Fixed glazing vs. turn/tilt

Hello everyone, on one side of the house, two openings (windows) are planned (1.8x2.35m), approximately 3m apart from each other. One must serve as a patio door, i.e. it will probably be a tilt-and-turn variant. The other opening does not need to be opened for functional reasons, i.e. we had actually thought of a fixed glazing here. Now we received the statement that fixed glazing differs visually due to the narrower frame compared to the tilt-and-turn variant. Since both windows are not too far apart, this would probably represent a stylistic discontinuity. What do you think? Would the cost savings of fixed glazing possibly justify it?

Good morning
I do not perceive this as a stylistic inconsistency!
In our house, we also have a patio door next to a fixed glazing element.
It looks great!
We never thought about cost savings in this context!
I simply find it very beautiful visually!

We never thought about cost savings in this context! I just find it visually very beautiful this way!

Thanks for the info, so early in the morning already
Would the fixed glazing still be cheaper? What size is the window? Do you have a double-leaf door, so that you possibly also "replicated" the mullion in the fixed glazing???

I will gladly look up the dimensions later.

Looks great, true. It could also be because the elements are not identical anyway (two-piece, three-piece, different widths). At daytona there are initially two identical openings in the wall. That should be taken into account IMHO.

At Daytona, there are initially two identical openings in the wall. One should IMHO take that into account.

That's right, it really looks great. I just thought about it: Since both openings in my wall are the same size, perhaps one could make the fixed glazing WITHOUT a mullion, to directly hint at the difference in the view...