aircraft wing fixed but cabin moving?

I really just want to experience what others are seeing, instead of all this text describing it.

Yep, burdon of proof is on the "wiggly window, static wing" claimants! 

Right.  I tested with the Islander. 
Just to say beforehand that I have a good grasp of physics (decent A-level) and parallax and how it should work, especially as an amateur astronomer, where parallax is used a lot for gauging distances to stars out to a few thousand light years.  After that the movement can be too small to measure.

It is a linear rule, so an object twice as far away as the datum object will appear to move only half as much - 4 times further away will be a quarter of the movement compared to a near object etc.

On the islander, from the default pilot position, I looked 90 degrees to the left.  I had plenty of gusting set in weather to give me turbulence.  The window frame was moving up and down quite a bit, and it appeared the left engine wasn't.
However, when I placed a transparent ruler over my monitor and lined it up with the bottom of the cowling, I found it was moving, but only about a sixth of the movement of the window frame.
So it is moving, but just harder to gauge because of the smaller movement in amongst nearer objects moving around quite a bit.

When viewed from outside, front on, the pilots head is about six times further away from the left engine cowling than from the window frame (maybe even a bit more). 
So my determination is that the camera and the movement is acting as I would expect, and exactly to parallax measurement. 
Any why wouldn't it?  FS Realistic doesn't break the model into parts and move them differently - how could it?

Not sure what is gong on with the 737, but I don't have it yet (waiting on the -800 like a lot of other people), but my bet is just that the dash is just close to the pilots eye line (as it should be) and simply appears to move about more due to parallax effect.

I did a few more tests, and it all seems quite natural to me, and as I would expect it to be.  Maybe other people just have to get used to the effect.  Certainly I am glad to have it as it really brings the aircraft to life.

2 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Right.  I tested with the Islander. 
Just to say beforehand that I have a good grasp of physics (decent A-level) and parallax and how it should work, especially as an amateur astronomer, where parallax is used a lot for gauging distances to stars out to a few thousand light years.  After that the movement can be too small to measure.

It is a linear rule, so object twice as far away as the datum object will appear to move only half as much - 4 times further away will be a quarter of the movement compared to a near object.

On the islander, from the default pilot position, I looked 90 degrees to the left.  I had plenty of gusting set in weather to give me turbulence.  The window frame was moving up and down quite a bit, and it appeared the left engine wasn't.
However, when I placed a transparent ruler over my monitor and lined it up with the bottom of the cowling, I found it was moving, but only about a sixth of the movement of the window frame. It is moving, just harder to gauge because of the smaller movement in amongst nearer objects moving quite a bit.

When viewed from outside, front on, the pilots head is about six times further away from the left engine cowling than from the window frame (maybe even a bit more). 
So my determination is that the camera and the movement is acting as I would expect, and exactly to parallax measurement. 
Any why wouldn't it?  FS Realistic doesn't break the model into parts and move them differently - how could it?

Not sure what is gong on with the 737, but I don't have it yet (waiting on the -800 like a lot of other people), but my bet is just that the dash is just close to the pilots eye line (as it should be) and simply appears to move about more due to parallax effect.

I did a few more tests, and it all seems quite natural to me, and as I would expect it to be.  Maybe other people just have to get used to the effect.  Certainly I am glad to have it as it really brings the aircraft to life.

Some here don't like science.....🙄

5 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Not sure what is gong on with the 737, but I don't have it yet (waiting on the -800 like a lot of other people), but my bet is just that the dash is just close to the pilots eye line (as it should be) and simply appears to move about more due to parallax effect.

Another reason I wanted a video was so I could put it in photoshop and see if the actual pixels moved or not. I have a feeling a lot of people fly with their zoom level not at 100% (real life) but something closer to 20% (way zoomed out to see both cockpit side windows) which would distort parallax immensely. I have this idea people are doing this, because the majority of MSFS videos I see on youtube are done with very low zoom. Often I can barely read any cockpit instruments, and the view is almost fish-eye.

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by WestAir

I suspect that this is what the fuss is about. Apologies that it is not about PMDG.
Using the clever ruler trick mentioned by bobcat999, one can indeed see that the engine is not static, as it appears to be at first sight.

I never lose sight of the fact that I am sitting at my desk watching a screen and not in a real aircraft flying in the sky.
I agree that this effect and all the others introduced by this product greatly enhance the experience.

 

 

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by Reader

For the first time since using Ezdok in P3D, today I felt the intuitive need to grab my (non existing) seatbelt to tighten it. Thanks FSR!

 

17 minutes ago, Reader said:

I suspect that this is what the fuss is about

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pa431bqivge0xoe/bandicam 2022-06-19 21-13-23-161.mp4?dl=0

 

Thank you!

I put the video into photoshop and took 2 screen shots: One when the eye-point was at its highest, and one at the lowest. While the window frame moved a maximum of 9 pixels up/down on the screen, the very top of the engine nacelle moved only 2 pixels.

Sadly, it's difficult to show this difference to you all clearly because of the tiny amount of movement. While I could tell using the layer tool and ruler, most of you wouldn't be able to tell with just two overlapping pictures. It would just look like a blurry image. So instead, I zoomed into one of the rivets on the nacelle and took two pictures of the exact same spot on the screen, with the pilots head at its highest, and at its lowest. The nacelle moves. This is absolutely parallax.

Edited June 19, 20223 yr by WestAir

I don’t know who is right, and who is wrong, but I accidentally flew without the product on today and the difference in realism is profound.  I don’t know how they do it, but with the product off, I lost the same feeling of immersion that I had when it is turned on, so what ever it does, or is supposed to do, it does it very well.