tkyler

A bit of "contract ignoring" I suspect. At first look, I am HIGHLY disappointed in this behavior. Facilities exist for vendors to sell their work at other stores, XA acknowledges that as woweezoee says... but there are terms, methods and a timeline to do so...outlined in a contract signed by all parties..... and this appears to be a "behind the back" move that ignored the terms of said signed contract. It sets a very precarious and negative precedent for marketing behavior within the x-plane community. I'll reserve final judgment till more facts are in though.

The shape of the aircraft is only one aspect of what is called "the flight model". There are many many other fixed parameters like weight, Center of gravity, balance, control sensitivity that can be adjusted to tweak the way the aircraft feels...in addition to the airfoils and angle of incidence etc. If any one of these are off, then they can be "felt" by the end user. Say the CG is off by a few inches, the plane my pitch up so that it always wants to climb. User's would know this was "not right" very quickly. Another big complaint is that aircraft feel "too twitchy". Because of the lack of any real muscle effort, the perception of "effort" doesn't really exist. so then, an author has to make adjustments that compensate for the fact that you're sitting at a computer. You can do this to "fool the brain" even though the numbers you input may be right. In addition, many of the numbers used by Austin are input into "approximations" as it is very difficult to be all things to all aircraft. If you don't understand his approximations or assumptions and blindly trust him, then you will probably get performance that is a little bit off. In general...if authors would simply input manual radii of gyration, tweak the CG, adjust the control falloff speeds as well as "control delay"..then a good 90% of bad models could be made to "feel good"; however, these are not parameters that most people think of when they think of aircraft design, hence they're missed very often.

Thanks guys. I really am dying to get back to making this on par with the best simulations anywhere. I have all sorts of cool new stuff I want to do for V10...but I just have to clear my plate first. It should be quite a year for x-plane during 2012. Of course we've been saying that for a while, but it's still true!

He was referring to a "similar marketing action". That is the using of an adjective to describe a line of products. It is a very valid observation that x-plane.org did this right after x-aviation did it, but you are also right in that it doesn't matter as far as DDen's 300 is concerned. If we want to discuss or debate such things, then please move those topics to another appropriate forum and keep this one about Dennis' 300.

Gentlemen, I regret to say that the probability of the MU-2 coming out in July has diminished. It looked good a few weeks ago but a few laminar emails later, things have changed. We are really stepping up our V10 work...lots of development and internal testing and at the end of the day, I just don't have the energy to work on the MU-2 right now. I also have summer vacation in 7 days (for 8 days), a 2nd daughter entering college this fall as well as other obligations. I need a good 3-4 days to wrap up the MU2 and that is seriously hard to find right now. It is very hectic in the xplane world for me. The MU-2 "todo" is sitting in my virtual inbox right on top pestering me and all I can say is, "I know know...gimme a minute will ya, I'm working as fast as I can, I'll get to you in a second". So that's where I am, hang in there, the update will be free and it'll be just as fun on the day you get it.

DPNY, Let me quote Albert and Salton: These statements are false and/or incorrect. They're not mostly incorrect......they're not incorrect when only used by Lufthansa staff, they're incorrect period! Albert and Salton gambled with their choice of words and got called on it, nothing more or less. I'd say their communication skills probably improved today. EDIT: I'm quite sure you're not ignorant Andrey, quite the opposite actually and I'm sure you have quite a bit of helpful knowledge given your experience. I tend to be a "stickler" for communication and choosing one word over another or not saying exactly what you mean can cause confusion.

I only gave this a quick cursory glance...something like this?

I doubt very seriously anybody here will know more about simulating the 737 than the ixeg team. Any "suggestions as to accuracy" or "unverified, see how smart I am" commentary is bound to exposure your ignorance. Avoid superlatives and you'll be fine.

Perhaps, I'll look. There are a lot of charts in the POH I have.

If "this month" means during the month of July..I'd say it stands a really good chance yes.

