MU-2 progress towards update

[Cameron]

is there any way that you could do a quick update to gizmo so that DRM and registration are handled the same as the Falco ?

It's part of the next update, but with the legacy code it would be near impossible to do, Larry. Definitely in the next iteration for ease of use!

[medfox]

Hello!

A few thoughts for all the "supporters" here and the reason why I am so pissed by everybody involved in this project. Before buying the MU-2 I contacted Tom because the features I wanted to get for my personal needs are only promised in the new update, and this was part of the answer:

Tom Kyler wrote: "...The version 1.5 is an "imminent update" not yet released. I have been working on X-Plane 10 for the last 2 years and the Mu2 has taken a back seat. Now that V10 is out, I will resume work on the 1.5 update in the next few weeks and will hopefully have it available by early January at the latest. All customers will receive an email notification from x-aviation when the update is ready and it will be free for existing customers. The 1.5 update is VERY significantly enhanced over the 1.1.1 version...."

That mail was the reason why I bought the plane and until now, no update yet and therefore I also thought about forcing a refund, but the amount of money was not worse the effort. So, to everybody who is happy that Tom does better things now and so you can forget the update of the Moo - in my opinion the behavior of the company here (yes, we spend money here) is more than bad and it borders on cheating. So, if you would have done a freeware product then yes, everything is your decision and the users get what you want. But if you get money for something and therefore act as a company like here, then you have some responsibilities you have to care about.

Just my 2 cents,

a pissed Medfox!

[tkyler]

Your 2c are duly noted medfox and feelings understood.

But if you get money for something and therefore act as a company like here, then you have some responsibilities you have to care about.

I continue to stand by my assessment of the situation as outlined above ....but I also fully accept any and all vocalized misgivings and frustrations. Tis a choice I made aware of the repercussions. Your insinuation that the Moo is "forgotten" is not correct though. I will still deliver the update as long as I or my family is healthy enough for me to do so and it will still be free. The timing has been altered, but not the responsibility. I have taken lessons away from my experiences though and will endeavor to provide better service and expectations to customers in the future.

Tom

[eaglewing7]

It'll be done when it is done. Until then, sit back, relax, and shut up.

[Hal]

You see, eaglewing, when I talked about the civility of the people here, I was definitely not talking about you. People do have a right to come and enquire about the project or give their 2 cents, and you don't get the right to tell them to shut up, even with a smiley.

[OlaHaldor]

If I may...I believe I was among the very first who purchased the plane, x-mas back in.. When was it? 2008? 2009?

The update announced to be released 2012 Q1 thrilled me. The newsletter about it was great, and I had high hopes for it both for existing customers and new.

Then there was this sudden silence, tons of questions and accusations.

I wonder if there should be a new newsletter. A "sorry for not doing as we promised" letter. A newsletter where you inform all of those who's not on these forums. Those who's not keeping themselves updated about this very topic.

[Cameron]

I wonder if there should be a new newsletter. A "sorry for not doing as we promised" letter. A newsletter where you inform all of those who's not on these forums. Those who's not keeping themselves updated about this very topic.

All any newsletter said about anything was that the MU-2 was on sale for the holidays, that there was an expected update, and that once such update was released the price would be increased. To this date, no update has been released, and no price has been altered. Where exactly is the promise and apology for a mass newsletter due?

While both Tom and I sympathize with the situation, I find it prudent to point out that there have been no promises made nor broken here. There has purely been a very large, eye opening update to which we all are and were excited about. Unfortunately X-Plane 10 threw a big monkey wrench into the operation when after two years of work, everything was literally appearing near broke in a big way. Imagine all the bad feelings we had after years of labor only to find out things weren't going to work!

We were quite literally within a couple of days of packaging things up and sending out prior to finding this out. It stinks, but this is life and we must face the challenge and alter it to make things right. It's not an overnight operation, and those are two years where a person who makes a living at this will not see a return until the whole product is yet again re-coded. That's a long time to be going without money, and I would much prefer to see Tom remain in the business and eventually see an update than to pack up and go altogether. Our user base has migrated to X-Plane 10 (big time), so there's not much more to be said here.

I do apologize, Ola, but that's all to say at this time.

[PWJT8D]

No hard feelings here. I love you guys. There has been and will be PLEEEENTY of aircraft to keep me busy right now and within the coming months for me to not worry about the MU2 update. When it comes it comes and I will be thankful for that!

[73MustangBill]

New member, first post,...... but by no means am I a noob.

