veeshy

actually iv contacted pmdg support over this they haven't said no but they have said they may look into it, nothing soon tho. im not sure the reason why andreas wants it removed, however i asked pmdg of they could have a vc detail setting option (just like a low detail/high detail setting in the ngx) where the seats model could be removed. my reason for the request was the the issue with the camera moving around heaps when the heading of the aircraft changes and also the position of the aircraft relative to the equator and hemispheres. i did a video which u can a link for bellow showing the symptom, atm iv got a ezdok preset that works for the region of australia which works for now without the camera disappearing or clipping into the seat however if i do long halls its difficult to have much reliability and the cameras need to be moved again. another problem (got nothing to do with the seat), but the movement of the camera during approaches and banks can be annoying especially while using the mouse with various knobs in the vc as i find myself having to put my focus on keeping the mouse moving along with the knob or switch and when things get busy its frustrating for me. so for now im back to the ngx where the movement aint as exaggerated and inconsistent as the 777x. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsu1sty8FxY Kaveesh

hey ryan any chance that we can get a hotfix of whatvevers has already been fixed in ur long list? theres quite alot of quirks there and looks like the freezing is the main thing left outstanding and an actual service pack will be months away. a small hotfix or patch would be great soon considering its been over a month since the rtm release to tidy a few things up instead of waiting a few extra months. cheers. Kaveesh.

The NGX does have the same effect but because the lengthen of the aircraft fuselage or the distance of the cockpit from the center of the aircraft is shorter so the effect is much smaller. There is some documentation in the 777 introduction manual about realistic zoom settings. The value is above 0.90 and closer to 1.00 to be realistic. Having lower zoom values distorts the field of view or FOV (fish eye effect) and causes huge distortions of the sensation of speed and distance. Something that is generally to be avoided in simulations if realism is what its all about. This is most obvious in driving or racing simulations where distance, speeds, angles all need to be accurate to convey driving from simulations to the real world. My driving styles, turn in points, racing lines, the way a managed the weight distribution of the car all took a big hit/change while switching from slightly distorted to more accurate FOVs. We can somewhat get away with this in flight simulation especially with highly automated and advanced airline simulations because of the ways in which we interact with the autopilot for approaches/ glide-slopes/flight-paths and the fact that we have advanced instruments to rely on and not just whats outside the window. Kaveesh

Here is the Ezdok profile that I am currently using for flying the PMDG 777-200LR. The video should give people an idea of what is actually happening to the camera and what affects it. You can all use this example to create EZdok profiles to suit your needs and regions that you all fly in. My profile is made for Australia as im currently flying there only. I’ve used the zoom setting of 0.70 in every camera, that’s the lowest figure I would ever use before the FOV becomes too distorted and unrealistic for my liking. Also, all the camera shaking effects are disabled. You can enable and set them up to your preference if you want. The video basically goes through each major airport around the continent of Australia. I basically demonstrate the movement of the camera from both the Captain & First Officer's perspectives both looking forward and backward. My goal was to have cameras positioned so that: 1. No matter where I was in Australia or what heading I was facing, the entire Captain & First Officer's main displays would be visible. 2. The cameras would go through the seats or any other part of the cockpit. (All other VC cameras are towards the end of the video) 3. All cameras should maintain the same zoom setting of at-least 0.70. 4. All of the above is to be achieved while flying anywhere in Australia. I am not sure how this profile will work in other parts of the world or during trans-continental flights, so feel free to try my profile & your luck. So far these are the things that affect the camera: 1. Position in reference to the Equator and Poles. Movement is less drastic at poles and exaggerated near the equator. 2. Location on the Earth, both Longitude & Latitude. 3. Heading of the aircraft. 4. Distance of the cockpit & camera of the aircraft from the center of the aircraft. Longer aircraft have more camera movement. (We r ****ed when we get the 777-300ER.) Another piece of advice is to disable the momentum effect in your FSX. This will stop the camera shifting due to acceleration, de-acceleration and aircrafts momentum in various directions. This is done under the [DynamicHeadMovement] section of your FSX CFG file by changing the values to essentially zero. Example: [DynamicHeadMovement] LonAccelOnHeadLon=-0.000000 LonAccelOnHeadPitch=-0.000000 RollAccelOnHeadLat=0.000000 YawAccelOnHeadLat=-0.000000 RollAccelOnHeadRoll=0.000000 MaxHeadAngle=0.000000 MaxHeadOffset=0.000000 HeadMoveTimeConstant=0.000000 Hope people can find my EZdok profile, video and explanation of some use to manage this FSX bug. I would love to see if a developer could remove this annoying issue either through the camera programs they develop, or even FSX itself. Would be a must have add-on and if someone does achieve this well im sure they will rake in the cash. So if you have brains & talent, there’s some incentive! $$$ Please note that I have included both an EZdok camera set & also the Individual EZdok camera files. When importing/loading the camera set, make sure only the Virtual Cockpit Cameras is selected on the import/load section to avoid any errors or crashes of the EZdok program. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsu1sty8FxY EZdok Profile: http://www.sendspace.com/file/gyc493 Kaveesh.

by the way, for some reason the camera positions for each camera preset seems to move by a significant amount after a little flying or after loading and using fsx a few times. anyone know why? i had the same problem when i made cameras fort he ngx from scratch so i ended up using the ones for AOA by Nick which didnt have this problem. if u get a similar problem let me know. i hate the ezdok but have no choice as we need the VC these days.