User did not expect a nag screen...reality provided him with one, he was disappointed. If Armchair had provided a suitable disclaimer, the expectation would have been instantiated....reality would have matched...no disappointment. This thread boils down to a user suggesting we understand enough of what goes through a customers mind..and then managing that information so he is not disappointed. Note the warning I came up with vs. the one Armchair uses. I want to make darn sure users aren't disappointed. Joe...bump up that warning man...too easy to miss. You know how people are! You have to spoon-feed em...and rightly so. I like to be spoon fed as a customer myself. It's your job to know me and show me. All they'll see is "$40.00 -> Buy Now"

That's a sidetrack to a resolved issue on this thread Dozer. Move programming how-to or gizmo defense to another thread. No need to lock this topic, but nothing here relates to the title anymore.

A bit too much defensiveness here is clouding some points. ED -Armchair aviation did not disclose their dependency on gizmo to their customers, the issue started with them, they made a bad move and are dealing with it. -Cameron sidetracked the topic a bit, you're complaint was and is valid...the topic of supporting gizmo is independent of your point. -xpilot is mostly free speech, you take responsibility for what you say and deal with the fallout. What you said was fine, you can't please everybody. -There IS a solution for developers and gizmo licensing...if devs don't investigate, negotiate or disclose, it's THEIR problem, they have to deal with it. -Leen de Jager, Jack & Joe, Ed, Cameron AND Ben are right. -YOU'RE right for being upset and voicing it here. -We all live and learn and make adjustments. I suspect that this situation, like anything, is a learning process during a growth period and Armchair will make adjustments accordingly to make for more satisfied customers. If anything ED, thank you for pushing the quality bar higher and demanding more.

Better hurry! ;D

We are hopeful the new system will make things easier for everybody Peter.

For the record to others who may question mine or x-aviation service....mezopeter has received more licenses than any other x-aviation customer in history, way in excess of what would be considered normal "consumption". I find the behavior suspicious and though we have worked with mezopeter thus far, we are not inclined to give him exceptional service as he has already exceeded his allotment of it. The new system of DRM on the MU2 will give him yet another license, but allow us to better asses legitimate requests for additional licenses. Be assured that if a customer has a customer service dissatisfaction story, it is, 99.9% of the time, due to their own actions.

Ok..I'm calling the night texturing "done enough" for the release. That won't mean I wont' tweak it here or there before the release...you know how that goes, I'm not real happy with the engine gauge faces, but they're livable. But I'm happy with most of it though. I tend to be a bit anal retentive about the lighting, but the V9 tech is just too limiting. V10 should allow us to fill in the gaps nicely!

SCHWING! RMI done...annunciators done (the relevant ones). Just need to clean up textures, write docs, integrate DRM. There are still things that can be done to get more accurate, but I'm drawing a line for this release. Fire detection isn't functional so this isn't your guy for practicing MU-2 engine fire procedures. The default warning system doesn't handle my annunciators properly either. I'll have to write my own system later. True to the original release though, abnormal or emergency procedures take back-burner status to normal procedure accuracy as this isn't a "procedural trainer" but rather to be enjoyed for "normal flight" simming. Ok, I'll fold and post another screenshot. The "extra" annunciator in the real MU2 pic is for an open cabin door. Relevant annunciators match their real-world counterparts completely, simulating the same virtual "sensors" the real Mu2 does. So you'll see lights go on an off at various phases of the checklist and start sequence. Again, not 100% accurate across the board in behavior, but a good 98%.

Sure. The aforementioned texture tweaks should be evident in this picture...it's the LIT texture refinement that remains to be done. Many improvements will be done to the night lighting before release.

Ok...minus the RMI, some texture tweaks, and joystick code. I'm about done with the aircraft itself for this update. I still have to get it past my "tester" though. I'm going to start on the "what's new" addendum though. Here's the last screenshot before release...a big one so as to not hide anything, so you know what you're getting..more or less. Remember, this update is free for existing customers, to provide the missing systems that I wanted to put in the original but couldn't.