Tom, I can sympathize with your plight and your troubles. I am intimately familar with the simulation of the Garrett TPE331 engine, and I had data from Honeywell to help me along the way, and even then it wasn't an easy task. Your task is monumental. I too look forward to an update, but it looks like it is not to be anytime in the future, so I will be content with the existing model.

Thought I could shed a little light on a question asked by Emalice back in #478 : "what you call the props lock, is it that feature where the props will feather on improper shutdown procedure and you then have to press the unfeather button at startup ?" No, the prop locks are a way to lock the pitch of the propeller at a flat setting, so that the starter can rotate the engine and propeller more easily the next time that the engine is started. The MU-2 engine is a single-spool engine, meaning that everything in the engine rotates together, not like a two-spool engine where the propeller is driven by air pressure coming out of the engine. Think of a car with a manual transmission going down a hill. Take your foot off the gas, and the transmission starts driving the the engine. Same thing happens in the MU-2 engine, only in a much more complicated way.

There is a system in the MU-2 engine called the Negative Torque Sensing (or NTS) system that will drive the propellers towards feathered (but not completely feathered) if an engine is lost in flight. In simulating the drag caused by a dead engine, I couldn't find any data from anyone, so I used an equation from Roskam's red book, which described the drag coefficient of a propeller as 0.1 + cos(beta)^2, where beta is the propeller pitch angle, and the drag coefficient is based on propeller area. (Sorry for making some of you do math). If the engine fails with the propeller at it's normal working angle, let's say somewhere around 10-15 degrees, the drag of this failed engine can be as high as 600 lbs at slow airspeed. The NTS system drives the propeller towards feathered (maybe to 40-50 deg), which reduces the drag to something around a third of that 600 lbs. The pilot is to manually feather the propeller of the dead engine, thereby reducing the drag of the dead engine further. The NTS system is tested upon startup to ensure proper operation because this system is so critical. I've heard from experts that at 120 knots, an engine failure with a failed NTS system is basically unrecoverable.

Good luck Tom. Maybe you can adopt one of my catch phrases, "You can have it right, or you can have it now. You just can't have it right now". Someone pointed out to me recently that the bitter taste of deivering something late (or over budget) is soon forgotten, but the bad taste of a poor product lives a much longer life.

Bill

[ktomais]

The last two lines are a summation of what differentiates a good product (and by extension its creator) from a bad one. I think this is something the community of X-Plane must endorse and promote, in fact demand from every single developer out there. Quality should always preside over deadlines and budgets.

[Dozer]

The problem is, we DO have it now. We have v1.1.1 now. We've had v1.1.1 for three years, while many radical improvements sit idle on a hard drive in Texas. For three years, the stock EFIS instruments have looked more and more dated, and the beautiful new 3D panel which looked so extraordinary in the screenshots two years ago becomes matched and even surpassed by the MU-2's competitors. The MU-2 v1.1.1 was stunning, in 2009 - that's the review which made me an X-Plane user and a MU-2 customer. It was completely cutting-edge in the XP8/XP9 changeover era. But now it's 2012, and why would I stare at those blurry 2d instruments when I could be flying the Duchess, or the Falco, or the DC-3, or the CRJ, or the T-28?

There's a concept in software development: "Release early, release often". Streamline the process of shipping updates to your users so they can gain the benefits of your new features as soon as they are completed and pass testing. Completed features which are not yet available for your customers are wasted, as Joel Spolsky recently argued. Cameron, please have a look at that article, I think it is relevant to you.

Is there any reason the work done for the MU-2 since v1.1.1 couldn't have been parcelled up into smaller, incremental updates? Perhaps the X-Aviation product update process is fuelled by unicorn tears? If that's the reason, the update process really needs to be optimised!

Manually updating an aircraft frequently would be a bother for users. But for two very important groups it wouldn't be an issue. The first group is the new customers. Do you realise the MU-2's been at the top of the bestseller's list at X-Aviation for three years? That's a great achievement, but all those newcomers to X-Plane in that period have seen the 2009-era panel and perhaps believed that that's still the state-of-the-art for X-Plane. They could have seen that 3D cockpit instead. If I was a newcomer and I bought v1.1.1 today, frankly I would be disappointed. The second group are the enthusiasts who passionately enjoy the product and will be glad to spend effort to have the most advanced version possible.

There's the group which has become invested in a particular version, for example hardware builders who will need to reconfigure everything to new datarefs and commands, and modders who will need to reapply all their mods to the new version. Frankly, I think they can cope!

There is merit to delaying a release until it has a complete set of features, instead of releasing two versions one after the other. Holding off for three years, though, is a bit far.