Here is a EZdok camera set iv done for the PMDG 777X LR/F to get people started if the so wish. These were made using, and u will need version 1.17. Theres a total of 10 Virtual Cockpit cameras. I have used the Zoom setting of 0.75 to balance off the distortion vs viewable area to keep it realistic. There also are no effects, you can add them as you please. Screenshots are provided for each camera. If the cameras dont exactly match what you see in the screenshots and appear to be a little off in position, then follow the following installation instructions: 1. Delete all old cameras set up in EZdok if you have already created some for the 777X. 2. Exit FSX (If not already done so) and run the EZdok Config and click "Configure FSX". 3. Once back in FSX with 777X loaded, import my camera set. (Please note: when importing set only select "Virtual Cockpit cameras" to load to avoid the "Any data of "NF" camera is not found" errors) 4. Alternatively you can load each camera one by one individually form the "Cameras" folder I provided. By default the assigned the 10 cameras to use the 0-9 keys (not numpad) to cycle through the cameras. Please be aware that these are designed for 16:9 resolutions such as 1920X1080. Also, the "WideViewAspect" parameter in the FSX CFG file needs to be set to true: "WideViewAspect=True" Link to file: http://www.sendspace.com/file/20ksds Kaveesh Singh

totaly Kaveesh Singh agree Kaveesh Singh with Kaveesh Singh you Kaveesh Singh on Kaveesh Singh that Kaveesh Singh one Kaveesh Singh

any plans by pmdg for in the future to sometime add in / or as a sepearte product, the flight models and cockpit incl systems for the 747-8i/f8f? i dnno how much of a change it is but from what iv seen and heard from a few articles and videos the flight charataritcs are not too different, performance has changed obviously and the systems r very similar, infact heard that it takes 3 days of non cimulator training to transfer from a 400 to the 8. so with this in mind and the aircrafts almost in service would be great if we could get the 8 updated. or is this reseverd for the 747 v2 update, and is that update going to be after the 777 or before. i hope before as the 777 is many many years off judging buy history and esspecialy the ngx release schedule (and that even is working properly yet), so hopefully the v2 of the 747s is a refresher product well before the 777. kaveesh.

niether do i but they didnt say that is was a limitation in fsx. they said that they just dont want to spend time making one as it takes a time to the throttle animations for the throttle quaderent panel. some users might be happy with a oanel withthe cuttoff switchets etc and no throttle animation at all but depends how pmdg want to go about it.

well that what its about for me so spot on. not neccesarrly honest but more clear and trancparent. and probably a less more jumping up and down with emotion from them. i recon a simple thread or an faq on their website would probaly put end end alot of the fustrations or arguments here. like a list saying: we wont be doing this ine the future, we wont finish this, we dont want to impliment this because etc. theres also alot of threads where there is a genuine technical question and nobody from pmdg ever answers it to clear it up, they let it build into a debate, argument, and opinion from the users.

lol. i agree imagine if they had only modeled the captains side fmc, stop crying over spilt milk! has this stopped you from flying the ngx. no, u can still use the left one. its one of the best addons ever! the point is if they can get small details that im sure u havent even noticed modeled, then they should have the time model a 2d panel for those who dont have trackir, third party camera tools or a fast enough rig to run the vc. how would u feel if they modeled all the 2d panels and modeled part of the vc to be working. then you would have ppl on the other side of the fence complaining. try to look at something from somone elses eyes for a change not just urs. the reason ppl are upset is not all 2d vs 3d. its the fact that they didint not fully model the 2d and never mentioned it when ppl bought it. i recon they should fully impliment such a basic feature or not impliment it at all as state that u didnt just like with the j41. kaveesh.

before this gets deleted and i get banned heres a convo with me and the main man. veeshy: Sent Yesterday, 11:58 PMhi why are my posts being deleted? Tabs: Because you're arguing about stated PMDG company policy - the 2D panel stuff is not open for debate.We're going to do what we're going to do and that's that. If it's as big a problem as the couple of vocal individuals such as yourself seem to believe it is then I guess we'll be going out of business with our 777.We're more than confident that's not the case however.Ryan Maziarz veeshy: Sent Today, 01:31 AMchill bro. never said anything about pmdg going out of bussiness. if anything bussiness on the fsx platform has grown rapidly with advances in hardware. anyway i was more to the point on pmdgs 737 not having all the panels but never stating it their product page. just like ur turboprop which i nver bought because it says its a vc oly aircraft. the ngx never mentions that a panel here or there will be missing. adding a sentence on ur product page will prevent ppl from arguing as u have made it clear what they r getting and what ur selling to them. the real customers get hurt the way things are now and the fu*k wits on piratebay r having the time of their lives. not just pmdg but there are a few other componies in software and games that r into the same boat. common sense, if u can add line about all the tiny details of simulated u could put up a sign saying partial 3d panels/reccomended to fly using vc.and also 3 years ago you guys were much more proffessional with dealing with ppl wherether they were idiots or not. nowdays too much emotion from the pmdg team. lucky u guys dont build real airplanes, a few lawsuits for lack of tranceparancy, tratment of customers, and crahsing planes lol and u guys would be done. on the other had the real boeing seem to be the ppl who kiss the asses of their customers. we dont need that but abit more then a fu** off and better more visible comunication. 1 bloody sentence on the product page is all i bloody asked for. its ur product do what u want, but let us know PROFFESIONALY. that was us one 2 one. anyway its over i guess got to live with it, juist expected more clarity. Kaveesh

wow good to hear then :)

looks like u will have to wait for pmdgs responce if they ever give u one. Kaveesh

hmm sorry no idea. i herd somewhere that recopying your magdec.bgl from you fsx dvd over the current one instalation might help. see how that goes. Kaveesh