Wonderfully close gentlemen. Here's what's left. 1.) The RMI needles on the default 2D instruments (which I use in 3D) are busted in XP...don't care what anyone says, they don't work. This means I have to do the needles in 3D...OK, no problem the rest of the needles are in 3D right? Well yes, except there's no animation dataref for the needles, only "bearings", which means I have to write the animation code for the needles...no biggie, just something I really hate doing that's all. Animating something to look like it does in reality considering real needle "dynamics", i.e. reversals on signal change, turning off, etc, is a real pain, especially when a needle has two inputs (VOR and ADF) 2.) I have to set up a few annunciators to be correct. The annunciator "system" will function fine under normal operation, a few will work with default x-plane systems, but a majority of them I won't code for a few reasons...mostly because these components just don't fail but maybe once in several thousand hours of operation if at all....besides, who wants to simulate a proprietary fuel control system that means nothing more to the pilot than a switch on the quadrant they never flip. 3.) A thorough pass of the night lighting textures. Lots of little tweaking and details to get things to look better. 4.) A few LIT textures to improve like the landing gear and such. 5.) Write a "what's new" addendum to the manual. 6.) Integrate the new (easier and more forgiving DRM module). Yes, everybody will have to re-register, and hopefully, for the last time in a long while. 7.) Add code so that hardware users will get animation of the throttles. I have some momentum and might finish the tasks in a week or so (minus the manual...but that's pretty easy to stay busy on and get done). So we are NOT talking release in a week, but we are talking the end of "unknown development over time) meaning that I can just roll through the "steps" of writing the manual and packaging up the udpate. So what's new in the last week or so. The fuel needles have been "accuratized". These needles are AC powered and therefore need bus voltage and the inverter on to work. The test switch also works, the results of such test is in the manual. Seems trivial, but the preflight procedures calls for turning on the battery, then the inverter and checking the fuel. Just wasn't right turning on the battery and having the fuel needles work or having them show the right fuel all the time....we're after realism here! I've made a "concession to laziness" here. The copilot side altimeter mimics the pilot side, even when you adjust the knob. This is just pure laziness in dealing with a few blender idiosyncracies...not because of blender itself, but because I slacked a bit in how I set up my blender file. I'll fix it later...low priority since you never really glance over there. Thanks a ton for your patience, rewriting the entire code base for something like the MU2 was not the quickest but paid off handsomely in development experience, flexibility and efficiency. Each future project benefits from the previous ones and gains momentum. After this release, you can expect "simple" updates...i.e. for any bugs or a simple fun feature or two, but the really major work of more detailed sytsems or newer high quality 3D for the rest of the aircraft will move to the 2.0 series. My hope is that the 2.0 series will be comprehensive enough to last for many years without much modification and mature to the point where it's just a great reliable simulation.

I don't know if I'll put a pilot in this very next "update" Glen is it? Mostly because it's been quite a long time since an update and I don't want folks to wait any longer than necessary: HOWEVER; Once the update is out, I will immediately begin working on those kinds of extras, starting with the pilot. So it's very plausible I can get a pilot in there relatively quickly after the next release. I have all sorts of ideas planned for the product to make it more full featured and interactive...there are many many things yet to come to improve it over time. I have said that this is the last release in the 1.5 series...but I should elaborate more and say it's the last "heavily functional" release. That means I'll make small releases with little tidbits here and there...a pilot would be one for example, but major work to the 3D and any special interactive menus and directions will move to a new 2.0 release.

The copilot one is quite 3D...just needs some texture touch up to bring out some depth and shadowing. This type of setup is very typical of MU2s "as shipped". The ADI on the pilot side is heavily integrated into a "flight system" whereas the copilot side is essentially backup Artificial Horizon.

I'm going to keep pushing forward while the momentum is there...my list is pretty short. The last two time consuming things I'll need to go is test with hardware and write code to handle it...and then document all the changes. That is right around the corner...I might be able to finish my functional punchlist today.

Just reporting another really good day of work on the Mu2..chasing down all sorts of little loose ends. It's getting to be where I can't find much else I'd like to do functionally. If a feature is missing, it's because myself or (I believe) anybody else won't really miss it. Of course there's a ton of improvements to be made to 3D and texturing but that will come with the 2.0 series. Screenshot shows the fire handle lights. Not the best but better than what's there.