I've focussed on the visual appearance of the instrument panel, rather than the flight model and systems model, because that's the differences are most obvious, and where v1.1.1 is most limited. I even made a replacement altimeter because the original (a stock Planemaker gauge) was unusable. But I really appreciate deep systems simulation too. An aircraft needs both to be compelling - a beautifully-modelled panel, and interesting systems like the NTS to keep on top of. Without the systems the flying is boring. Without the good instruments the flying is not rewarding.

At this point, it is probably best to keep to the current plan and release v1.5 as one big bang as soon as everything can be completed. It would probably be a wasted effort to put everything currently available into a v9.70-only release when so many customers are v10 now. But, please, for future projects, Release Early, Release Often!

I hope it goes without saying, I have massive respect and gratitude to Tom Kyler, Cameron, and X-Aviation for the MU-2 and their other contributions to desktop flight simming. I say all this because I wish I could have been enjoying the MU-2 more over the last two or three years. It's a lovely model, and a perfect FS aircraft. The right level of performance and systems complexity to be a really rewarding aircraft to master. Smaller aircraft are undemanding and larger aircraft are overwhelming unless simplified.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Dozer

[Cameron]

There's a concept in software development: "Release early, release often". Streamline the process of shipping updates to your users so they can gain the benefits of your new features as soon as they are completed and pass testing. Completed features which are not yet available for your customers are wasted, as Joel Spolsky recently argued. Cameron, please have a look at that article, I think it is relevant to you.

All of this is negated if the core of the aircraft simply does NOT fly accurately to a degree that makes it literally non-flyable. While some things may be "completed" they are all dependent upon one another systems wise...a domino effect. These "minor" updates would have been released long ago if such were not the case and has been seen on the DC-3, CRJ, etc. The MU-2 was not just an update to code. It was an entire re-write (clean slate), and dare I say Tom tends to code aircraft in a way most other developers do not. The systems depth BEHIND the scenes of which people do not visually see is astounding. I think you'll see this type of work reflected in the likes of even the IXEG 737...they are using the same approach.

Is there any reason the work done for the MU-2 since v1.1.1 couldn't have been parcelled up into smaller, incremental updates? Perhaps the X-Aviation product update process is fuelled by unicorn tears? If that's the reason, the update process really needs to be optimised!

The update process works fine at X-Aviation. We get an update from a developer, we ship it out...same day. The rest of what you are questioning here is answered above. All code dependent on other code, and an entire plug-in re-write from the ground up. Crazy as it may sound, the MU-2 code is insanely complex.

If I was a newcomer and I bought v1.1.1 today, frankly I would be disappointed.

That's you, not them. Tom and I have discussed this in the past...so much so that we've sternly considered pulling the product down entirely. However, contrary to your view, we get an astounding amount of positive comments for this product from current day purchasers. I believe those who remain that purchase it know exactly what they are getting into and want the aircraft for what it is. To add to that, the screenshots and videos culminating from three years of use don't lie...people may draw their own assessment.

There is merit to delaying a release until it has a complete set of features, instead of releasing two versions one after the other. Holding off for three years, though, is a bit far.

Perhaps the only way for you to understand would be for you to be in the development cycle as someone on the team. Instead, you aren't, and if you can't understand it from what has already been stated here over the enormous amounts of posts, then I don't think there's much else to say! In short, we respect the fact that you have the views you do, but there has been good reason for the approach taken throughout all of this. Yes, we sympathize with the frustration (especially Tom, as seen in his various candid posts here). The situation is what it is. Tom has been polite enough to outline where he is in his "developer mind" for the next while, and things are not anticipated to change for the time being. We'll get there, but it won't be today. It'll be when it's ready.

[Dozer]

Thanks for the answer Cameron. I love the way Tom codes aircraft - the way the undercarriage actuator can blow its circuit breaker if you pull too many g in the Falco is one of my favourite X-Plane aircraft features of all time. I'm certainly aware of the complexity of the MU-2 plugin.

I'm glad that new users are enjoying the v1.1.1 MU-2. My comments were possibly too harsh. I've been spoiled by screenshots and private betas of aircraft not yet completed!

I hope to work as part of a development team in the not-too-distant future as well, as a plugin developer. I have an idea of building a preliminary plugin, which provides datarefs and commands for all the functions that will not be handled by the core sim, for use by the other developers. Initially all the custom datarefs and commands would be either mapped directly to a core dataref (the sim ADF needle instead of my own ADF simulation for example), or to an 'empty' simulation which records switch positions, and perhaps will turn status indicators on and off, but does nothing more. Hopefully it will be possible to build a modular simulation (modular at the source code level, producing a single compiled plugin, probably) which would allow features to be introduced incrementally and keeping the project as a whole never very far away from a usable release. But to do this I'll need to close this tab, start googling for international shippers, find someone to lend me money, and get my PC and all my stuff shipped out here from England first though. I can't even run X-Plane right now!

[tkyler]

My comments were possibly too harsh

Not at all Jack. Things are what they are; however, I did make a significant step recently by finally switching a lot of the code base of the MU2 over to Lua/Gizmo. We're testing against Gizmo 12, which is quite a bit more stable that past versions and has more features. Now keeping in mind I've written 1000s of lines of code in Lua for the IXEG 733 project, where the algorithms are much more advanced..... the coding for the MU2 is going about 5x faster than it did in C and opens the doors to a much deeper simulation in the future. I've been able to implement about half the functionality of the previous plugin in one evening, fixing bugs along the way. Of course the more difficult stuff is yet to come, but this was a significant step in integrating the MU2 back into the workflow.

-Tom

Edited October 25, 2012 by tkyler

[Jim Kallinen]

Thank god, , the last time I was able to fly the MU-2 was when I made this video. Way to long to pay this much and have it ask me every time to register again. With no luck

Missed you last week.

http://www.xplanefreeware.net/jim/video/XP9/WMV/720P/Mu2.wmv

[Dozer]

Of course, I'd forgotten you were porting everything to Gizmo at the same time!

[tkyler]

Porting is paying pretty big dividends. I'm moving very quickly through the code base, fixing lots of things that were not "right" when done in C because the "compile > reload" was just too cumbersome. I've got about 75% of the code base rewritten in the last 3 days. With the burdern of working in C removed and the added experience of the 737 coding, it is much easier to try new things or rewrite algorithms. I know many won't be too happy, but this update will be V10 only. After a year of working on V10 and it getting reasonably stabilized, there is no reason not too, there is just too many nice features to take advantage of. This is just the way computer software is. The Moo now has

"real" landing lights on the wings, real wing ice light...independent taxi light control on the nose, higher fidelity systems simulation etc.

Tom

Edited October 29, 2012 by tkyler

[sierranev]

Tom,

Does this mean there will be no future updates at all of the MU2 in XP9?

I thought a working V9 update had already been prepared and was simply awaiting completion of the V10 update so they could be released alongside one another?

Thanks

[Cameron]

Tom,

Does this mean there will be no future updates at all of the MU2 in XP9?

I thought a working V9 update had already been prepared and was simply awaiting completion of the V10 update so they could be released alongside one another?

Thanks

There will not be an update for X-Plane 9. X-Plane 10 is a very stable sim at this point, and we must go where the ROI is. In this instance, over 95% of our customers have already made this transition in X-Plane versions.

The MU-2 will continue to work as is in X-Plane 9. If you have X-Plane 10 you will be able to run this update. Part of the reason for X-Plane 9 now being excluded has to deal with the fact that the MU-2 is again on an entire code re-write. Too many issues presented themselves, and the new version of code is proving that the only logical route at this point is to support one version of X-Plane. In this instance, that version is X-Plane 10. When the code has been completed and proven to work in X-Plane 10, then we will do a quick run down to see if it works in X-Plane 9 at all (we already anticipate it will not). If it does not, we do not anticipate fixing this. As it stands already, a number of changes have been made to the aircraft file, which is in X-Plane 10 format for features that were only available in X-Plane 10 to begin with.

[tkyler]

This situation is inevitable and we see it every x-plane release cycle. Nobody complains that the MU2 doesn't support V8 though it was actually developed on V8 and for V8. The good news is that if you're an existing customer, this V10 version will be available to you for free when you do get V10. The more functionality that goes into custom plugin work though actually isolates the functionality from future issues....so what that means is that as the MU2 evolves, it will actually stabilize where it will eventually work from whatever version it was developed for onward. Custom things I put into the plugin back in 2008 are still there working today. The problems I encountered then were trying to manipulate the default XP behavior instead of "going around" it. Nowadays, I am going around X-Plane more and more as time moves on. I really am close to the point where all the "things subject to break" (i.e. things that Austin might try and improve in the future) I am taking over. I don't expect the compass heading variables to ever change because they just work so I use those. But things like electrical / hydraulics and power related stuff I am steadily moving those simulations into the plug in.

During the V10 dev run, we have had many discussions about how to stabilize the sim in such a way that chances of future breakage of products are minimal. Towards this end, we have access to variables previously inaccessible and more override abilities. We are very close to the point where a aircraft author can use Austin's aerodynamic force model, which is pretty stable and basically write everything else themselves. This is a new paradigm and as time goes on, more and more developers will take advantage of it and that stability that users want in their products will become more prevalent.

Tom

[sierranev]

Tom,

I appreciate your honesty as this situation has unfolded and understand your rationale.

I can't help but feeling, however, that as an exclusive XP9 user I've been left to twist in the wind on this one. I purchased this aircraft as part of the holiday promo last year, and the newsletter really did not convey that the update would be for XP10 only. In fact, my purchase decision was made based on an expected XP9 update coupled wih the discounted price at the time. If this XP10 only decision for the update was inevitable as you say, that info really should have been included prominently in the promo newsletter.

I've made my feelings known to Cameron and politely requested a refund, who essentially said, "sorry, all sales are final, but you got a great deal anyway and you can still use the old version in XP9". That's for me to decide BTW, but I certainly am not geting what I thought I was paying for.

It pains me to say that if X-aviation is more interested short term profits than treating an honest paying customer fairly, it will be an easy decision to take my future business elsewhere. It really is a shame, because there are several incredibly talented developers here, yourself included, and I would hate to miss out on some of the releases in the pipeline. No hard feelings toward you specifically, but the response I received from X-Aviation has been somewhat of a head scratcher.

[Cameron]

I've made my feelings known to Cameron and politely requested a refund, who essentially said, "sorry, all sales are final, but you got a great deal anyway and you can still use the old version in XP9". That's for me to decide BTW, but I certainly am not geting what I thought I was paying for.

Actually, to briefly summarize, it essentially said, "all sales are final, here are the terms you are entitled to (with a link), you did receive a 50% discount and offered my opinion that you got a great deal, the product will continue to be supported in X-Plane 9, you will be entitled to continual support for your purchase, AND you will be entitled to the X-Plane 10 update at absolutely no cost to you when you're ready for the upgrade."

It pains me to say that if X-aviation is more interested short term profits than treating an honest paying customer fairly, it will be an easy decision to take my future business elsewhere. It really is a shame, because there are several incredibly talented developers here, yourself included, and I would hate to miss out on some of the releases in the pipeline. No hard feelings toward you specifically, but the response I received from X-Aviation has been somewhat of a head scratcher.

It is definitely not what we wish to hear, Ryan, but we certainly must respect any decision you make. As has been stated in my latest e-mail to you, not only did what I just state above apply, but you are well beyond a respectable refund window, AND you activated the product. Quoting a line in X-Aviation's terms for refund as indicated on the website: "...activated products will not be considered for a refund or exchange." Asking for a refund ~ 300 days after a sale (activation issue aside) is really not within the realm of plausible. None of this has to do with "short term profits."

I apologize if any of this seems harsh, rude, or inconsiderate. It is not intended to be, and we will be overly happy to support you for past, present, and future (should you choose to allow us that gesture) for years to come!

[tkyler]

I'm sorry it is the way it is Ryan. We certainly do not value profits above customer service. We strive to satisfy "as many as we can". As an exclusive V9 user though, you are in the vast minority of the customer pool and becoming moreso each day. In any progressive industry that moves forward technologically, especially in "migrations" as we see from XP9 > XP10, then it is inevitable some will fall behind. If I spent a disproportionate amount of my time making the MU2 V9 compatible for no return, I'd go broke and couldn't provide ANY product for the future and we'd see NO new MU2. You still have access to the V10 one when you finally make the switch AND the one that you have now does work for V9.

I will say that X-Aviation (and myself) insinuated an imminent update was available and this was my counting my chickens before they were hatched and was the 'wrong' that was done to customers on a small level...a mistake I will not repeat, BUT at the same time, the MU2 you purchased was $15.00, the sale complied with the license as stated, works in V9 that you own and presumably you've enjoyed for nearly a year. I do apologize but he best I can do in this case is keep my big mouth shut in the future and make this MU2 update for V10 available for you for free when you (and the MU2) is ready......hundreds of hours of work with zero return, utilizing the latest tech to make the best product I can. We care about customers a great deal!

Tom

Edited October 30, 2012 by tkyler

[sierranev]

Well gentlemen, I am not happy with the outcome but I do appreciate the professionalism and civility in your responses. Correct Cameron, the product was activated, but it was very, very seldom used as I waited patiently for what I was led to believe was an imminent XP9 update.

Good luck to you in the future, and on behalf the customers who were also placed in my position, please be try to be precise more in future marketing materials.

[tkyler]

please be try to be precise more in future marketing materials.

Indeed we will Ryan!